Prove every finite field is of cardinality $p^n$ [duplicate]












0












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Is there anything like GF(6)?

    2 answers




I realise that this question has been asked multiple times before, but I would like to ask about a specific detail in my proof.



Let F be a finite field.



I begin by showing that the characteristic of any finite integral domain must be a prime, say p.



This gives us that: $$ker(phi) = pZ$$ where $phi:Z rightarrow F$ is a homomorphism.



By first isomorphism theorem,
$$Z/pZ cong Im(phi) subset F$$



Now the problem is prompting me to show that this means we can assume that $Z/pZ subset F$.



From here it is easy to show that F is a field over $Z/pZ$ (which is also a field) and finish the proof.



From what I understand, we aren't really showing that $F$ is a field over $Z/pZ$, but rather over an isomorphic subfield of $F$. But the prompt explicitly asks us to show that F is a field over $Z/pZ$. This is where my confusion is coming from.



Any help would be appreciated










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen abstract-algebra
Users with the  abstract-algebra badge can single-handedly close abstract-algebra questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Jan 16 at 21:08


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.























    0












    $begingroup$



    This question already has an answer here:




    • Is there anything like GF(6)?

      2 answers




    I realise that this question has been asked multiple times before, but I would like to ask about a specific detail in my proof.



    Let F be a finite field.



    I begin by showing that the characteristic of any finite integral domain must be a prime, say p.



    This gives us that: $$ker(phi) = pZ$$ where $phi:Z rightarrow F$ is a homomorphism.



    By first isomorphism theorem,
    $$Z/pZ cong Im(phi) subset F$$



    Now the problem is prompting me to show that this means we can assume that $Z/pZ subset F$.



    From here it is easy to show that F is a field over $Z/pZ$ (which is also a field) and finish the proof.



    From what I understand, we aren't really showing that $F$ is a field over $Z/pZ$, but rather over an isomorphic subfield of $F$. But the prompt explicitly asks us to show that F is a field over $Z/pZ$. This is where my confusion is coming from.



    Any help would be appreciated










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$



    marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen abstract-algebra
    Users with the  abstract-algebra badge can single-handedly close abstract-algebra questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

    $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
    var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
    $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

    $hover.hover(
    function() {
    $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
    messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
    transient: false,
    position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
    dismissable: false,
    relativeToBody: true
    });
    },
    function() {
    StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
    }
    );
    });
    });
    Jan 16 at 21:08


    This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.





















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$



      This question already has an answer here:




      • Is there anything like GF(6)?

        2 answers




      I realise that this question has been asked multiple times before, but I would like to ask about a specific detail in my proof.



      Let F be a finite field.



      I begin by showing that the characteristic of any finite integral domain must be a prime, say p.



      This gives us that: $$ker(phi) = pZ$$ where $phi:Z rightarrow F$ is a homomorphism.



      By first isomorphism theorem,
      $$Z/pZ cong Im(phi) subset F$$



      Now the problem is prompting me to show that this means we can assume that $Z/pZ subset F$.



      From here it is easy to show that F is a field over $Z/pZ$ (which is also a field) and finish the proof.



      From what I understand, we aren't really showing that $F$ is a field over $Z/pZ$, but rather over an isomorphic subfield of $F$. But the prompt explicitly asks us to show that F is a field over $Z/pZ$. This is where my confusion is coming from.



      Any help would be appreciated










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$





      This question already has an answer here:




      • Is there anything like GF(6)?

        2 answers




      I realise that this question has been asked multiple times before, but I would like to ask about a specific detail in my proof.



      Let F be a finite field.



      I begin by showing that the characteristic of any finite integral domain must be a prime, say p.



      This gives us that: $$ker(phi) = pZ$$ where $phi:Z rightarrow F$ is a homomorphism.



      By first isomorphism theorem,
      $$Z/pZ cong Im(phi) subset F$$



      Now the problem is prompting me to show that this means we can assume that $Z/pZ subset F$.



      From here it is easy to show that F is a field over $Z/pZ$ (which is also a field) and finish the proof.



      From what I understand, we aren't really showing that $F$ is a field over $Z/pZ$, but rather over an isomorphic subfield of $F$. But the prompt explicitly asks us to show that F is a field over $Z/pZ$. This is where my confusion is coming from.



      Any help would be appreciated





      This question already has an answer here:




      • Is there anything like GF(6)?

