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

Noticed 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.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Friday, February 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm and is filed under 305: Abstract Algebra I. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

I learned of this problem through Su Gao, who heard of it years ago while a post-doc at Caltech. David Gale introduced this game in the 70s, I believe. I am only aware of two references in print: Richard K. Guy. Unsolved problems in combinatorial games. In Games of No Chance, (R. J. Nowakowski ed.) MSRI Publications 29, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. […]

Let $C$ be the standard Cantor middle-third set. As a consequence of the Baire category theorem, there are numbers $r$ such that $C+r$ consists solely of irrational numbers, see here. What would be an explicit example of a number $r$ with this property? Short of an explicit example, are there any references addressing this question? A natural approach would […]

Suppose $M$ is an inner model (of $\mathsf{ZF}$) with the same reals as $V$, and let $A\subseteq \mathbb R$ be a set of reals in $M$. Suppose further that $A$ is determined in $M$. Under these assumptions, $A$ is also determined in $V$. The point is that since winning strategies are coded by reals, and any possible run of the game for $A$ is coded by a real, […]

Yes. This is obvious if there are no such cardinals. (I assume that the natural numbers of the universe of sets are the true natural numbers. Otherwise, the answer is no, and there is not much else to do.) Assume now that there are such cardinals, and that "large cardinal axiom" is something reasonable (so, provably in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, the relevant […]

Please send an email to mathrev@ams.org, explaining the issue. (This is our all-purpose email address; any mistakes you discover, not just regarding references, you can let us know there.) Give us some time, I promise we'll get to it. However, if it seems as if the request somehow fell through the cracks, you can always contact one of your friendly edit […]

The problem is in the quantifiers that are implicit in the statement you are making. What you have is that for all $\epsilon>0$ and all integers $k,m$ with $k>m>0$, there is an $N$ such that if $n>N$, then $|a_n|

The relevant search term is ethnomathematics. There are several journals devoted to this topic (for instance, Revista latinoamericana de etnomatemática). Browsing them (if you have access to MathSciNet, the relevant MSC class is 01A70) and looking at their references should help you get started. Another place to look for this is in journals of history of mat […]

Some of the comments in the previous answers make a subtle mistake, and I think it may be worth clarifying some issues. I am assuming the standard sort of set theory in what follows. Cantor's diagonal theorem (mentioned in some of the answers) gives us that for any set $X$, $|X|

For $\lambda$ a scalar, let $[\lambda]$ denote the $1\times 1$ matrix whose sole entry is $\lambda$. Note that for any column vectors $a,b$, we have that $a^\top b=[a\cdot b]$ and $a[\lambda]=\lambda a$. The matrix at hand has the form $A=vw^\top$. For any $u$, we have that $$Au=(vw^\top)u=v(w^\top u)=v[w\cdot u]=(w\cdot u)v.\tag1$$ This means that there are […]

That you can list $K $ does not mean you can list its complement. Perhaps the thing to note to build your intuition is that the program is not listing the elements of $K $ in increasing order. Indeed, maybe program 20 halts on input 20 but only does it after several million steps, while program 19 doesn't halt on input 19 and program 21 halts on input 2 […]

[…] -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 […]