# Fields

September 17, 2011 32 Comments

The following objects are really important in mathematics:

- is the set of rational numbers
- is the set of real numbers
- is the set of complex numbers

So what do they have in common? Well, a lot, but the important part is that they are all fields. So here we go: A

**field**is a set along with operations and such that the elements in the field satisfy:- Closure: If and are in the field, so are and
- and are associative. That is, and
- , and
- There is an “additive identity” element such that
- For each there is a unique “additive inverse” such that
- There is a “multiplicative identity” such that
- For each (other than ) there is a unique “multiplicative inverse” such that . (i.e., don’t divide by zero!)
- EDIT: Also,

Hmmm, this is a lot of rules. How are you going to remember them? Well, you’ve been practicing them your entire life. Most of the arithmetic you have done has been in one of the fields , ,or . You can verify for yourself that these are fields. This is just an abstract formalization of what you already know.

A few more points to think about:

- , the set of integers is not a field. There is no integer for which , so has no multiplicative inverse.
- We can define subtraction and division to be what they should be means , where is the additive inverse of . where is the multiplicative inverse of .
- Finite sums/products only. Sorry, I don’t make the rules.
- Can you prove that for every in an arbitrary field?

Advertisements

I think of the axioms this way. First, addition and multiplication are functions: each takes two elements of the field and outputs a field element. (I do not think of closure as an axiom, but that is just point of view.) Next, four axioms for each of the two operations: associativity, commutativity, identity, and inverse. Finally, the two axioms that connect the two operations: distributivity and the forgotten axiom.

Guess what? You forgot one. You are not alone.

To rule out the case of a field with one element, I add the forgotten axiom: 0 is not equal to 1. Yes, there are some mathematicians who do not think this is part of the definition of a field, but they are a very small minority.

Thanks Benji!

I did forget that, and you are correct. I fixed it now.

It was once pointed out to me that the assumption that for fields, 0 and 1 are different, is exactly the same assumption that 1 is not prime.

This is true in greater generality, but you can see it following from Andy’s next post, where he mentions that Z/pZ is a field for all prime p.

Pingback: More examples of fields « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Vector Spaces « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Unique representations in a vector space « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Dimension « Andy Soffer

Pingback: More about Dimension « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Linear Transformations « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Linear transformations as matrices « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Kernels and Images « Andy Soffer

.

Pingback: The field of constructible lengths « Andy Soffer

Pingback: The field of constructible lengths, part 2 « Andy Soffer

Pingback: The field of constructible lengths, part 3 « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Rationals and the Square Root of 17 « Andy Soffer

Pingback: The Tower Rule « Andy Soffer

Pingback: More awesomeness of the tower rule « Andy Soffer

Pingback: The classical Greek questions « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Constructing regular polygons « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Galois Theory « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Algebraic Closure « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Building an algebraic closure « Andy Soffer

Pingback: The intermediate field lattice « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Every field has an algebraic closure « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Field automorphisms « Andy Soffer

Pingback: The group of field automorphisms « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Automorphisms of Q « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Fixed fields « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Galois Group « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Initial Objects « Andy Soffer

Pingback: Terminal objects « Andy Soffer