Prime subfield when $ch(F) = 0$; shouldn't it be prime subring isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}$?











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Suppose $ch(F)=0$ and let $phi: mathbb{Z} to F$ with $phi:n mapsto n cdot 1_F$. Since the characteristic is $0$, we have $ker phi = {0 }$. By the First Isomorphism Theorem, we have $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$. But the ring on the right is just $mathbb{Z}$, and the ring on the left is the prime "subfield" of $F$. Could someone point out the problem please?










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Suppose $ch(F)=0$ and let $phi: mathbb{Z} to F$ with $phi:n mapsto n cdot 1_F$. Since the characteristic is $0$, we have $ker phi = {0 }$. By the First Isomorphism Theorem, we have $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$. But the ring on the right is just $mathbb{Z}$, and the ring on the left is the prime "subfield" of $F$. Could someone point out the problem please?










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Suppose $ch(F)=0$ and let $phi: mathbb{Z} to F$ with $phi:n mapsto n cdot 1_F$. Since the characteristic is $0$, we have $ker phi = {0 }$. By the First Isomorphism Theorem, we have $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$. But the ring on the right is just $mathbb{Z}$, and the ring on the left is the prime "subfield" of $F$. Could someone point out the problem please?










      share|cite|improve this question













      Suppose $ch(F)=0$ and let $phi: mathbb{Z} to F$ with $phi:n mapsto n cdot 1_F$. Since the characteristic is $0$, we have $ker phi = {0 }$. By the First Isomorphism Theorem, we have $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$. But the ring on the right is just $mathbb{Z}$, and the ring on the left is the prime "subfield" of $F$. Could someone point out the problem please?







      abstract-algebra field-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 21 at 2:22









      Ovi

      12.1k938108




      12.1k938108






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          Your $phi$ is the morphism of the initial object in the category of unital rings to the ring $F$. If the codomain is a field of prime characteristic, then the image of the morphism is not just a subring, but a subfield. This is due to the fact that the prime non-zero ideals of $Bbb Z$ are also maximal. If not, then it's just a subring.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Sorry I'm having trouble understanding your answer. In $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$, is the ring on the left not $mathbb{Z}$, or is the ring on the right not the prime subfield?
            – Ovi
            Nov 21 at 2:31










          • $operatorname{im}phi$ is not a subfield.
            – Saucy O'Path
            Nov 21 at 2:31










          • Maybe my definition of prime subfield is wrong; as I understand it, the prime subfield of $F$ is the set of all finite sums of $1$, or ${ n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. I think that $text {Im}(phi) = { n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. So why am I getting that this object is not a field, when it should be?
            – Ovi
            Nov 21 at 2:34






          • 4




            Your definition of prime subfield is not correct. The prime subfield of a field is its smallest subfield, which contains not only all the integer multiples of $1_F$, but in the case of a field of characteristic 0, all its rational multiples as well.
            – Monstrous Moonshiner
            Nov 21 at 2:43








          • 1




            @Ovi note that it says field generated by $1_F$, so it's the set of sums and products and quotients that you obtain by starting with $1_F$.
            – jgon
            Nov 21 at 2:48


















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          The image of $varphi$ is not the prime subfield of $F$, which is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$. The problem is that $phi$ is a morphism of rings, and not a morphism of fields. Therefore, you could think of $operatorname{im}(varphi)$ as being a sort of "prime subring" associated to $F$, but it is not a field. In general, for any field of characteristic 0, there is a unique field homomorphism $psi:mathbb{Q} to F$ whose image is the prime subfield associated to $F$, and which is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            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',
            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007167%2fprime-subfield-when-chf-0-shouldnt-it-be-prime-subring-isomorphic-to-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Your $phi$ is the morphism of the initial object in the category of unital rings to the ring $F$. If the codomain is a field of prime characteristic, then the image of the morphism is not just a subring, but a subfield. This is due to the fact that the prime non-zero ideals of $Bbb Z$ are also maximal. If not, then it's just a subring.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Sorry I'm having trouble understanding your answer. In $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$, is the ring on the left not $mathbb{Z}$, or is the ring on the right not the prime subfield?
              – Ovi
              Nov 21 at 2:31










            • $operatorname{im}phi$ is not a subfield.
              – Saucy O'Path
              Nov 21 at 2:31










            • Maybe my definition of prime subfield is wrong; as I understand it, the prime subfield of $F$ is the set of all finite sums of $1$, or ${ n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. I think that $text {Im}(phi) = { n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. So why am I getting that this object is not a field, when it should be?
              – Ovi
              Nov 21 at 2:34






