1. Isomorphisms
We return here to the quotient ring construction. Recall that if is a commutative ring with identity and
is an ideal of
then
is also a commutative ring with identity. Here,
where
for
the equivalence relation defined by
iff
Since is an equivalence relation, we have that
if
and
if
In particular, any two classes are either the same or else they are disjoint.
In case for some field
then
is principal, so
for some
i.e., given any polynomial
iff
and, more generally,
(or, equivalently,
or, equivalently,
) iff
In this case, contains zero divisors if
is nonconstant but not irreducible.
If is 0,
If is constant but nonzero, then
Finally, we want to examine what happens when is irreducible. From now on suppose that this is the case.
Let be any polynomial in
If
then
Otherwise,
since
is irreducible. So there are polynomials
with
Therefore
It follows that every nonzero element of
is invertible, i.e, we have the following:
Lemma 1
is a field whenever
is irreducible.
![]()
Suppose that If
then
Since
and
is a constant, we must have
i.e.,
This means that we can identify each
with the corresponding element
of
and we have:
Lemma 2 Suppose that
is irreducible. Under the identification
for
we have that
is a field extension of
![]()
![]()
Whenever convenient, we will just write instead of
for
Now we connect these field extensions with algebraic numbers. See last lecture for the definition of the minimal polynomial of an algebraic number and its basic properties.
Theorem 3 Let
where
is irreducible and monic. Let
Then
is algebraic over
with minimal polynomial
Moreover,
![]()
Proof: Let for some
with
(since
is irreducible) and
(so
).
Note first that Using our identification of elements of
with the corresponding classes in
we can write
Since we have
This shows that
is algebraic over
Since any element of is
for some
and the same argument as above shows that
we obviously have
Let be the minimal polynomial of
over
Since
then
Since
is irreducible, we must have
If
is also monic, then we must in fact have
Suppose for example that is algebraic (over
) with minimal polynomial
By the above, both
and
are field extensions of
of degree
where
has a root (
in one case,
in the other). Although on the surface both extensions look very different, as far as field theory is concerned, they are indistinguishable:
Theorem 4 Suppose that
is a field, and that
and
are two field extensions of
(not necessarily subfields of a common larger extension field).
If
and
are algebraic over
and
then
and
are isomorphic. Moreover, if
then the map
defined as follows is an isomorphism: Any element of
can be written in a unique way as
where the numbers
are in
Set
Proof: As shown in Corollary 8 from last lecture, any element of can be written as stated and, similarly, any element of
also has the form
for some
of degree at most
Moreover, such representation is unique. It follows that
is well-defined, injective, and surjective. It is straightforward to verify that
for any
and that
It takes a little bit more effort to check that Once this is done, it follows that
is an isomorphism and we are done.
Let be polynomials in
such that
and
We can find polynomials
such that
and
Moreover, such polynomials are unique.
It follows that and therefore
Since and
then
as needed.
The converse of the previous result is also true. Before stating this precisely, we need a general result about injective homomorphisms.
Lemma 5 Let
and
be two field extensions of
(not necessarily subfields of a common larger extension field). Suppose that
is an injective homomorphism and that
fixes all the elements of
i.e.,
for all
If
is a subset of
linearly independent over
then
is a subset of
linearly independent over
![]()
Proof: Suppose Let
and suppose that
Since the above equals
Also,
Since
is 1-1, it follows that
Since the are linearly independent over
then
This shows that
is linearly independent over
Corollary 6 If
and
are field extensions of
and
is an isomorphism that fixes all the elements of
then
![]()
Proof: The lemma shows that if is a basis of
over
then
is linearly independent over
Since
then
The map is an isomorphism from
to
and it fixes all the elements of
The same argument as above implies that
The result follows.
Theorem 7 Suppose that
is algebraic over
that
and that
is an isomorphism that fixes all the elements of
Then
and
is as given in Theorem 4. Moreover,
![]()
Proof: By the corollary, say, where
is the minimal polynomial of
over
We know that is a basis of
over
The corollary also shows that
is a basis of
over
This gives that
and that
is as in Theorem 4, i.e.,
Moreover, so
is a root of
Since
is irreducible,
2. Examples
The results above give us a very detailed control over the isomorphisms that we can expect to have between fields.
