Mixing
Galois Theory by Rotman, Exercise 60, a field of four elements by using Kroenecker's theorem and adjoining a root of $x^4-x$ to $Bbb Z_2$
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
I've been working through Rotman's Galois Theory and am stumped by exercise 60:
- Use Kronecker's theorem to construct a field with four elements by adjoining a suitable root of $x^4 - x$ to $mathbbZ_2$.
I can split $x^4 - x$ in $mathbbC[x]$ (which is not a field but which is contained in the field $Frac(mathbbC[x])$).
The roots are $F = 0, 1, frac-1 - i sqrt3 2, frac-1 + i sqrt3 2 $.
So what does it mean to adjoin a suitable root to $mathbbZ_2$? I have been unable to construct a four element field using either complex root.
So I went and tried to use the proof of Thm 33 (Galois) which gives a construction. In this case, F is as above and has the required four elements with $p = 2$, $n = 2$, and $q = 4$, and indeed $F setminus 0$ behaves as desired for multiplication.
The problem is addition. How is addition defined? Normal addition is not closed, nor do I see how to define it to make it work. Further, given Kronecker's and Galois's theorems, I would assume that addition must be defined as it would be in the containing field.
abstract-algebra galois-theory finite-fields extension-field
edited 2 hours ago
Asaf Karagila
291k31400731
asked 9 hours ago
user230584
593
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
I've been working through Rotman's Galois Theory and am stumped by exercise 60:
- Use Kronecker's theorem to construct a field with four elements by adjoining a suitable root of $x^4 - x$ to $mathbbZ_2$.
I can split $x^4 - x$ in $mathbbC[x]$ (which is not a field but which is contained in the field $Frac(mathbbC[x])$).
The roots are $F = 0, 1, frac-1 - i sqrt3 2, frac-1 + i sqrt3 2 $.
So what does it mean to adjoin a suitable root to $mathbbZ_2$? I have been unable to construct a four element field using either complex root.
So I went and tried to use the proof of Thm 33 (Galois) which gives a construction. In this case, F is as above and has the required four elements with $p = 2$, $n = 2$, and $q = 4$, and indeed $F setminus 0$ behaves as desired for multiplication.
The problem is addition. How is addition defined? Normal addition is not closed, nor do I see how to define it to make it work. Further, given Kronecker's and Galois's theorems, I would assume that addition must be defined as it would be in the containing field.
abstract-algebra galois-theory finite-fields extension-field
edited 2 hours ago
Asaf Karagila
291k31400731
asked 9 hours ago
user230584
593
What does Theorem 33 say?
– quid♦
9 hours ago
1
$0$ and $1$ are already in $mathbbZ_2$. Therefore, you should adjoint a root of $x^2+x+1$. They wouldn't be written as $frac-1pm isqrt32$, since there is no $2$ in $mathbbZ_2$ and $3=i=1$. If you want you can call them $r_1=beginpmatrix0&1\1&1endpmatrix$ and $r_2=beginpmatrix1&1\1&0endpmatrix$. The resulting field is $mathbbZ_2[r_1]$ consists of the elements $a+br_1$ with $a,binmathbbZ_2$. Using that $r_1^2+r_1+1=0$ you can compute the multiplication table of the field.
– spiralstotheleft
9 hours ago
@spiralstotheleft: I'm not sure how you can say that $3=i=1$ and that there is no $2$ in $Bbb Z_2$ in the same sentence. Perhaps it'd be better to say that $2=0$ in $Bbb Z_2,$ at which point $3=i=1$ is completely immaterial.
– Cameron Buie
2 hours ago
@CameronBuie Because it should be "there is no $1/2$ in $mathbbZ_2$", clearly.
– spiralstotheleft
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
I've been working through Rotman's Galois Theory and am stumped by exercise 60:
- Use Kronecker's theorem to construct a field with four elements by adjoining a suitable root of $x^4 - x$ to $mathbbZ_2$.
I can split $x^4 - x$ in $mathbbC[x]$ (which is not a field but which is contained in the field $Frac(mathbbC[x])$).
The roots are $F = 0, 1, frac-1 - i sqrt3 2, frac-1 + i sqrt3 2 $.
So what does it mean to adjoin a suitable root to $mathbbZ_2$? I have been unable to construct a four element field using either complex root.
So I went and tried to use the proof of Thm 33 (Galois) which gives a construction. In this case, F is as above and has the required four elements with $p = 2$, $n = 2$, and $q = 4$, and indeed $F setminus 0$ behaves as desired for multiplication.
