Prime field of a characteristic zero field is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was attempting to prove that the prime field $P$ of a characteristic 0 field $K$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$. Here, I will use the notation
$nx=left{begin{array}{cc}underbrace{x+cdots+x}_{n text{ times}} & text{if }n>0\ 0 & text{if } n=0 \ underbrace{(-x)+cdots+(-x)}_{n text{ times}} & text{if }n<0 end{array}right.$
Firstly, I showed that $P={(m1)cdot(n1)^{-1}; m,ninmathbb{Z},nneq 0}$, where 1 is the mulitplicative identity of $K$. Then, I showed that $phi:mathbb{Q}to P$ such that $dfrac{m}{n}mapsto(m1)cdot(n1)^{-1}$ is the isomorphism that I needed to build.
I accessed the ProofWiki to check my answer and there I found this page with the proof of the same thing but, in their proof, they show that $phi$ is well-defined, i.e., given $dfrac{a}{b}=dfrac{c}{d}$, we have that $phileft(dfrac{a}{b}right)=phileft(dfrac{c}{d}right)$. Why is it necessary to show that $phi$ is well-defined?
abstract-algebra proof-explanation
asked Sep 11 '16 at 13:45
Edu W.
155
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was attempting to prove that the prime field $P$ of a characteristic 0 field $K$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$. Here, I will use the notation
$nx=left{begin{array}{cc}underbrace{x+cdots+x}_{n text{ times}} & text{if }n>0\ 0 & text{if } n=0 \ underbrace{(-x)+cdots+(-x)}_{n text{ times}} & text{if }n<0 end{array}right.$
Firstly, I showed that $P={(m1)cdot(n1)^{-1}; m,ninmathbb{Z},nneq 0}$, where 1 is the mulitplicative identity of $K$. Then, I showed that $phi:mathbb{Q}to P$ such that $dfrac{m}{n}mapsto(m1)cdot(n1)^{-1}$ is the isomorphism that I needed to build.
I accessed the ProofWiki to check my answer and there I found this page with the proof of the same thing but, in their proof, they show that $phi$ is well-defined, i.e., given $dfrac{a}{b}=dfrac{c}{d}$, we have that $phileft(dfrac{a}{b}right)=phileft(dfrac{c}{d}right)$. Why is it necessary to show that $phi$ is well-defined?
abstract-algebra proof-explanation
asked Sep 11 '16 at 13:45
Edu W.
155
Well, in principle it could be ill-defined. Rational numbers have no unique representation as fractions.
– Crostul
Sep 11 '16 at 13:57
@Crostul Ok, I see now. If, instead, I build the isomorphism $phi:Ptomathbb{Q}$ do I still need to show that this moprhism is well-defined?
– Edu W.
Sep 11 '16 at 14:29
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was attempting to prove that the prime field $P$ of a characteristic 0 field $K$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$. Here, I will use the notation
$nx=left{begin{array}{cc}underbrace{x+cdots+x}_{n text{ times}} & text{if }n>0\ 0 & text{if } n=0 \ underbrace{(-x)+cdots+(-x)}_{n text{ times}} & text{if }n<0 end{array}right.$
Firstly, I showed that $P={(m1)cdot(n1)^{-1}; m,ninmathbb{Z},nneq 0}$, where 1 is the mulitplicative identity of $K$. Then, I showed that $phi:mathbb{Q}to P$ such that $dfrac{m}{n}mapsto(m1)cdot(n1)^{-1}$ is the isomorphism that I needed to build.
I accessed the ProofWiki to check my answer and there I found this page with the proof of the same thing but, in their proof, they show that $phi$ is well-defined, i.e., given $dfrac{a}{b}=dfrac{c}{d}$, we have that $phileft(dfrac{a}{b}right)=phileft(dfrac{c}{d}right)$. Why is it necessary to show that $phi$ is well-defined?
abstract-algebra proof-explanation
asked Sep 11 '16 at 13:45
Edu W.
155
I was attempting to prove that the prime field $P$ of a characteristic 0 field $K$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$. Here, I will use the notation
$nx=left{begin{array}{cc}underbrace{x+cdots+x}_{n text{ times}} & text{if }n>0\ 0 & text{if } n=0 \ underbrace{(-x)+cdots+(-x)}_{n text{ times}} & text{if }n<0 end{array}right.$
Firstly, I showed that $P={(m1)cdot(n1)^{-1}; m,ninmathbb{Z},nneq 0}$, where 1 is the mulitplicative identity of $K$. Then, I showed that $phi:mathbb{Q}to P$ such that $dfrac{m}{n}mapsto(m1)cdot(n1)^{-1}$ is the isomorphism that I needed to build.