        2 answers








      linear-algebra abstract-algebra ring-theory vector-spaces finite-fields






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 16 at 15:51









      mmmmommmmo

      1157




      1157




      marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen abstract-algebra
      Users with the  abstract-algebra badge can single-handedly close abstract-algebra questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function() {
      $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      });
      },
      function() {
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
      }
      );
      });
      });
      Jan 16 at 21:08


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









      marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen abstract-algebra
      Users with the  abstract-algebra badge can single-handedly close abstract-algebra questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function() {
      $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      });
      },
      function() {
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
      }
      );
      });
      });
      Jan 16 at 21:08


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          This is a common coercion of types. Note that $phi(0) = 0$, $phi(1) = 1$, $phi(underbrace{1 + dots + 1}_{n text{ times}}) = underbrace{1 + dots + 1}_{n text{ times}}$. Yes, these arguments to $phi$ are elements of $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$ and the outputs of $phi$ are elements of $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. But, once you have $0$ and $1$ in a structure with addition, you can always see how much of $mathbb{Z}$ you get by iterated addition.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            1












            $begingroup$

            Well, if $F$ is a finite field of characteristic $p$, then $F$ contains a copy of ${Bbb Z}_p$ given by the multiples of the unit element $1$. But each field extension $F$ of a field $K$ is a vector space over $K$. So $F$ is finite dimensional vector space over ${Bbb Z}_p$. Let ${b_1,ldots,b_n}$ be a basis of $F$ over ${Bbb Z}_p$. Then each element $a$ of $F$ can be uniquely written as a linear combination $a= sum_i k_i b_i$, where $k_iin {Bbb Z}_p$. Thus the field $F$ has $p^n$ elements, as required.



            As a remark, the mapping ${Bbb Z}_p rightarrow F:amapsto acdot 1$ is a ring monomorphism, where $acdot 1 = 1+ldots +1$, $a$ times. So as said, $F$ contains an isomorphic copy of ${Bbb Z}_p$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              But when we say $F$ a vector space over $Z/pZ$, does that mean that the scalars are from $Z/pZ$ or from the copy? I kind of get that it doesn't make any difference, but I just want to get a better intuition of what is really going on.
              $endgroup$
              – mmmmo
              Jan 16 at 16:00


















            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            1












            $begingroup$

            This is a common coercion of types. Note that $phi(0) = 0$, $phi(1) = 1$, $phi(underbrace{1 + dots + 1}_{n text{ times}}) = underbrace{1 + dots + 1}_{n text{ times}}$. Yes, these arguments to $phi$ are elements of $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$ and the outputs of $phi$ are elements of $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. But, once you have $0$ and $1$ in a structure with addition, you can always see how much of $mathbb{Z}$ you get by iterated addition.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              1












              $begingroup$

              This is a common coercion of types. Note that $phi(0) = 0$, $phi(1) = 1$, $phi(underbrace{1 + dots + 1}_{n text{ times}}) = underbrace{1 + dots + 1}_{n text{ times}}$. Yes, these arguments to $phi$ are elements of $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$ and the outputs of $phi$ are elements of $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. But, once you have $0$ and $1$ in a structure with addition, you can always see how much of $mathbb{Z}$ you get by iterated addition.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                This is a common coercion of types. Note that $phi(0) = 0$, $phi(1) = 1$, $phi(underbrace{1 + dots + 1}_{n text{ times}}) = underbrace{1 + dots + 1}_{n text{ times}}$. Yes, these arguments to $phi$ are elements of $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$ and the outputs of $phi$ are elements of $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. But, once you have $0$ and $1$ in a structure with addition, you can always see how much of $mathbb{Z}$ you get by iterated addition.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                This is a common coercion of types. Note that $phi(0) = 0$, $phi(1) = 1$, $phi(underbrace{1 + dots + 1}_{n text{ times}}) = underbrace{1 + dots + 1}_{n text{ times}}$. Yes, these arguments to $phi$ are elements of $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$ and the outputs of $phi$ are elements of $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. But, once you have $0$ and $1$ in a structure with addition, you can always see how much of $mathbb{Z}$ you get by iterated addition.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jan 16 at 15:58









                Eric TowersEric Towers

                32.6k22370




                32.6k22370























                    1












                    $begingroup$

                    Well, if $F$ is a finite field of characteristic $p$, then $F$ contains a copy of ${Bbb Z}_p$ given by the multiples of the unit element $1$. But each field extension $F$ of a field $K$ is a vector space over $K$. So $F$ is finite dimensional vector space over ${Bbb Z}_p$. Let ${b_1,ldots,b_n}$ be a basis of $F$ over ${Bbb Z}_p$. Then each element $a$ of $F$ can be uniquely written as a linear combination $a= sum_i k_i b_i$, where $k_iin {Bbb Z}_p$. Thus the field $F$ has $p^n$ elements, as required.