            • 4




              Your definition of prime subfield is not correct. The prime subfield of a field is its smallest subfield, which contains not only all the integer multiples of $1_F$, but in the case of a field of characteristic 0, all its rational multiples as well.
              – Monstrous Moonshiner
              Nov 21 at 2:43








            • 1




              @Ovi note that it says field generated by $1_F$, so it's the set of sums and products and quotients that you obtain by starting with $1_F$.
              – jgon
              Nov 21 at 2:48















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Your $phi$ is the morphism of the initial object in the category of unital rings to the ring $F$. If the codomain is a field of prime characteristic, then the image of the morphism is not just a subring, but a subfield. This is due to the fact that the prime non-zero ideals of $Bbb Z$ are also maximal. If not, then it's just a subring.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Sorry I'm having trouble understanding your answer. In $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$, is the ring on the left not $mathbb{Z}$, or is the ring on the right not the prime subfield?
              – Ovi
              Nov 21 at 2:31










            • $operatorname{im}phi$ is not a subfield.
              – Saucy O'Path
              Nov 21 at 2:31










            • Maybe my definition of prime subfield is wrong; as I understand it, the prime subfield of $F$ is the set of all finite sums of $1$, or ${ n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. I think that $text {Im}(phi) = { n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. So why am I getting that this object is not a field, when it should be?
              – Ovi
              Nov 21 at 2:34






            • 4




              Your definition of prime subfield is not correct. The prime subfield of a field is its smallest subfield, which contains not only all the integer multiples of $1_F$, but in the case of a field of characteristic 0, all its rational multiples as well.
              – Monstrous Moonshiner
              Nov 21 at 2:43








            • 1




              @Ovi note that it says field generated by $1_F$, so it's the set of sums and products and quotients that you obtain by starting with $1_F$.
              – jgon
              Nov 21 at 2:48













            up vote
            2
            down vote










            up vote
            2
            down vote









            Your $phi$ is the morphism of the initial object in the category of unital rings to the ring $F$. If the codomain is a field of prime characteristic, then the image of the morphism is not just a subring, but a subfield. This is due to the fact that the prime non-zero ideals of $Bbb Z$ are also maximal. If not, then it's just a subring.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Your $phi$ is the morphism of the initial object in the category of unital rings to the ring $F$. If the codomain is a field of prime characteristic, then the image of the morphism is not just a subring, but a subfield. This is due to the fact that the prime non-zero ideals of $Bbb Z$ are also maximal. If not, then it's just a subring.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Nov 21 at 2:32

























            answered Nov 21 at 2:28









            Saucy O'Path

            5,7341626




            5,7341626












            • Sorry I'm having trouble understanding your answer. In $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$, is the ring on the left not $mathbb{Z}$, or is the ring on the right not the prime subfield?
              – Ovi
              Nov 21 at 2:31










            • $operatorname{im}phi$ is not a subfield.
              – Saucy O'Path
              Nov 21 at 2:31










            • Maybe my definition of prime subfield is wrong; as I understand it, the prime subfield of $F$ is the set of all finite sums of $1$, or ${ n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. I think that $text {Im}(phi) = { n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. So why am I getting that this object is not a field, when it should be?
              – Ovi
              Nov 21 at 2:34






            • 4




              Your definition of prime subfield is not correct. The prime subfield of a field is its smallest subfield, which contains not only all the integer multiples of $1_F$, but in the case of a field of characteristic 0, all its rational multiples as well.
              – Monstrous Moonshiner
              Nov 21 at 2:43








            • 1




              @Ovi note that it says field generated by $1_F$, so it's the set of sums and products and quotients that you obtain by starting with $1_F$.
              – jgon
              Nov 21 at 2:48


















            • Sorry I'm having trouble understanding your answer. In $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$, is the ring on the left not $mathbb{Z}$, or is the ring on the right not the prime subfield?
              – Ovi
              Nov 21 at 2:31










            • $operatorname{im}phi$ is not a subfield.
              – Saucy O'Path
              Nov 21 at 2:31










            • Maybe my definition of prime subfield is wrong; as I understand it, the prime subfield of $F$ is the set of all finite sums of $1$, or ${ n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. I think that $text {Im}(phi) = { n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. So why am I getting that this object is not a field, when it should be?
              – Ovi
              Nov 21 at 2:34






            • 4




              Your definition of prime subfield is not correct. The prime subfield of a field is its smallest subfield, which contains not only all the integer multiples of $1_F$, but in the case of a field of characteristic 0, all its rational multiples as well.
              – Monstrous Moonshiner
              Nov 21 at 2:43