The problem is addition. How is addition defined? Normal addition is not closed, nor do I see how to define it to make it work. Further, given Kronecker's and Galois's theorems, I would assume that addition must be defined as it would be in the containing field.
abstract-algebra galois-theory finite-fields extension-field
edited 2 hours ago
Asaf Karagila
291k31400731
asked 9 hours ago
user230584
593
I've been working through Rotman's Galois Theory and am stumped by exercise 60:
- Use Kronecker's theorem to construct a field with four elements by adjoining a suitable root of $x^4 - x$ to $mathbbZ_2$.
I can split $x^4 - x$ in $mathbbC[x]$ (which is not a field but which is contained in the field $Frac(mathbbC[x])$).
The roots are $F = 0, 1, frac-1 - i sqrt3 2, frac-1 + i sqrt3 2 $.
So what does it mean to adjoin a suitable root to $mathbbZ_2$? I have been unable to construct a four element field using either complex root.
So I went and tried to use the proof of Thm 33 (Galois) which gives a construction. In this case, F is as above and has the required four elements with $p = 2$, $n = 2$, and $q = 4$, and indeed $F setminus 0$ behaves as desired for multiplication.
The problem is addition. How is addition defined? Normal addition is not closed, nor do I see how to define it to make it work. Further, given Kronecker's and Galois's theorems, I would assume that addition must be defined as it would be in the containing field.
abstract-algebra galois-theory finite-fields extension-field
edited 2 hours ago
Asaf Karagila
291k31400731
asked 9 hours ago
user230584
593
edited 2 hours ago
Asaf Karagila
291k31400731
edited 2 hours ago
Asaf Karagila
291k31400731
edited 2 hours ago
Asaf Karagila
291k31400731
291k31400731
asked 9 hours ago
user230584
593
asked 9 hours ago
user230584
593
asked 9 hours ago
user230584
593
593
What does Theorem 33 say?
– quid♦
9 hours ago
1
$0$ and $1$ are already in $mathbbZ_2$. Therefore, you should adjoint a root of $x^2+x+1$. They wouldn't be written as $frac-1pm isqrt32$, since there is no $2$ in $mathbbZ_2$ and $3=i=1$. If you want you can call them $r_1=beginpmatrix0&1\1&1endpmatrix$ and $r_2=beginpmatrix1&1\1&0endpmatrix$. The resulting field is $mathbbZ_2[r_1]$ consists of the elements $a+br_1$ with $a,binmathbbZ_2$. Using that $r_1^2+r_1+1=0$ you can compute the multiplication table of the field.
– spiralstotheleft
9 hours ago
@spiralstotheleft: I'm not sure how you can say that $3=i=1$ and that there is no $2$ in $Bbb Z_2$ in the same sentence. Perhaps it'd be better to say that $2=0$ in $Bbb Z_2,$ at which point $3=i=1$ is completely immaterial.
– Cameron Buie
2 hours ago
@CameronBuie Because it should be "there is no $1/2$ in $mathbbZ_2$", clearly.
– spiralstotheleft
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
What does Theorem 33 say?
– quid♦
9 hours ago
1
$0$ and $1$ are already in $mathbbZ_2$. Therefore, you should adjoint a root of $x^2+x+1$. They wouldn't be written as $frac-1pm isqrt32$, since there is no $2$ in $mathbbZ_2$ and $3=i=1$. If you want you can call them $r_1=beginpmatrix0&1\1&1endpmatrix$ and $r_2=beginpmatrix1&1\1&0endpmatrix$. The resulting field is $mathbbZ_2[r_1]$ consists of the elements $a+br_1$ with $a,binmathbbZ_2$. Using that $r_1^2+r_1+1=0$ you can compute the multiplication table of the field.
– spiralstotheleft
9 hours ago
@spiralstotheleft: I'm not sure how you can say that $3=i=1$ and that there is no $2$ in $Bbb Z_2$ in the same sentence. Perhaps it'd be better to say that $2=0$ in $Bbb Z_2,$ at which point $3=i=1$ is completely immaterial.
– Cameron Buie
2 hours ago
@CameronBuie Because it should be "there is no $1/2$ in $mathbbZ_2$", clearly.
– spiralstotheleft
2 hours ago
What does Theorem 33 say?
– quid♦
9 hours ago
What does Theorem 33 say?
– quid♦
9 hours ago
1
1
$0$ and $1$ are already in $mathbbZ_2$. Therefore, you should adjoint a root of $x^2+x+1$. They wouldn't be written as $frac-1pm isqrt32$, since there is no $2$ in $mathbbZ_2$ and $3=i=1$. If you want you can call them $r_1=beginpmatrix0&1\1&1endpmatrix$ and $r_2=beginpmatrix1&1\1&0endpmatrix$. The resulting field is $mathbbZ_2[r_1]$ consists of the elements $a+br_1$ with $a,binmathbbZ_2$. Using that $r_1^2+r_1+1=0$ you can compute the multiplication table of the field.
