Field (mathematical concept): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| 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'''. | ||
'''Example''': | '''Example''': | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|- | |- | ||
! $F$ | ! $F$ | ||
! $(F,+,\ | ! $(F,+_F,\cdot_F )$ is field? | ||
|- | |- | ||
| $\mathbb{N}$ | | $\mathbb{N}$ | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| Yes | | Yes | ||
|} | |} | ||
<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> | <blockquote> | ||
Alternatively, a field can be defined as a [[ring]] with additional properties: | Alternatively, a field can be defined as a [[ring]] with additional properties: | ||
* $a \ | * $a \cdot_F b = b \cdot_F a$ ('''multiplicative commutativity''') | ||
* $\exists 1_F \in F: a \ | * $\exists 1_F \in F: a \cdot_F 1_F=a$ ('''multiplicative identity''') | ||
* $\forall a \neq 0_F: \exists (a^{-1}) \in F, a\ | * $\forall a \neq 0_F: \exists (a^{-1}) \in F, a\cdot_F (a^{-1})=1_F$ ('''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. | 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> | <ref>{{#cite:Q2202}}</ref><ref>{{#cite:Q2204}}</ref> | ||
Revision as of 14:55, 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.
Example:
| $F$ | $(F,+_F,\cdot_F )$ is field? |
|---|---|
| $\mathbb{N}$ | No, $a=1 \in \mathbb{N}: \nexists (-1) \in \mathbb{N}$ |
| $\mathbb{Z}$ | No, $a=2 \in \mathbb{N}: \nexists (2^{-1}) \in \mathbb{Z}$ |
| $\mathbb{Q}$ | Yes |
| $\mathbb{R}$ | Yes |
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.
- ↑ 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