            • 1




              @Ovi note that it says field generated by $1_F$, so it's the set of sums and products and quotients that you obtain by starting with $1_F$.
              – jgon
              Nov 21 at 2:48
















            Sorry I'm having trouble understanding your answer. In $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$, is the ring on the left not $mathbb{Z}$, or is the ring on the right not the prime subfield?
            – Ovi
            Nov 21 at 2:31




            Sorry I'm having trouble understanding your answer. In $mathbb{Z} / { 0}cong text{Im}(phi)$, is the ring on the left not $mathbb{Z}$, or is the ring on the right not the prime subfield?
            – Ovi
            Nov 21 at 2:31












            $operatorname{im}phi$ is not a subfield.
            – Saucy O'Path
            Nov 21 at 2:31




            $operatorname{im}phi$ is not a subfield.
            – Saucy O'Path
            Nov 21 at 2:31












            Maybe my definition of prime subfield is wrong; as I understand it, the prime subfield of $F$ is the set of all finite sums of $1$, or ${ n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. I think that $text {Im}(phi) = { n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. So why am I getting that this object is not a field, when it should be?
            – Ovi
            Nov 21 at 2:34




            Maybe my definition of prime subfield is wrong; as I understand it, the prime subfield of $F$ is the set of all finite sums of $1$, or ${ n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. I think that $text {Im}(phi) = { n cdot 1_F| n in mathbb{Z} }$. So why am I getting that this object is not a field, when it should be?
            – Ovi
            Nov 21 at 2:34




            4




            4




            Your definition of prime subfield is not correct. The prime subfield of a field is its smallest subfield, which contains not only all the integer multiples of $1_F$, but in the case of a field of characteristic 0, all its rational multiples as well.
            – Monstrous Moonshiner
            Nov 21 at 2:43






            Your definition of prime subfield is not correct. The prime subfield of a field is its smallest subfield, which contains not only all the integer multiples of $1_F$, but in the case of a field of characteristic 0, all its rational multiples as well.
            – Monstrous Moonshiner
            Nov 21 at 2:43






            1




            1




            @Ovi note that it says field generated by $1_F$, so it's the set of sums and products and quotients that you obtain by starting with $1_F$.
            – jgon
            Nov 21 at 2:48




            @Ovi note that it says field generated by $1_F$, so it's the set of sums and products and quotients that you obtain by starting with $1_F$.
            – jgon
            Nov 21 at 2:48










            up vote
            2
            down vote













            The image of $varphi$ is not the prime subfield of $F$, which is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$. The problem is that $phi$ is a morphism of rings, and not a morphism of fields. Therefore, you could think of $operatorname{im}(varphi)$ as being a sort of "prime subring" associated to $F$, but it is not a field. In general, for any field of characteristic 0, there is a unique field homomorphism $psi:mathbb{Q} to F$ whose image is the prime subfield associated to $F$, and which is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              2
              down vote













              The image of $varphi$ is not the prime subfield of $F$, which is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$. The problem is that $phi$ is a morphism of rings, and not a morphism of fields. Therefore, you could think of $operatorname{im}(varphi)$ as being a sort of "prime subring" associated to $F$, but it is not a field. In general, for any field of characteristic 0, there is a unique field homomorphism $psi:mathbb{Q} to F$ whose image is the prime subfield associated to $F$, and which is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote









                The image of $varphi$ is not the prime subfield of $F$, which is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$. The problem is that $phi$ is a morphism of rings, and not a morphism of fields. Therefore, you could think of $operatorname{im}(varphi)$ as being a sort of "prime subring" associated to $F$, but it is not a field. In general, for any field of characteristic 0, there is a unique field homomorphism $psi:mathbb{Q} to F$ whose image is the prime subfield associated to $F$, and which is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                The image of $varphi$ is not the prime subfield of $F$, which is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$. The problem is that $phi$ is a morphism of rings, and not a morphism of fields. Therefore, you could think of $operatorname{im}(varphi)$ as being a sort of "prime subring" associated to $F$, but it is not a field. In general, for any field of characteristic 0, there is a unique field homomorphism $psi:mathbb{Q} to F$ whose image is the prime subfield associated to $F$, and which is isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 21 at 2:41









                Monstrous Moonshiner

                2,25511337




                2,25511337






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007167%2fprime-subfield-when-chf-0-shouldnt-it-be-prime-subring-isomorphic-to-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                    Mont Emei