Agebraically closed field equivalent definition
$begingroup$
Is this a valid equivalent definition of an algebraically closed field?
Let $ F $ be a field. Define a function $ f(x): Flongrightarrow F $ as a finite combination of the operations in $ F $ (addition, multiplication and their inverses). If the range of the function $ f $ is $ F $, then $ F $ is an algebraically closed field.
My reasoning is that such function $ f $ should be a rational function
$ f(x)=dfrac{p(x)}{q(x)} $ where $ p(x) $ and $ q(x) $ are polynomials with coefficients in $ F $, so for any fixed element $ yin F $ I can write
$ f(x)=y $
$ dfrac{p(x)}{q(x)}=y $
$ p(x)=yq(x) $
$ p(x)-yq(x)=0 $
As $ p(x)-yq(x) $ is a polynomial with coefficients in $ F $, if $ F $ is truly algebraically closed then there must be some root $ rin F $ an so
$ f(r)=y $
As $ y $ is an arbitrary element of $ F $, then the range $ R $ of the function $ f $ satisfies $ R=F $
This should work for the field of complex numbers $ mathbb{C} $ but does this work for any algebraically closed field?
abstract-algebra field-theory definition
asked Jan 7 at 0:56
SFSplasticSFSplastic
1
New contributor
SFSplastic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is this a valid equivalent definition of an algebraically closed field?
Let $ F $ be a field. Define a function $ f(x): Flongrightarrow F $ as a finite combination of the operations in $ F $ (addition, multiplication and their inverses). If the range of the function $ f $ is $ F $, then $ F $ is an algebraically closed field.
My reasoning is that such function $ f $ should be a rational function
$ f(x)=dfrac{p(x)}{q(x)} $ where $ p(x) $ and $ q(x) $ are polynomials with coefficients in $ F $, so for any fixed element $ yin F $ I can write
$ f(x)=y $
$ dfrac{p(x)}{q(x)}=y $
$ p(x)=yq(x) $
$ p(x)-yq(x)=0 $
As $ p(x)-yq(x) $ is a polynomial with coefficients in $ F $, if $ F $ is truly algebraically closed then there must be some root $ rin F $ an so
$ f(r)=y $
As $ y $ is an arbitrary element of $ F $, then the range $ R $ of the function $ f $ satisfies $ R=F $
This should work for the field of complex numbers $ mathbb{C} $ but does this work for any algebraically closed field?
abstract-algebra field-theory definition
asked Jan 7 at 0:56
SFSplasticSFSplastic
1
New contributor
SFSplastic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I entirely understand your question, but as it reads to me right now, the following is a very simple counterexample : $F: mathbb{Q} rightarrow mathbb{Q}, x mapsto x + 1$.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:01
$begingroup$
I think you mean to say that you need this to be true for all possible such functions.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:03
$begingroup$
What you have shown here is that if $mathbb{F}$ is algebraically closed field, and $F : mathbb{F} rightarrow mathbb{F}$ is a function (well, partial function) that is given by a combination of the field operations, then it is surjective.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:04
$begingroup$
@jgon your right, I meant every possible function. Is this a valid definition of an algebraically closed field?
$endgroup$
– SFSplastic
Jan 7 at 1:33
$begingroup$
Well, if you remove inversion from the list of allowed operations, then it should be, yes. The problem with inversion is that e.g. $1/x$ is not surjective, since $1/xne 0$ for any $x$.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:58
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is this a valid equivalent definition of an algebraically closed field?
Let $ F $ be a field. Define a function $ f(x): Flongrightarrow F $ as a finite combination of the operations in $ F $ (addition, multiplication and their inverses). If the range of the function $ f $ is $ F $, then $ F $ is an algebraically closed field.
My reasoning is that such function $ f $ should be a rational function
$ f(x)=dfrac{p(x)}{q(x)} $ where $ p(x) $ and $ q(x) $ are polynomials with coefficients in $ F $, so for any fixed element $ yin F $ I can write
$ f(x)=y $
$ dfrac{p(x)}{q(x)}=y $
$ p(x)=yq(x) $
$ p(x)-yq(x)=0 $
As $ p(x)-yq(x) $ is a polynomial with coefficients in $ F $, if $ F $ is truly algebraically closed then there must be some root $ rin F $ an so
$ f(r)=y $
As $ y $ is an arbitrary element of $ F $, then the range $ R $ of the function $ f $ satisfies $ R=F $
This should work for the field of complex numbers $ mathbb{C} $ but does this work for any algebraically closed field?
abstract-algebra field-theory definition
asked Jan 7 at 0:56
SFSplasticSFSplastic
1
New contributor
SFSplastic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Is this a valid equivalent definition of an algebraically closed field?
Let $ F $ be a field. Define a function $ f(x): Flongrightarrow F $ as a finite combination of the operations in $ F $ (addition, multiplication and their inverses). If the range of the function $ f $ is $ F $, then $ F $ is an algebraically closed field.
