Suppose that is a field and that
It may be that
is also a field, using the same operations of
For example, if
then we could have
Definition 15. If is a field and
we say that
is a subfield of
if
is a field with the operations of
Let’s examine this definition in some detail. Part of what this is saying is that
- If
then also
i.e.,
is closed under addition.
- If
then also
i.e.,
is closed under multiplication.
However, this is not enough. For example, is not a field but it is closed under the addition and multiplication operations of
The problem with
is that it does not have additive or multiplicative inverses of its elements.
Proposition 16. Suppose that
is a field and that
- If
then
- If
and
then
Proof. Add the additive inverse to both sides of the first equation, and multiply by the multiplicative inverse
both sides of the second equation.
The point of Proposition 16 is the following: Suppose that is a subfield of
Write
for the
-th element of
and
for the
-th element of
Then
in particular,
must belong to
Similarly,
so
belongs to
as long as
contains some element other than
But, of course, if
is to be a field, then it must have at least two elements, so one of them must be different from
Proposition 17. Suppose
is a field and that
- If
then
- If
then
and
![]()
Proposition 17 can be proved by a very similar argument to that of Proposition 16, so I omit the proof. The point of this proposition is that if is a subfield of
and
then the additive inverse of
from the point of view of
and its additive inverse from the point of view of
must coincide. Similarly, the multiplicative inverse from the point of view of
of any nonzero element of
is the same as its multiplicative inverse from the point of view of
Hence, to properties 1,2 listed above we can add:
3. If then
And:
4. If and
then
It turns out that 1–4 characterize subfields:
Theorem 18. Suppose
is a field and
If
satisfies 1–4 and has at least two elements, then
is a subfield of
Notice that we cannot remove the assumption that has two elements. For example,
satisfies properties 1–4 but is not a field.
We will prove this theorem next lecture and use it to produce many new examples of fields.
[…] -Fields (5) At the end of last lecture we stated a theorem giving an easy characterization of subfields of a given field We begin by […]
[…] the end of last lecture we stated a theorem giving an easy characterization of subfields of a given field We begin by […]