Field (mathematical concept): Difference between revisions
Created page with "A '''field''' is a set closed under two binary operations, with some special properties by definition. == Formal definition == Let $F:|F| \ge 2$ be a set, and $+,\cdot$ two binary operations defined over $F$. If $\forall a,b,c \in F$: * $a+b=b+a;a \cdot b = b \cdot a$ ('''commutativity''') * $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c);(a \cdot b)\cdot c = a \cdot (b \cdot c)$ ('''associativity''') * $\exists 0_F,1_F \in F: a+0_F=a, a \cdot 1_F=a$ ('''identity''') * $\e..." |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Formal definition == | == Formal definition == | ||
Let $F:|F| \ge 2$ be a set, and $+,\ | Let $F:|F| \ge 2$ be a set, and $+_F,\cdot_F$ two [[binary operation|binary operations]] defined over $F$. | ||
If $\forall a,b,c \in F$: | If $\forall a,b,c \in F$: | ||
* $a+ | * $a+_Fb=b+_Fa;a \cdot_F b = b \cdot_F a$ ('''commutativity''') | ||
* $(a+ | * $(a+_Fb)+_Fc=a+_F(b+_Fc);(a \cdot_F b)\cdot_F c = a \cdot_F (b \cdot_F c)$ ('''associativity''') | ||
* $\exists 0_F,1_F \in F: a+ | * $\exists 0_F,1_F \in F: a+_F0_F=a, a \cdot_F 1_F=a$ ('''identity''') | ||
* $\exists (-a) \in F: a + (-a)=0_F; \forall a \neq 0_F: \exists (a^{-1}) \in F, a\ | * $\exists (-a) \in F: a +_F (-a)=0_F; \forall a \neq 0_F: \exists (a^{-1}) \in F, a\cdot_F (a^{-1})=1_F$ ('''inverse''') | ||
* $a\ | * $a\cdot_F (b+_Fc)=a\cdot_F b +_F a\cdot_F c$ ('''distributivity''') | ||
Then $(F,+,\ | Then $(F,+_F,\cdot_F)$ is a '''field'''. | ||
''' | <blockquote> | ||
Just like in [[ring|rings]], $+_F,\cdot_F$ do not have to take the usual definitions of $+,\cdot $. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
The smallest field is $(\{0_F,1_F\},+_F,\cdot_F)$ | |||
</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Alternatively, a field can be defined as a [[ring]] with additional properties: | |||
* $a \cdot_F b = b \cdot_F a$ ('''multiplicative commutativity''') | |||
* $\exists 1_F \in F: a \cdot_F 1_F=a$ ('''multiplicative identity''') | |||
* $\forall a \neq 0_F: \exists (a^{-1}) \in F, a\cdot_F (a^{-1})=1_F$ ('''multiplicative inverse''') | |||
Also, note unlike for rings, there is no need to specify distributivity for each slot, since the slots for multiplication are symmetric in a field because of multiplicative commutativity. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
<ref>{{#cite:Q2202}}</ref><ref>{{#cite:Q2204}}</ref> | |||
== Examples == | |||
For each of the $F$ below, $(F,+_F,\cdot_F )$, where $+_F,\cdot_F=+,\cdot$ unless specified, is a field: | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
! $F$ | ! $F$ | ||
! $(F,+,\ | ! Note | ||
|- | |||
|| $\mathbb{Q}$ | |||
| Rational number field, $1_F=1,0_F=0$ | |||
|- | |||
|| $\mathbb{R}$ | |||
| Real number field, $1_F=1,0_F=0$ | |||
|- | |||
| | $\{(a,b)|a,b \in \mathbb{F}\}$ | |||
| real 2D vector field, $1_F=(1,1),0_F=(0,0)$ | |||
|} | |||
'''Counterexamples''': | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- | |||
! $F$ | |||
! Why $(F,+_F,\cdot_F )$ is not a field? | |||
|- | |- | ||
| $\mathbb{N}$ | | $\mathbb{N}$ | ||
| | | $a=1 \in \mathbb{N}: \nexists (-1) \in \mathbb{N}$ | ||
|- | |- | ||
| $\mathbb{Z}$ | | $\mathbb{Z}$ | ||
| | | $a=2 \in \mathbb{N}: \nexists (2^{-1}) \in \mathbb{Z}$ | ||
|} | |} | ||
Latest revision as of 15:12, 16 October 2026
A field is a set closed under two binary operations, with some special properties by definition.
Formal definition
Let $F:|F| \ge 2$ be a set, and $+_F,\cdot_F$ two binary operations defined over $F$.
If $\forall a,b,c \in F$:
- $a+_Fb=b+_Fa;a \cdot_F b = b \cdot_F a$ (commutativity)
- $(a+_Fb)+_Fc=a+_F(b+_Fc);(a \cdot_F b)\cdot_F c = a \cdot_F (b \cdot_F c)$ (associativity)
- $\exists 0_F,1_F \in F: a+_F0_F=a, a \cdot_F 1_F=a$ (identity)
- $\exists (-a) \in F: a +_F (-a)=0_F; \forall a \neq 0_F: \exists (a^{-1}) \in F, a\cdot_F (a^{-1})=1_F$ (inverse)
- $a\cdot_F (b+_Fc)=a\cdot_F b +_F a\cdot_F c$ (distributivity)
Then $(F,+_F,\cdot_F)$ is a field.
Just like in rings, $+_F,\cdot_F$ do not have to take the usual definitions of $+,\cdot $.
The smallest field is $(\{0_F,1_F\},+_F,\cdot_F)$
Alternatively, a field can be defined as a ring with additional properties:
- $a \cdot_F b = b \cdot_F a$ (multiplicative commutativity)
- $\exists 1_F \in F: a \cdot_F 1_F=a$ (multiplicative identity)
- $\forall a \neq 0_F: \exists (a^{-1}) \in F, a\cdot_F (a^{-1})=1_F$ (multiplicative inverse)
Also, note unlike for rings, there is no need to specify distributivity for each slot, since the slots for multiplication are symmetric in a field because of multiplicative commutativity.
Examples
For each of the $F$ below, $(F,+_F,\cdot_F )$, where $+_F,\cdot_F=+,\cdot$ unless specified, is a field:
| $F$ | Note |
|---|---|
| $\mathbb{Q}$ | Rational number field, $1_F=1,0_F=0$ |
| $\mathbb{R}$ | Real number field, $1_F=1,0_F=0$ |
| $\{(a,b)|a,b \in \mathbb{F}\}$ | real 2D vector field, $1_F=(1,1),0_F=(0,0)$ |
Counterexamples:
| $F$ | Why $(F,+_F,\cdot_F )$ is not a field? |
|---|---|
| $\mathbb{N}$ | $a=1 \in \mathbb{N}: \nexists (-1) \in \mathbb{N}$ |
| $\mathbb{Z}$ | $a=2 \in \mathbb{N}: \nexists (2^{-1}) \in \mathbb{Z}$ |
- ↑ Michael Janssen and Melissa Lindsey. (2026). 2.1: Fields. LibreTexts. https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Abstract_and_Geometric_Algebra/Rings_with_Inquiry_(Janssen_and_Lindsey)/02%3A_Fields_and_Rings/2.01%3A_Fields
- ↑ Michael Janssen and Melissa Lindsey. (2026). 2.2: Rings. LibreTexts. https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Abstract_and_Geometric_Algebra/Rings_with_Inquiry_(Janssen_and_Lindsey)/02%3A_Fields_and_Rings/2.02%3A_Rings