My reasoning is that such function $ f $ should be a rational function
$ f(x)=dfrac{p(x)}{q(x)} $ where $ p(x) $ and $ q(x) $ are polynomials with coefficients in $ F $, so for any fixed element $ yin F $ I can write
$ f(x)=y $
$ dfrac{p(x)}{q(x)}=y $
$ p(x)=yq(x) $
$ p(x)-yq(x)=0 $
As $ p(x)-yq(x) $ is a polynomial with coefficients in $ F $, if $ F $ is truly algebraically closed then there must be some root $ rin F $ an so
$ f(r)=y $
As $ y $ is an arbitrary element of $ F $, then the range $ R $ of the function $ f $ satisfies $ R=F $
This should work for the field of complex numbers $ mathbb{C} $ but does this work for any algebraically closed field?
abstract-algebra field-theory definition
abstract-algebra field-theory definition
asked Jan 7 at 0:56
SFSplasticSFSplastic
1
New contributor
SFSplastic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 7 at 0:56
SFSplasticSFSplastic
1
New contributor
SFSplastic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 7 at 0:56
SFSplasticSFSplastic
1
New contributor
SFSplastic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 7 at 0:56
SFSplasticSFSplastic
1
asked Jan 7 at 0:56
SFSplasticSFSplastic
1
1
New contributor
SFSplastic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
SFSplastic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
SFSplastic is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I entirely understand your question, but as it reads to me right now, the following is a very simple counterexample : $F: mathbb{Q} rightarrow mathbb{Q}, x mapsto x + 1$.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:01
$begingroup$
I think you mean to say that you need this to be true for all possible such functions.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:03
$begingroup$
What you have shown here is that if $mathbb{F}$ is algebraically closed field, and $F : mathbb{F} rightarrow mathbb{F}$ is a function (well, partial function) that is given by a combination of the field operations, then it is surjective.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:04
$begingroup$
@jgon your right, I meant every possible function. Is this a valid definition of an algebraically closed field?
$endgroup$
– SFSplastic
Jan 7 at 1:33
$begingroup$
Well, if you remove inversion from the list of allowed operations, then it should be, yes. The problem with inversion is that e.g. $1/x$ is not surjective, since $1/xne 0$ for any $x$.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:58
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I entirely understand your question, but as it reads to me right now, the following is a very simple counterexample : $F: mathbb{Q} rightarrow mathbb{Q}, x mapsto x + 1$.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:01
$begingroup$
I think you mean to say that you need this to be true for all possible such functions.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:03
$begingroup$
What you have shown here is that if $mathbb{F}$ is algebraically closed field, and $F : mathbb{F} rightarrow mathbb{F}$ is a function (well, partial function) that is given by a combination of the field operations, then it is surjective.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:04
$begingroup$
@jgon your right, I meant every possible function. Is this a valid definition of an algebraically closed field?
$endgroup$
– SFSplastic
Jan 7 at 1:33
$begingroup$
Well, if you remove inversion from the list of allowed operations, then it should be, yes. The problem with inversion is that e.g. $1/x$ is not surjective, since $1/xne 0$ for any $x$.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:58
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I entirely understand your question, but as it reads to me right now, the following is a very simple counterexample : $F: mathbb{Q} rightarrow mathbb{Q}, x mapsto x + 1$.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:01
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I entirely understand your question, but as it reads to me right now, the following is a very simple counterexample : $F: mathbb{Q} rightarrow mathbb{Q}, x mapsto x + 1$.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:01
$begingroup$
I think you mean to say that you need this to be true for all possible such functions.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:03
$begingroup$
I think you mean to say that you need this to be true for all possible such functions.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:03
$begingroup$
What you have shown here is that if $mathbb{F}$ is algebraically closed field, and $F : mathbb{F} rightarrow mathbb{F}$ is a function (well, partial function) that is given by a combination of the field operations, then it is surjective.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:04
$begingroup$
What you have shown here is that if $mathbb{F}$ is algebraically closed field, and $F : mathbb{F} rightarrow mathbb{F}$ is a function (well, partial function) that is given by a combination of the field operations, then it is surjective.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:04
$begingroup$
@jgon your right, I meant every possible function. Is this a valid definition of an algebraically closed field?
$endgroup$
– SFSplastic
Jan 7 at 1:33
$begingroup$
@jgon your right, I meant every possible function. Is this a valid definition of an algebraically closed field?
$endgroup$
– SFSplastic
Jan 7 at 1:33
$begingroup$
Well, if you remove inversion from the list of allowed operations, then it should be, yes. The problem with inversion is that e.g. $1/x$ is not surjective, since $1/xne 0$ for any $x$.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:58
$begingroup$
Well, if you remove inversion from the list of allowed operations, then it should be, yes. The problem with inversion is that e.g. $1/x$ is not surjective, since $1/xne 0$ for any $x$.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:58
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
SFSplastic is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f3064561%2fagebraically-closed-field-equivalent-definition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
SFSplastic is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
SFSplastic is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
SFSplastic is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
SFSplastic is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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.
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%2f3064561%2fagebraically-closed-field-equivalent-definition%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
$begingroup$
I'm not sure I entirely understand your question, but as it reads to me right now, the following is a very simple counterexample : $F: mathbb{Q} rightarrow mathbb{Q}, x mapsto x + 1$.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:01
$begingroup$
I think you mean to say that you need this to be true for all possible such functions.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:03
$begingroup$
What you have shown here is that if $mathbb{F}$ is algebraically closed field, and $F : mathbb{F} rightarrow mathbb{F}$ is a function (well, partial function) that is given by a combination of the field operations, then it is surjective.
$endgroup$
– Adam Higgins
Jan 7 at 1:04
$begingroup$
@jgon your right, I meant every possible function. Is this a valid definition of an algebraically closed field?
$endgroup$
– SFSplastic
Jan 7 at 1:33
$begingroup$
Well, if you remove inversion from the list of allowed operations, then it should be, yes. The problem with inversion is that e.g. $1/x$ is not surjective, since $1/xne 0$ for any $x$.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Jan 7 at 1:58