– spiralstotheleft
9 hours ago
$0$ and $1$ are already in $mathbbZ_2$. Therefore, you should adjoint a root of $x^2+x+1$. They wouldn't be written as $frac-1pm isqrt32$, since there is no $2$ in $mathbbZ_2$ and $3=i=1$. If you want you can call them $r_1=beginpmatrix0&1\1&1endpmatrix$ and $r_2=beginpmatrix1&1\1&0endpmatrix$. The resulting field is $mathbbZ_2[r_1]$ consists of the elements $a+br_1$ with $a,binmathbbZ_2$. Using that $r_1^2+r_1+1=0$ you can compute the multiplication table of the field.
– spiralstotheleft
9 hours ago
@spiralstotheleft: I'm not sure how you can say that $3=i=1$ and that there is no $2$ in $Bbb Z_2$ in the same sentence. Perhaps it'd be better to say that $2=0$ in $Bbb Z_2,$ at which point $3=i=1$ is completely immaterial.
– Cameron Buie
2 hours ago
@spiralstotheleft: I'm not sure how you can say that $3=i=1$ and that there is no $2$ in $Bbb Z_2$ in the same sentence. Perhaps it'd be better to say that $2=0$ in $Bbb Z_2,$ at which point $3=i=1$ is completely immaterial.
– Cameron Buie
2 hours ago
@CameronBuie Because it should be "there is no $1/2$ in $mathbbZ_2$", clearly.
– spiralstotheleft
2 hours ago
@CameronBuie Because it should be "there is no $1/2$ in $mathbbZ_2$", clearly.
– spiralstotheleft
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
You are not required to adjoin a complex root to $mathbbZ_2$. You can't do that even if you try because $mathbbC$ and $mathbbZ_2$ have different characteristic.
Instead, the hint is to use Kronecker's theorem, so let's do that.
First, what are the obvious roots of $f(x) = x^4 - x$ in $mathbbZ_2$? Clearly, $bar0$ and $bar1$ are both roots of $f$. So, we can factor out $x$ and $x - 1$ to get $f(x) = x(x-1)(x^2+x+1)$. Note that $x^2 + x + 1$ is irreducible over $mathbbZ_2$. By Kronecker's theorem, there exists an extension field of $mathbbZ_2$ that contains a root of $x^2+x+1$, which is also a root of $f(x)$. The degree of the extension is equal to the degree of the polynomial $x^2 + x + 1$, since it is irreducible over $mathbbZ_2$. A degree two extension of $mathbbZ_2$ has to contain $4$ elements (do you see why?) and so we are done.
answered 9 hours ago
Brahadeesh
3,19231143
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
In the exercise, you're asked to work on the field $mathbb Z_2$ which is of characteristic $2$. So you can't split $p(x) = x^4-x$ on $mathbb C$.
Now you can write on $mathbb Z_2$:
$$p(x) = x(x^3-1)=x(x+1)(x^2+x+1)$$
If $zeta$ is a root of $q(x) = x^2+x+1$ (which is irreducible on $mathbb Z_2$) in a splitting field, the other one is $1+zeta$ as $(1+zeta)^2+(1+zeta) + 1=1+zeta^2+ 1 +zeta +1 = 1+1=0$.
Regarding your problem which is addition
So the four elements of a splitting field of $p$ over $mathbb Z_2$ are $z_1=0, z_2=1, z_3=zeta, z_4=1+ zeta$. And regarding addition, you have
$$beginmatrix
+ & 0 & 1 & zeta & 1+zeta\
0 & 0 & 1 & zeta & 1+zeta\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1+zeta & zeta\
zeta & zeta & 1+zeta & 0 & 1\
1+zeta & 1+zeta & zeta & 1 & 0\
endmatrix$$
answered 9 hours ago
mathcounterexamples.net
22.7k21549
I think this is an excellent answer. It gives an explicit field, with explicit elements in it. This should be done in every single course teaching splitting fields
– dEmigOd
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Hint:
Over any commutative ring, you have the factorisation
$$x^4-x=x(x^3-1)=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1).$$
Now over the field with two elements $mathbf F_2$, it is easy to check
$x^2+x+1$ is irreducible, so the quotient $;mathbf F_2[x]/(x^2+x+1)$ is a field. Denoting $xi=xbmod x^2+x+1$, you have by construction
$xi^2+xi+1=0$, hence $;xi^4-xi=0$.