1. For example, it follows that is isomorphic to precisely three subfields of
namely:
where, as usual,
To see this, note that Theorems 4 and 7 give us that if then
is isomorphic to
iff
for some root
of
This gives that the only subfields of
isomorphic to
are the ones listed above. That there are three of them is the same as saying that they are all different.
This can be checked as follows: First, and
since
while the other fields contain complex nonreal numbers. Second,
since otherwise
Now, has degree 2, so
would have to divide
by the tower law:
whenever This is of course impossible since
2. Continuing with this example, we can now easily identify all the subfields of where
We know that
Since
by the tower law it follows that
and that any (strictly) intermediate field between and
is a field extension of
of degree either 2 or 3.
Let be such a field. Suppose first that
If
is irreducible over
then
and
which, by the tower law, would imply that contradiction.
It follows that is not irreducible over
and therefore it has a root
in
from which it follows that
This is because
so if it factors, one of its factors is linear, so we must have a root (and by the tower law).
Thus, the only subfields of of degree 3 over
are
Suppose now that If
is irreducible over
then
and
which again leads to a contradiction with the tower law, since
It follows that is not irreducible over
and therefore it factors over
and
3. Suppose now that is a prime and
is a finite field of characteristic
Then, in particular,
so
is a finite extension of
If
then it follows that
To see this, suppose that
is a basis. Then all the combinations
with are different, and every element of
is expressible in this form. To count the number of these expressions, note that there are
possible values for each
For example, if to build a field of size 4, it would suffice to find an irreducible polynomial
of degree 2, and to form
The only candidates are
The first and third are not irreducible since 0 is a root. The second is not irreducible since
The last one is irreducible, and it is our only choice.
Let now so
The elements of
are then
To write the multiplication table, only
needs to be determined. For this, note that
4. For a slightly less trivial example, let’s now build a field of 8 elements. Then we need an irreducible polynomial of degree 3. The candidates are:
none of which are irreducible since
is a root,
which are not irreducible since
is a root,
or
Both these polynomials are irreducible.
We have therefore two possible fields of size 8: and
Case 1:
Let Then the elements of
are
and
To write the multiplication table, we simply have to “reduce the corresponding polynomials modulo
” For example,
Similarly, we find:
Case 2: .
Let Just as before, the elements of
are
and
To write the multiplication table, now we reduce modulo
We have:
On the surface, and
look rather different. However, notice that if we set
then
In effect,
is irreducible and
But also,
since
Since we can apply Theorem 4 and conclude that
and
are isomorphic, and that the map
given by
for is an isomorphism. In other words,
and
are actually the same field, but presented in two slightly different ways; what we call
in one case, we call
in the other.
Notice also that we have that completely factors in
Then
and
is also a root of
Similarly,
is a root of
so
in
Let Then
also factors in
Equivalently,
factors in
Exactly as above, we find
in
Equivalently,
in
Notice that all the `new’ elements of
are roots of either
or
and none of them is a double root (we say that they are simple roots) or a root of both
and
Finally, note that in
so
which means that
and that every element of
is a simple root of the polynomial
This is a particular case of a general phenomenon present in all finite fields.
5. To illustrate the same phenomenon, note that in the field of 4 elements from example 3, we have that every element is a simple root of the polynomial In general, if
is a finite field of size
then every element of
is a root of
so
where
I’ll leave it as an exercise to verify that this is the case with the field of 9 elements, and that, in particular, there is only one such field, up to isomorphism. Note that if then
is an extension of
of degree 2, so one way of building such a field is by considering
where
is irreducible of degree 3.
There are three such polynomials, namely
and
One can check that the three extensions one obtains are actually “the same” (i.e., they are isomorphic), and a direct computation verifies that
See also this answer in math.stackexchange.
Typeset using LaTeX2WP. Here is a printable version of this post.