I accessed the ProofWiki to check my answer and there I found this page with the proof of the same thing but, in their proof, they show that $phi$ is well-defined, i.e., given $dfrac{a}{b}=dfrac{c}{d}$, we have that $phileft(dfrac{a}{b}right)=phileft(dfrac{c}{d}right)$. Why is it necessary to show that $phi$ is well-defined?
abstract-algebra proof-explanation
abstract-algebra proof-explanation
asked Sep 11 '16 at 13:45
Edu W.
155
asked Sep 11 '16 at 13:45
Edu W.
155
edited Feb 23 '17 at 15:52
asked Sep 11 '16 at 13:45
Edu W.
155
asked Sep 11 '16 at 13:45
Edu W.
155
asked Sep 11 '16 at 13:45
Edu W.
155
155
Well, in principle it could be ill-defined. Rational numbers have no unique representation as fractions.
– Crostul
Sep 11 '16 at 13:57
@Crostul Ok, I see now. If, instead, I build the isomorphism $phi:Ptomathbb{Q}$ do I still need to show that this moprhism is well-defined?
– Edu W.
Sep 11 '16 at 14:29
add a comment |
Well, in principle it could be ill-defined. Rational numbers have no unique representation as fractions.
– Crostul
Sep 11 '16 at 13:57
@Crostul Ok, I see now. If, instead, I build the isomorphism $phi:Ptomathbb{Q}$ do I still need to show that this moprhism is well-defined?
– Edu W.
Sep 11 '16 at 14:29
Well, in principle it could be ill-defined. Rational numbers have no unique representation as fractions.
– Crostul
Sep 11 '16 at 13:57
Well, in principle it could be ill-defined. Rational numbers have no unique representation as fractions.
– Crostul
Sep 11 '16 at 13:57
@Crostul Ok, I see now. If, instead, I build the isomorphism $phi:Ptomathbb{Q}$ do I still need to show that this moprhism is well-defined?
– Edu W.
Sep 11 '16 at 14:29
@Crostul Ok, I see now. If, instead, I build the isomorphism $phi:Ptomathbb{Q}$ do I still need to show that this moprhism is well-defined?
– Edu W.
Sep 11 '16 at 14:29
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If you define a map $phi : Sto T$, you must always check that $phi$ is well defined; if it isn't well defined, it's not a function at all! More accurately, whenever you define $phi$ based on a presentation of an element $xin S$, you must check that if $x'$ is a different presentation of $x$, then $phi(x) = phi(x')$. If $phi$ is to be a function, then $phi(x)$ must have one and only one value. So, since $x = x'$, $phi(x)$ must equal $phi(x')$.
In this case, a rational number may be written in more than one way: $1/2 = 2/4 = 4/8 = dots$. So, if you define a map $phi : Bbb Qto S$, and you define $phi(a/b)$ by some formula that you plug $a$ and $b$ into, then you need to check that if $a/b = c/d$, then the formula gives the same values when you put $c$ and $d$ into it instead of $a$ and $b$. As an example: $phi : Bbb QtoBbb Z$ given by $phi(a/b) = a - b$ is not well defined, since it would imply that $4 = 8 - 4 = phi(8/4) = phi(2/1) = 2 - 1 = 1$.
If an element $x$ of your $P$ can be written in more than one way, you must check that your $phi : PtoBbb Q$ gives the same value $phi(x)$ no matter which way you write $x$.
answered Sep 11 '16 at 20:51
Stahl
16k43353
Ok, now it's clear. Thanks.
– Edu W.
Sep 12 '16 at 2:15
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1922608%2fprime-field-of-a-characteristic-zero-field-is-isomorphic-to-mathbbq%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If you define a map $phi : Sto T$, you must always check that $phi$ is well defined; if it isn't well defined, it's not a function at all! More accurately, whenever you define $phi$ based on a presentation of an element $xin S$, you must check that if $x'$ is a different presentation of $x$, then $phi(x) = phi(x')$. If $phi$ is to be a function, then $phi(x)$ must have one and only one value. So, since $x = x'$, $phi(x)$ must equal $phi(x')$.
In this case, a rational number may be written in more than one way: $1/2 = 2/4 = 4/8 = dots$. So, if you define a map $phi : Bbb Qto S$, and you define $phi(a/b)$ by some formula that you plug $a$ and $b$ into, then you need to check that if $a/b = c/d$, then the formula gives the same values when you put $c$ and $d$ into it instead of $a$ and $b$. As an example: $phi : Bbb QtoBbb Z$ given by $phi(a/b) = a - b$ is not well defined, since it would imply that $4 = 8 - 4 = phi(8/4) = phi(2/1) = 2 - 1 = 1$.
If an element $x$ of your $P$ can be written in more than one way, you must check that your $phi : PtoBbb Q$ gives the same value $phi(x)$ no matter which way you write $x$.
answered Sep 11 '16 at 20:51
Stahl
16k43353
Ok, now it's clear. Thanks.
– Edu W.