This field is a $mathbf F_2$-vector space with dimension $2$, so it has $2^2=4$ elements.
answered 9 hours ago
Bernard
110k635102
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I don't understand why you are talking about the field $mathbb C$. It has nothing to do with this exercise.
Anyway, $x^4-x=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1)$ and $x^2+x+1$ has no roots in $mathbbZ_2$. So, consider the field $mathbbZ_2[x]/langle x^2+x+1rangle$, which has exactly $4$ elements.
edited 9 hours ago
egreg
164k1179187
answered 9 hours ago
José Carlos Santos
111k1695171
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The field is $mathbb Z_2(xi)$, where $xi^2+xi+1=0$. It is a $mathbb Z_2$ -vector space of dimension $2$, with basis $1,xi$. Thus has $4$ elements.
It can also be written as $fracmathbb Z_2[x](x^2+x+1)$.
answered 8 hours ago
Chris Custer
5,2422622
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The kicker, here, is that $0,1$ are already roots of $f,$ since $x$ and $x-1$ are factors of $f(x).$ In particular, $f(x)=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1),$ but neither $0$ nor $1$ are roots of $x^2+x+1,$ so we need to adjoin elements that are roots to this.
To accomplish this, we define $$Bbb Z_2[alpha]:=Bbb Z_2[t]/(t^2+t+1),$$ where $(t^2+t+1)$ indicates the ideal of $Bbb Z_2[t]$ generated by $t^2+t+1.$ Letting $alpha=overline t,$ we find that $alpha$ and $alpha+1$ are elements of $Bbb Z_2[alpha]$ that are roots of $x^2+x+1.$ At that point, we simply need to verify that $Bbb Z_2[alpha]$ is a field of four elements, which is straightforward.
answered 9 hours ago
Cameron Buie
83.4k771152
add a comment |Â
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
You are not required to adjoin a complex root to $mathbbZ_2$. You can't do that even if you try because $mathbbC$ and $mathbbZ_2$ have different characteristic.
Instead, the hint is to use Kronecker's theorem, so let's do that.
First, what are the obvious roots of $f(x) = x^4 - x$ in $mathbbZ_2$? Clearly, $bar0$ and $bar1$ are both roots of $f$. So, we can factor out $x$ and $x - 1$ to get $f(x) = x(x-1)(x^2+x+1)$. Note that $x^2 + x + 1$ is irreducible over $mathbbZ_2$. By Kronecker's theorem, there exists an extension field of $mathbbZ_2$ that contains a root of $x^2+x+1$, which is also a root of $f(x)$. The degree of the extension is equal to the degree of the polynomial $x^2 + x + 1$, since it is irreducible over $mathbbZ_2$. A degree two extension of $mathbbZ_2$ has to contain $4$ elements (do you see why?) and so we are done.
answered 9 hours ago
Brahadeesh
3,19231143
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
You are not required to adjoin a complex root to $mathbbZ_2$. You can't do that even if you try because $mathbbC$ and $mathbbZ_2$ have different characteristic.
Instead, the hint is to use Kronecker's theorem, so let's do that.
First, what are the obvious roots of $f(x) = x^4 - x$ in $mathbbZ_2$? Clearly, $bar0$ and $bar1$ are both roots of $f$. So, we can factor out $x$ and $x - 1$ to get $f(x) = x(x-1)(x^2+x+1)$. Note that $x^2 + x + 1$ is irreducible over $mathbbZ_2$. By Kronecker's theorem, there exists an extension field of $mathbbZ_2$ that contains a root of $x^2+x+1$, which is also a root of $f(x)$. The degree of the extension is equal to the degree of the polynomial $x^2 + x + 1$, since it is irreducible over $mathbbZ_2$. A degree two extension of $mathbbZ_2$ has to contain $4$ elements (do you see why?) and so we are done.
answered 9 hours ago
Brahadeesh
3,19231143
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
You are not required to adjoin a complex root to $mathbbZ_2$. You can't do that even if you try because $mathbbC$ and $mathbbZ_2$ have different characteristic.
Instead, the hint is to use Kronecker's theorem, so let's do that.
First, what are the obvious roots of $f(x) = x^4 - x$ in $mathbbZ_2$? Clearly, $bar0$ and $bar1$ are both roots of $f$. So, we can factor out $x$ and $x - 1$ to get $f(x) = x(x-1)(x^2+x+1)$. Note that $x^2 + x + 1$ is irreducible over $mathbbZ_2$. By Kronecker's theorem, there exists an extension field of $mathbbZ_2$ that contains a root of $x^2+x+1$, which is also a root of $f(x)$. The degree of the extension is equal to the degree of the polynomial $x^2 + x + 1$, since it is irreducible over $mathbbZ_2$. A degree two extension of $mathbbZ_2$ has to contain $4$ elements (do you see why?) and so we are done.
answered 9 hours ago
Brahadeesh
3,19231143
You are not required to adjoin a complex root to $mathbbZ_2$. You can't do that even if you try because $mathbbC$ and $mathbbZ_2$ have different characteristic.