                    As a remark, the mapping ${Bbb Z}_p rightarrow F:amapsto acdot 1$ is a ring monomorphism, where $acdot 1 = 1+ldots +1$, $a$ times. So as said, $F$ contains an isomorphic copy of ${Bbb Z}_p$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$













                    • $begingroup$
                      But when we say $F$ a vector space over $Z/pZ$, does that mean that the scalars are from $Z/pZ$ or from the copy? I kind of get that it doesn't make any difference, but I just want to get a better intuition of what is really going on.
                      $endgroup$
                      – mmmmo
                      Jan 16 at 16:00
















                    1












                    $begingroup$

                    Well, if $F$ is a finite field of characteristic $p$, then $F$ contains a copy of ${Bbb Z}_p$ given by the multiples of the unit element $1$. But each field extension $F$ of a field $K$ is a vector space over $K$. So $F$ is finite dimensional vector space over ${Bbb Z}_p$. Let ${b_1,ldots,b_n}$ be a basis of $F$ over ${Bbb Z}_p$. Then each element $a$ of $F$ can be uniquely written as a linear combination $a= sum_i k_i b_i$, where $k_iin {Bbb Z}_p$. Thus the field $F$ has $p^n$ elements, as required.



                    As a remark, the mapping ${Bbb Z}_p rightarrow F:amapsto acdot 1$ is a ring monomorphism, where $acdot 1 = 1+ldots +1$, $a$ times. So as said, $F$ contains an isomorphic copy of ${Bbb Z}_p$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$













                    • $begingroup$
                      But when we say $F$ a vector space over $Z/pZ$, does that mean that the scalars are from $Z/pZ$ or from the copy? I kind of get that it doesn't make any difference, but I just want to get a better intuition of what is really going on.
                      $endgroup$
                      – mmmmo
                      Jan 16 at 16:00














                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    Well, if $F$ is a finite field of characteristic $p$, then $F$ contains a copy of ${Bbb Z}_p$ given by the multiples of the unit element $1$. But each field extension $F$ of a field $K$ is a vector space over $K$. So $F$ is finite dimensional vector space over ${Bbb Z}_p$. Let ${b_1,ldots,b_n}$ be a basis of $F$ over ${Bbb Z}_p$. Then each element $a$ of $F$ can be uniquely written as a linear combination $a= sum_i k_i b_i$, where $k_iin {Bbb Z}_p$. Thus the field $F$ has $p^n$ elements, as required.



                    As a remark, the mapping ${Bbb Z}_p rightarrow F:amapsto acdot 1$ is a ring monomorphism, where $acdot 1 = 1+ldots +1$, $a$ times. So as said, $F$ contains an isomorphic copy of ${Bbb Z}_p$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    Well, if $F$ is a finite field of characteristic $p$, then $F$ contains a copy of ${Bbb Z}_p$ given by the multiples of the unit element $1$. But each field extension $F$ of a field $K$ is a vector space over $K$. So $F$ is finite dimensional vector space over ${Bbb Z}_p$. Let ${b_1,ldots,b_n}$ be a basis of $F$ over ${Bbb Z}_p$. Then each element $a$ of $F$ can be uniquely written as a linear combination $a= sum_i k_i b_i$, where $k_iin {Bbb Z}_p$. Thus the field $F$ has $p^n$ elements, as required.



                    As a remark, the mapping ${Bbb Z}_p rightarrow F:amapsto acdot 1$ is a ring monomorphism, where $acdot 1 = 1+ldots +1$, $a$ times. So as said, $F$ contains an isomorphic copy of ${Bbb Z}_p$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Jan 16 at 16:04

























                    answered Jan 16 at 15:56









                    WuestenfuxWuestenfux

                    4,5141413




                    4,5141413












                    • $begingroup$
                      But when we say $F$ a vector space over $Z/pZ$, does that mean that the scalars are from $Z/pZ$ or from the copy? I kind of get that it doesn't make any difference, but I just want to get a better intuition of what is really going on.
                      $endgroup$
                      – mmmmo
                      Jan 16 at 16:00


















                    • $begingroup$
                      But when we say $F$ a vector space over $Z/pZ$, does that mean that the scalars are from $Z/pZ$ or from the copy? I kind of get that it doesn't make any difference, but I just want to get a better intuition of what is really going on.
                      $endgroup$
                      – mmmmo
                      Jan 16 at 16:00
















                    $begingroup$
                    But when we say $F$ a vector space over $Z/pZ$, does that mean that the scalars are from $Z/pZ$ or from the copy? I kind of get that it doesn't make any difference, but I just want to get a better intuition of what is really going on.
                    $endgroup$
                    – mmmmo
                    Jan 16 at 16:00




                    $begingroup$
                    But when we say $F$ a vector space over $Z/pZ$, does that mean that the scalars are from $Z/pZ$ or from the copy? I kind of get that it doesn't make any difference, but I just want to get a better intuition of what is really going on.
                    $endgroup$
                    – mmmmo
                    Jan 16 at 16:00



                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Mario Kart Wii

                    What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

                    Antonio Litta Visconti Arese