Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why do we only work with vector space isomorphisms over a fixed field?

  1. Jul 17, 2012 #1
    I was working on a problem in field extensions (for a 3rd-year ring theory class), and came to a point where I essentially had the following situation...

    [itex] F [/itex] is a field isomorphic to [itex] G [/itex], and [itex] G' [/itex] is for all intents and purposes, some set. We can then consider the vector spaces [itex] G'_F [/itex] and [itex] G'_G [/itex].

    I wondered to myself if it was true that [itex] G'_F [/itex] was isomorphic to [itex] G'_G [/itex]. However, in my mathematical career I've only ever worked with the notion of vector space isomorphisms over a fixed field.

    I ended up solving the problem differently, but the question remained... What happens if you don't fix the field?

    I suppose the first inherent problem with working with an unfixed field is that the definition of a linear map would have to be changed; it would have to be something like... for [itex] u,v\in V [/itex] and [itex]α[/itex] in the field, a linear map is something which satisfies [itex] L(αv+u)=l(α)L(v)+L(u) [/itex] where [itex] l [/itex] is a field homomorphism specified in the definition of [itex] L [/itex].

    Aside from this however, has anybody ever tried doing this, and seeing if properties like dimension are preserved under a "suitable" definition of vector space isomorphism over an unfixed field?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 17, 2012 #2

    ...and then [itex]\,G'\,[/itex] is not only "a set": it must be both an abelian group and a module over both fields [itex]\,F\,,\,G\,[/itex] ...




    If the module structures over both fields (module over field = vector space, of course) are preserved under the isomorphism

    (of rings) [itex]\,F\cong G\,[/itex], then yes: [itex]\,G'_F\cong G'_G[/itex] .

    All the algebraic invariants, under the above assumptions I wrote, are preserved: linearly independent

    sets, dimensions, etc., and you're right about the definition of linear map but only if we insist in working with both vector

    spaces [itex]\,G'_F\,,\,G'_G\,[/itex] , something that seems to me superfluous and confusing.

    DonAntonio
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Why do we only work with vector space isomorphisms over a fixed field?
Loading...