Instead, the hint is to use Kronecker's theorem, so let's do that.
First, what are the obvious roots of $f(x) = x^4 - x$ in $mathbbZ_2$? Clearly, $bar0$ and $bar1$ are both roots of $f$. So, we can factor out $x$ and $x - 1$ to get $f(x) = x(x-1)(x^2+x+1)$. Note that $x^2 + x + 1$ is irreducible over $mathbbZ_2$. By Kronecker's theorem, there exists an extension field of $mathbbZ_2$ that contains a root of $x^2+x+1$, which is also a root of $f(x)$. The degree of the extension is equal to the degree of the polynomial $x^2 + x + 1$, since it is irreducible over $mathbbZ_2$. A degree two extension of $mathbbZ_2$ has to contain $4$ elements (do you see why?) and so we are done.
answered 9 hours ago
Brahadeesh
3,19231143
answered 9 hours ago
Brahadeesh
3,19231143
answered 9 hours ago
Brahadeesh
3,19231143
answered 9 hours ago
Brahadeesh
3,19231143
3,19231143
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
In the exercise, you're asked to work on the field $mathbb Z_2$ which is of characteristic $2$. So you can't split $p(x) = x^4-x$ on $mathbb C$.
Now you can write on $mathbb Z_2$:
$$p(x) = x(x^3-1)=x(x+1)(x^2+x+1)$$
If $zeta$ is a root of $q(x) = x^2+x+1$ (which is irreducible on $mathbb Z_2$) in a splitting field, the other one is $1+zeta$ as $(1+zeta)^2+(1+zeta) + 1=1+zeta^2+ 1 +zeta +1 = 1+1=0$.
Regarding your problem which is addition
So the four elements of a splitting field of $p$ over $mathbb Z_2$ are $z_1=0, z_2=1, z_3=zeta, z_4=1+ zeta$. And regarding addition, you have
$$beginmatrix
+ & 0 & 1 & zeta & 1+zeta\
0 & 0 & 1 & zeta & 1+zeta\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1+zeta & zeta\
zeta & zeta & 1+zeta & 0 & 1\
1+zeta & 1+zeta & zeta & 1 & 0\
endmatrix$$
answered 9 hours ago
mathcounterexamples.net
22.7k21549
I think this is an excellent answer. It gives an explicit field, with explicit elements in it. This should be done in every single course teaching splitting fields
– dEmigOd
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
In the exercise, you're asked to work on the field $mathbb Z_2$ which is of characteristic $2$. So you can't split $p(x) = x^4-x$ on $mathbb C$.
Now you can write on $mathbb Z_2$:
$$p(x) = x(x^3-1)=x(x+1)(x^2+x+1)$$
If $zeta$ is a root of $q(x) = x^2+x+1$ (which is irreducible on $mathbb Z_2$) in a splitting field, the other one is $1+zeta$ as $(1+zeta)^2+(1+zeta) + 1=1+zeta^2+ 1 +zeta +1 = 1+1=0$.
Regarding your problem which is addition
So the four elements of a splitting field of $p$ over $mathbb Z_2$ are $z_1=0, z_2=1, z_3=zeta, z_4=1+ zeta$. And regarding addition, you have
$$beginmatrix
+ & 0 & 1 & zeta & 1+zeta\
0 & 0 & 1 & zeta & 1+zeta\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1+zeta & zeta\
zeta & zeta & 1+zeta & 0 & 1\
1+zeta & 1+zeta & zeta & 1 & 0\
endmatrix$$
answered 9 hours ago
mathcounterexamples.net
22.7k21549
I think this is an excellent answer. It gives an explicit field, with explicit elements in it. This should be done in every single course teaching splitting fields
– dEmigOd
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
In the exercise, you're asked to work on the field $mathbb Z_2$ which is of characteristic $2$. So you can't split $p(x) = x^4-x$ on $mathbb C$.
Now you can write on $mathbb Z_2$:
$$p(x) = x(x^3-1)=x(x+1)(x^2+x+1)$$
If $zeta$ is a root of $q(x) = x^2+x+1$ (which is irreducible on $mathbb Z_2$) in a splitting field, the other one is $1+zeta$ as $(1+zeta)^2+(1+zeta) + 1=1+zeta^2+ 1 +zeta +1 = 1+1=0$.
