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.

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.

Marginalia to a theorem of Silver (see also this link) by Keith I. Devlin and R. B. Jensen, 1975. A humble title and yet, undoubtedly, one of the most important papers of all time in set theory.

Given a positive integer $a$, the Ramsey number $R(a)$ is the least $n$ such that whenever the edges of the complete graph $K_n$ are colored using only two colors, we necessarily have a copy of $K_a$ with all its edges of the same color. For example, $R(3)= 6$, which is usually stated by saying that in a party of 6 people, necessarily there are 3 that know e […]

No, this is not consistent. Todorčević has shown in ZF that, in fact, there is no function $F\!:\mathcal W(S)\to S$ with the property you require. Here, $\mathcal W(S)$ is the collection of subsets of $S$ that are well-orderable. This is corollary 6 in MR0793235 (87d:03126). Todorčević, Stevo. Partition relations for partially ordered sets. Acta Math. 155 (1 […]

As suggested by Gerald, the notion was first introduced for groups. Given a directed system of groups, their direct limit was defined as a quotient of their direct product (which was referred to as their "weak product"). The general notion is a clear generalization, although the original reference only deals with groups. As mentioned by Cameron Zwa […]

A database of number fields, by Jürgen Klüners and Gunter Malle. (Note this is not the same as the one mentioned in this answer.) The site also provides links to similar databases.

Let me add something to Noah's nice answer. If there are transitive set models of set theory, then there are such models of $V=L$, and therefore there is a countable $\alpha$ such that $L_\alpha$ is a model (by the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem and condensation). Since $L_\alpha$ is countable, for any forcing poset $\mathbb P\in L_\alpha$ there are (in $L$) […]

The answer depends on the underlying set theory and the actual symbol under consideration, whether $\in$ or $\subseteq$. In standard (ZF) set theory, the axiom of foundation prevents the existence of any set as specified. The reason is that sets have a rank, and the rank of any member of a set $A$ is strictly smaller than that of $A$. However, the rank of po […]

Sure. A large class of examples comes from the partition calculus. A simple result of the kind I have in mind is the following: Any infinite graph contains either a copy of the complete graph on countably many vertices or of the independent graph on countably many vertices. However, if we want to find an uncountable complete or independent graph, it is not e […]

I think that, from a modern point of view, there is a misunderstanding in the position that you suggest in your question. Really, "set theory" should be understood as an umbrella term that covers a whole hierarchy of ZFC-related theories. Perhaps one of the most significant advances in foundations is the identification of the consistency strength h […]

I'll only discuss the first question. As pointed out by Asaf, the argument is not correct, but something interesting can be said anyway. There are a couple of issues. A key problem is with the idea of an "explicitly constructed" set. Indeed, for instance, there are explicitly constructed sets of reals that are uncountable and of size continuum […]

[…] -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 […]