I am looking for a field that is isomorphic to $\Bbb{Q}$. Could someone kindly give an example, or construct one such field?
2026-04-12 03:11:22.1775963482
Looking for a field isomorphic to $\Bbb{Q}$
85 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in FIELD-THEORY
- Square classes of a real closed field
- Question about existence of Galois extension
- Proving addition is associative in $\mathbb{R}$
- Two minor questions about a transcendental number over $\Bbb Q$
- Is it possible for an infinite field that does not contain a subfield isomorphic to $\Bbb Q$?
- Proving that the fraction field of a $k[x,y]/(f)$ is isomorphic to $k(t)$
- Finding a generator of GF(16)*
- Operator notation for arbitrary fields
- Studying the $F[x]/\langle p(x)\rangle$ when $p(x)$ is any degree.
- Proof of normal basis theorem for finite fields
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Suppose $F$ is a field isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}$ via the map $\phi : \mathbb{Q} \to F.$
We usually denote the multiplicative identity of any field with $F$ by the symbol $1.$ We also write $1+1=2, 1+1+1=3$ etc, and often we write $ab^{-1}$ as $a/b.$ For clarify I'll use a subscript $F$ for elements inside $F.$
Now since $\phi$ is a field homomorphism, $\phi(1) = 1_F.$ Since $\phi(x+y)=\phi(x) + \phi(y),$ we have $\phi(2) = 1_F + 1_F =2_F.$ Similarly, $\phi(n)=n_F,$ so again by the field homomorphism axioms, $\phi(n/m) =n_F m_F^{-1} = n_F/m_F.$
Now since $\phi$ is surjective, every element of $F$ looks like $n_F/m_F,$ with these symbols not satisfying any special relation like $1+1+1=0$ as that would contradict injectivity (this means $F$ has characteristic $0$).
So basically, if we agree to standard notations for all fields: write the multiplicative identities as $1$, $1+1=2,$ $ab^{-1} = a/b,$ then any field isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}$ must be exactly $\mathbb{Q}$ itself! Any "other" field isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}$ will simply be $\mathbb{Q}$ rewritten with strange notation.