Regarding your problem which is addition
So the four elements of a splitting field of $p$ over $mathbb Z_2$ are $z_1=0, z_2=1, z_3=zeta, z_4=1+ zeta$. And regarding addition, you have
$$beginmatrix
+ & 0 & 1 & zeta & 1+zeta\
0 & 0 & 1 & zeta & 1+zeta\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1+zeta & zeta\
zeta & zeta & 1+zeta & 0 & 1\
1+zeta & 1+zeta & zeta & 1 & 0\
endmatrix$$
answered 9 hours ago
mathcounterexamples.net
22.7k21549
In the exercise, you're asked to work on the field $mathbb Z_2$ which is of characteristic $2$. So you can't split $p(x) = x^4-x$ on $mathbb C$.
Now you can write on $mathbb Z_2$:
$$p(x) = x(x^3-1)=x(x+1)(x^2+x+1)$$
If $zeta$ is a root of $q(x) = x^2+x+1$ (which is irreducible on $mathbb Z_2$) in a splitting field, the other one is $1+zeta$ as $(1+zeta)^2+(1+zeta) + 1=1+zeta^2+ 1 +zeta +1 = 1+1=0$.
Regarding your problem which is addition
So the four elements of a splitting field of $p$ over $mathbb Z_2$ are $z_1=0, z_2=1, z_3=zeta, z_4=1+ zeta$. And regarding addition, you have
$$beginmatrix
+ & 0 & 1 & zeta & 1+zeta\
0 & 0 & 1 & zeta & 1+zeta\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1+zeta & zeta\
zeta & zeta & 1+zeta & 0 & 1\
1+zeta & 1+zeta & zeta & 1 & 0\
endmatrix$$
answered 9 hours ago
mathcounterexamples.net
22.7k21549
answered 9 hours ago
mathcounterexamples.net
22.7k21549
answered 9 hours ago
mathcounterexamples.net
22.7k21549
answered 9 hours ago
mathcounterexamples.net
22.7k21549
22.7k21549
I think this is an excellent answer. It gives an explicit field, with explicit elements in it. This should be done in every single course teaching splitting fields
– dEmigOd
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
I think this is an excellent answer. It gives an explicit field, with explicit elements in it. This should be done in every single course teaching splitting fields
– dEmigOd
5 hours ago
I think this is an excellent answer. It gives an explicit field, with explicit elements in it. This should be done in every single course teaching splitting fields
– dEmigOd
5 hours ago
I think this is an excellent answer. It gives an explicit field, with explicit elements in it. This should be done in every single course teaching splitting fields
– dEmigOd
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Hint:
Over any commutative ring, you have the factorisation
$$x^4-x=x(x^3-1)=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1).$$
Now over the field with two elements $mathbf F_2$, it is easy to check
$x^2+x+1$ is irreducible, so the quotient $;mathbf F_2[x]/(x^2+x+1)$ is a field. Denoting $xi=xbmod x^2+x+1$, you have by construction
$xi^2+xi+1=0$, hence $;xi^4-xi=0$.
This field is a $mathbf F_2$-vector space with dimension $2$, so it has $2^2=4$ elements.
answered 9 hours ago
Bernard
110k635102
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Hint:
Over any commutative ring, you have the factorisation
$$x^4-x=x(x^3-1)=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1).$$
Now over the field with two elements $mathbf F_2$, it is easy to check
$x^2+x+1$ is irreducible, so the quotient $;mathbf F_2[x]/(x^2+x+1)$ is a field. Denoting $xi=xbmod x^2+x+1$, you have by construction
$xi^2+xi+1=0$, hence $;xi^4-xi=0$.
This field is a $mathbf F_2$-vector space with dimension $2$, so it has $2^2=4$ elements.
answered 9 hours ago
Bernard
110k635102
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Hint:
Over any commutative ring, you have the factorisation
$$x^4-x=x(x^3-1)=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1).$$
Now over the field with two elements $mathbf F_2$, it is easy to check
$x^2+x+1$ is irreducible, so the quotient $;mathbf F_2[x]/(x^2+x+1)$ is a field. Denoting $xi=xbmod x^2+x+1$, you have by construction
$xi^2+xi+1=0$, hence $;xi^4-xi=0$.
This field is a $mathbf F_2$-vector space with dimension $2$, so it has $2^2=4$ elements.
answered 9 hours ago
Bernard
110k635102
Hint:
Over any commutative ring, you have the factorisation
$$x^4-x=x(x^3-1)=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1).$$
Now over the field with two elements $mathbf F_2$, it is easy to check
$x^2+x+1$ is irreducible, so the quotient $;mathbf F_2[x]/(x^2+x+1)$ is a field. Denoting $xi=xbmod x^2+x+1$, you have by construction
$xi^2+xi+1=0$, hence $;xi^4-xi=0$.
