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 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 $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ 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.