Sep 12 '16 at 2:15
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If you define a map $phi : Sto T$, you must always check that $phi$ is well defined; if it isn't well defined, it's not a function at all! More accurately, whenever you define $phi$ based on a presentation of an element $xin S$, you must check that if $x'$ is a different presentation of $x$, then $phi(x) = phi(x')$. If $phi$ is to be a function, then $phi(x)$ must have one and only one value. So, since $x = x'$, $phi(x)$ must equal $phi(x')$.
In this case, a rational number may be written in more than one way: $1/2 = 2/4 = 4/8 = dots$. So, if you define a map $phi : Bbb Qto S$, and you define $phi(a/b)$ by some formula that you plug $a$ and $b$ into, then you need to check that if $a/b = c/d$, then the formula gives the same values when you put $c$ and $d$ into it instead of $a$ and $b$. As an example: $phi : Bbb QtoBbb Z$ given by $phi(a/b) = a - b$ is not well defined, since it would imply that $4 = 8 - 4 = phi(8/4) = phi(2/1) = 2 - 1 = 1$.
If an element $x$ of your $P$ can be written in more than one way, you must check that your $phi : PtoBbb Q$ gives the same value $phi(x)$ no matter which way you write $x$.
answered Sep 11 '16 at 20:51
Stahl
16k43353
Ok, now it's clear. Thanks.
– Edu W.
Sep 12 '16 at 2:15
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
If you define a map $phi : Sto T$, you must always check that $phi$ is well defined; if it isn't well defined, it's not a function at all! More accurately, whenever you define $phi$ based on a presentation of an element $xin S$, you must check that if $x'$ is a different presentation of $x$, then $phi(x) = phi(x')$. If $phi$ is to be a function, then $phi(x)$ must have one and only one value. So, since $x = x'$, $phi(x)$ must equal $phi(x')$.
In this case, a rational number may be written in more than one way: $1/2 = 2/4 = 4/8 = dots$. So, if you define a map $phi : Bbb Qto S$, and you define $phi(a/b)$ by some formula that you plug $a$ and $b$ into, then you need to check that if $a/b = c/d$, then the formula gives the same values when you put $c$ and $d$ into it instead of $a$ and $b$. As an example: $phi : Bbb QtoBbb Z$ given by $phi(a/b) = a - b$ is not well defined, since it would imply that $4 = 8 - 4 = phi(8/4) = phi(2/1) = 2 - 1 = 1$.
If an element $x$ of your $P$ can be written in more than one way, you must check that your $phi : PtoBbb Q$ gives the same value $phi(x)$ no matter which way you write $x$.
answered Sep 11 '16 at 20:51
Stahl
16k43353
If you define a map $phi : Sto T$, you must always check that $phi$ is well defined; if it isn't well defined, it's not a function at all! More accurately, whenever you define $phi$ based on a presentation of an element $xin S$, you must check that if $x'$ is a different presentation of $x$, then $phi(x) = phi(x')$. If $phi$ is to be a function, then $phi(x)$ must have one and only one value. So, since $x = x'$, $phi(x)$ must equal $phi(x')$.
In this case, a rational number may be written in more than one way: $1/2 = 2/4 = 4/8 = dots$. So, if you define a map $phi : Bbb Qto S$, and you define $phi(a/b)$ by some formula that you plug $a$ and $b$ into, then you need to check that if $a/b = c/d$, then the formula gives the same values when you put $c$ and $d$ into it instead of $a$ and $b$. As an example: $phi : Bbb QtoBbb Z$ given by $phi(a/b) = a - b$ is not well defined, since it would imply that $4 = 8 - 4 = phi(8/4) = phi(2/1) = 2 - 1 = 1$.
If an element $x$ of your $P$ can be written in more than one way, you must check that your $phi : PtoBbb Q$ gives the same value $phi(x)$ no matter which way you write $x$.
answered Sep 11 '16 at 20:51
Stahl
16k43353
edited Nov 26 at 1:20
answered Sep 11 '16 at 20:51
Stahl
16k43353
answered Sep 11 '16 at 20:51
Stahl
16k43353
answered Sep 11 '16 at 20:51
Stahl
16k43353
16k43353
Ok, now it's clear. Thanks.
– Edu W.
Sep 12 '16 at 2:15
add a comment |
Ok, now it's clear. Thanks.
– Edu W.
Sep 12 '16 at 2:15
Ok, now it's clear. Thanks.
– Edu W.
Sep 12 '16 at 2:15
Ok, now it's clear. Thanks.
– Edu W.
Sep 12 '16 at 2:15
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1922608%2fprime-field-of-a-characteristic-zero-field-is-isomorphic-to-mathbbq%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Well, in principle it could be ill-defined. Rational numbers have no unique representation as fractions.
– Crostul
Sep 11 '16 at 13:57
@Crostul Ok, I see now. If, instead, I build the isomorphism $phi:Ptomathbb{Q}$ do I still need to show that this moprhism is well-defined?
– Edu W.
Sep 11 '16 at 14:29