This field is a $mathbf F_2$-vector space with dimension $2$, so it has $2^2=4$ elements.
answered 9 hours ago
Bernard
110k635102
edited 6 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
Bernard
110k635102
answered 9 hours ago
Bernard
110k635102
answered 9 hours ago
Bernard
110k635102
110k635102
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I don't understand why you are talking about the field $mathbb C$. It has nothing to do with this exercise.
Anyway, $x^4-x=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1)$ and $x^2+x+1$ has no roots in $mathbbZ_2$. So, consider the field $mathbbZ_2[x]/langle x^2+x+1rangle$, which has exactly $4$ elements.
edited 9 hours ago
egreg
164k1179187
answered 9 hours ago
José Carlos Santos
111k1695171
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
I don't understand why you are talking about the field $mathbb C$. It has nothing to do with this exercise.
Anyway, $x^4-x=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1)$ and $x^2+x+1$ has no roots in $mathbbZ_2$. So, consider the field $mathbbZ_2[x]/langle x^2+x+1rangle$, which has exactly $4$ elements.
edited 9 hours ago
egreg
164k1179187
answered 9 hours ago
José Carlos Santos
111k1695171
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
I don't understand why you are talking about the field $mathbb C$. It has nothing to do with this exercise.
Anyway, $x^4-x=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1)$ and $x^2+x+1$ has no roots in $mathbbZ_2$. So, consider the field $mathbbZ_2[x]/langle x^2+x+1rangle$, which has exactly $4$ elements.
edited 9 hours ago
egreg
164k1179187
answered 9 hours ago
José Carlos Santos
111k1695171
I don't understand why you are talking about the field $mathbb C$. It has nothing to do with this exercise.
Anyway, $x^4-x=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1)$ and $x^2+x+1$ has no roots in $mathbbZ_2$. So, consider the field $mathbbZ_2[x]/langle x^2+x+1rangle$, which has exactly $4$ elements.
edited 9 hours ago
egreg
164k1179187
answered 9 hours ago
José Carlos Santos
111k1695171
edited 9 hours ago
egreg
164k1179187
edited 9 hours ago
egreg
164k1179187
edited 9 hours ago
egreg
164k1179187
164k1179187
answered 9 hours ago
José Carlos Santos
111k1695171
answered 9 hours ago
José Carlos Santos
111k1695171
answered 9 hours ago
José Carlos Santos
111k1695171
111k1695171
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The field is $mathbb Z_2(xi)$, where $xi^2+xi+1=0$. It is a $mathbb Z_2$ -vector space of dimension $2$, with basis $1,xi$. Thus has $4$ elements.
It can also be written as $fracmathbb Z_2[x](x^2+x+1)$.
answered 8 hours ago
Chris Custer
5,2422622
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The field is $mathbb Z_2(xi)$, where $xi^2+xi+1=0$. It is a $mathbb Z_2$ -vector space of dimension $2$, with basis $1,xi$. Thus has $4$ elements.
It can also be written as $fracmathbb Z_2[x](x^2+x+1)$.
answered 8 hours ago
Chris Custer
5,2422622
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The field is $mathbb Z_2(xi)$, where $xi^2+xi+1=0$. It is a $mathbb Z_2$ -vector space of dimension $2$, with basis $1,xi$. Thus has $4$ elements.
It can also be written as $fracmathbb Z_2[x](x^2+x+1)$.
answered 8 hours ago
Chris Custer
5,2422622
The field is $mathbb Z_2(xi)$, where $xi^2+xi+1=0$. It is a $mathbb Z_2$ -vector space of dimension $2$, with basis $1,xi$. Thus has $4$ elements.
It can also be written as $fracmathbb Z_2[x](x^2+x+1)$.
answered 8 hours ago
Chris Custer
5,2422622
answered 8 hours ago
Chris Custer
5,2422622
answered 8 hours ago
Chris Custer
5,2422622
answered 8 hours ago
Chris Custer
5,2422622
5,2422622
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The kicker, here, is that $0,1$ are already roots of $f,$ since $x$ and $x-1$ are factors of $f(x).$ In particular, $f(x)=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1),$ but neither $0$ nor $1$ are roots of $x^2+x+1,$ so we need to adjoin elements that are roots to this.
