You are here
HomeQ is the prime subfield of any field of characteristic 0, proof that
Primary tabs
Q is the prime subfield of any field of characteristic 0, proof that
The following two propositions show that $\mathbb{Q}$ can be embedded in any field of characteristic $0$, while $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ can be embedded in any field of characteristic $p$.
Proposition.β $\mathbb{Q}$ is the prime subfield of any field of characteristic 0.
Proof.
Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $0$.β We want to find a onetoone field homomorphism $\phi:\mathbb{Q}\to F$.β Forβ $\frac{m}{n}\in\mathbb{Q}$β with $m,\,n$ coprime, define the mapping $\phi$ that takes $\frac{m}{n}$ into $\frac{m1_{F}}{n1_{F}}\in F$.β It is easy to check that $\phi$ is a welldefined function.β Furthermore, it is elementary to show
1. additive: for $p,q\in\mathbb{Q}$, $\phi(p+q)=\phi(p)+\phi(q)$;
2. multiplicative: for $p,q\in\mathbb{Q}$, $\phi(pq)=\phi(p)\phi(q)$;
3. $\phi(1)=1_{F}$, and
4. $\phi(0)=0_{F}$.
This shows that $\phi$ is a field homomorphism. Finally, if $\phi(p)=0$ and $p\neq 0$, then $1=\phi(1)=\phi(pp^{{1}})=\phi(p)\phi(p^{{1}})=0\cdot\phi(p^{{1}})=0$, a contradiction. β
Proposition. $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ ($\cong\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$) is the prime subfield of any field of characteristic $p$.
Proof.
Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $p$. The idea again is to find an injective field homomorphism, this time, from $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ into $F$. Take $\phi$ to be the function that maps $m\in\mathbb{F}_{p}$ to $m\cdot 1_{F}$. It is welldefined, for if $m=n$ in $\mathbb{F}_{p}$, then $p\mid(mn)$, meaning $(mn)1_{F}=0$, or that $m\cdot 1_{F}=n\cdot 1_{F}$, (showing that one element in $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ does not get βmappedβ to more than one element in $F$). Since the above argument is reversible, we see that $\phi$ is onetoone.
To complete the proof, we next show that $\phi$ is a field homomorphism. That $\phi(1)=1_{F}$ and $\phi(0)=0_{F}$ are clear from the definition of $\phi$. Additivity and multiplicativity of $\phi$ are readily verified, as follows:

$\phi(m+n)=(m+n)\cdot 1_{F}=m\cdot 1_{F}+n\cdot 1_{F}=\phi(m)+\phi(n)$;

$\phi(mn)=mn\cdot 1_{F}=mn\cdot 1_{F}\cdot 1_{F}=(m\cdot 1_{F})(n\cdot 1_{F})=% \phi(m)\phi(n)$.
This shows that $\phi$ is a field homomorphism. β
Mathematics Subject Classification
15A99 no label found12F99 no label found12E99 no label found12E20 no label found Forums
 Planetary Bugs
 HS/Secondary
 University/Tertiary
 Graduate/Advanced
 Industry/Practice
 Research Topics
 LaTeX help
 Math Comptetitions
 Math History
 Math Humor
 PlanetMath Comments
 PlanetMath System Updates and News
 PlanetMath help
 PlanetMath.ORG
 Strategic Communications Development
 The Math Pub
 Testing messages (ignore)
 Other useful stuff
Recent Activity
new correction: Error in proof of Proposition 2 by alex2907
Jun 24
new question: A good question by Ron Castillo
Jun 23
new question: A trascendental number. by Ron Castillo
Jun 19
new question: Banach lattice valued Bochner integrals by math ias
Comments
A little sketchy
I think this entry confuses a couple of important points, stemming from the fact that you've tried to make the notion of a "ground field" halfway between an intuitive definition and a formal definition.
The formal counterpart to what you're talking about is the prime field, and your two theorems refer to those, Q and F_p (which, incidentally, is a better notation since Z_p can be confused with the padic integers).
The intuituve counterpart turns out to be not so intuitive after all..consider the scenario of considering the field extension \mathbb{C}(\sqrt{x}) over \mathbb{C}(x). One wouldn't really want to call Q the "ground field" in such a scenario, but further, nor is this notion really well defined. For example, \mathbb{C}(x) is just a degree 2 extension of \mathbb{C}(x^2), which in turn is a degree 2 extension of \mathbb{C}(x^4), etc. In this situation, there is no unique smallest subfield of the right type (i.e. a function field over \mathbb{C}) that embeds into all of the field in question.
I recommend either giving a formal definition of a prime field, or rewrite to be clear that "ground field" is not a formal term, and that the expression is used informally by mathematicians to refer to an obvious choice of an important field lying around somewhere.
Cam
Re: A little sketchy
NB, in some contexts one speaks also of "base field" (see e.g. the entry "extension field").
Jussi
Re: A little sketchy
Thank you for your comment! Sorry to have caused this confusion. I have changed the title and the content of the entry. I have also added a request for someone to define, at least informally, what a ground field is. Chi