To accomplish this, we define $$Bbb Z_2[alpha]:=Bbb Z_2[t]/(t^2+t+1),$$ where $(t^2+t+1)$ indicates the ideal of $Bbb Z_2[t]$ generated by $t^2+t+1.$ Letting $alpha=overline t,$ we find that $alpha$ and $alpha+1$ are elements of $Bbb Z_2[alpha]$ that are roots of $x^2+x+1.$ At that point, we simply need to verify that $Bbb Z_2[alpha]$ is a field of four elements, which is straightforward.
answered 9 hours ago
Cameron Buie
83.4k771152
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The kicker, here, is that $0,1$ are already roots of $f,$ since $x$ and $x-1$ are factors of $f(x).$ In particular, $f(x)=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1),$ but neither $0$ nor $1$ are roots of $x^2+x+1,$ so we need to adjoin elements that are roots to this.
To accomplish this, we define $$Bbb Z_2[alpha]:=Bbb Z_2[t]/(t^2+t+1),$$ where $(t^2+t+1)$ indicates the ideal of $Bbb Z_2[t]$ generated by $t^2+t+1.$ Letting $alpha=overline t,$ we find that $alpha$ and $alpha+1$ are elements of $Bbb Z_2[alpha]$ that are roots of $x^2+x+1.$ At that point, we simply need to verify that $Bbb Z_2[alpha]$ is a field of four elements, which is straightforward.
answered 9 hours ago
Cameron Buie
83.4k771152
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The kicker, here, is that $0,1$ are already roots of $f,$ since $x$ and $x-1$ are factors of $f(x).$ In particular, $f(x)=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1),$ but neither $0$ nor $1$ are roots of $x^2+x+1,$ so we need to adjoin elements that are roots to this.
To accomplish this, we define $$Bbb Z_2[alpha]:=Bbb Z_2[t]/(t^2+t+1),$$ where $(t^2+t+1)$ indicates the ideal of $Bbb Z_2[t]$ generated by $t^2+t+1.$ Letting $alpha=overline t,$ we find that $alpha$ and $alpha+1$ are elements of $Bbb Z_2[alpha]$ that are roots of $x^2+x+1.$ At that point, we simply need to verify that $Bbb Z_2[alpha]$ is a field of four elements, which is straightforward.
answered 9 hours ago
Cameron Buie
83.4k771152
The kicker, here, is that $0,1$ are already roots of $f,$ since $x$ and $x-1$ are factors of $f(x).$ In particular, $f(x)=x(x-1)(x^2+x+1),$ but neither $0$ nor $1$ are roots of $x^2+x+1,$ so we need to adjoin elements that are roots to this.
To accomplish this, we define $$Bbb Z_2[alpha]:=Bbb Z_2[t]/(t^2+t+1),$$ where $(t^2+t+1)$ indicates the ideal of $Bbb Z_2[t]$ generated by $t^2+t+1.$ Letting $alpha=overline t,$ we find that $alpha$ and $alpha+1$ are elements of $Bbb Z_2[alpha]$ that are roots of $x^2+x+1.$ At that point, we simply need to verify that $Bbb Z_2[alpha]$ is a field of four elements, which is straightforward.
answered 9 hours ago
Cameron Buie
83.4k771152
answered 9 hours ago
Cameron Buie
83.4k771152
answered 9 hours ago
Cameron Buie
83.4k771152
answered 9 hours ago
Cameron Buie
83.4k771152
83.4k771152
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2873113%2fgalois-theory-by-rotman-exercise-60-a-field-of-four-elements-by-using-kroeneck%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
What does Theorem 33 say?
– quid♦
9 hours ago
1
$0$ and $1$ are already in $mathbbZ_2$. Therefore, you should adjoint a root of $x^2+x+1$. They wouldn't be written as $frac-1pm isqrt32$, since there is no $2$ in $mathbbZ_2$ and $3=i=1$. If you want you can call them $r_1=beginpmatrix0&1\1&1endpmatrix$ and $r_2=beginpmatrix1&1\1&0endpmatrix$. The resulting field is $mathbbZ_2[r_1]$ consists of the elements $a+br_1$ with $a,binmathbbZ_2$. Using that $r_1^2+r_1+1=0$ you can compute the multiplication table of the field.
– spiralstotheleft
9 hours ago
@spiralstotheleft: I'm not sure how you can say that $3=i=1$ and that there is no $2$ in $Bbb Z_2$ in the same sentence. Perhaps it'd be better to say that $2=0$ in $Bbb Z_2,$ at which point $3=i=1$ is completely immaterial.
– Cameron Buie
2 hours ago
@CameronBuie Because it should be "there is no $1/2$ in $mathbbZ_2$", clearly.
– spiralstotheleft
2 hours ago