My thought process is the following: By default, 0 and 1 have to be in this set of 3 elements since they are the neutral additive and neutral multiplicative elements, respectfully. So the set of the 3 elements that make up this field must be {0,1,x}. But for any element "a" in the set, there must be some "-a" element such that a + (-a) = 0. Therefore there is only one option for x; x=-1. My set must then be {-1,0,1}. Is this correct? It seems too simple, so I wanted a second opinion.
2026-04-08 14:09:58.1775657398
Show That There Is One and (Essentially) Only One Field With 3 Elements
7.3k Views Asked by user203373 https://math.techqa.club/user/user203373/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in ABSTRACT-ALGEBRA
- Feel lost in the scheme of the reducibility of polynomials over $\Bbb Z$ or $\Bbb Q$
- Integral Domain and Degree of Polynomials in $R[X]$
- Fixed points of automorphisms of $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)$
- Group with order $pq$ has subgroups of order $p$ and $q$
- A commutative ring is prime if and only if it is a domain.
- Conjugacy class formula
- Find gcd and invertible elements of a ring.
- Extending a linear action to monomials of higher degree
- polynomial remainder theorem proof, is it legit?
- $(2,1+\sqrt{-5}) \not \cong \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$ as $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$-module
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
Related Questions in FINITE-FIELDS
- Covering vector space over finite field by subspaces
- Reciprocal divisibility of equally valued polynomials over a field
- Solving overdetermined linear systems in GF(2)
- Proof of normal basis theorem for finite fields
- Field $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$ with $\alpha=\sqrt[3]7+2i$
- Subfield of a finite field with prime characteristic
- Rank of a Polynomial function over Finite Fields
- Finite fields of order 8 and isomorphism
- Finding bases to GF($2^m$) over GF($2$)
- How to arrange $p-1$ non-zero elements into $A$ groups of $B$ where $p$ is a prime number
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?
Your answer is correct, your reasoning is not. I realize you're new to abstract algebra, so I'll just say this: when we write down things like $1$ and $0$, we mean only that these things are the multiplicative and additive identities, respectively. We do NOT think of them as subsets of the real line. For example, we can define a perfectly good field with only two elements $\mathbb{Z}_2=\{0,1\}$ where multiplication is defined as usual, and addition is defined as $1+1=0$.
Now, we want to show that there's only one field with three elements. We know $0$ and $1$ must be in this field, and that $0\neq 1$. So if we call the remaining element $x$, we have to find if there is more than one possible thing for $x$ to be.
We know, by closure, that $x+1$ has to be in our field, so either $x+1=0$, $x+1=1$, or $x+1=x$. In the first case, we get $x=-1$, where by $-1$ I do NOT mean "negative one", but rather simply "the additive inverse of one". In the second case we get $x=0$, which is wrong because we want $x$ to be a NEW element of our set. In the third case, we get $1=0$, which is also bad. So we know $x=-1$!
Now, we still haven't fully determined our field. Why? Well, we know there's only one possible third element, but we still have to fully define what addition does on the elements. In particular, we want to show that there's only ONE way to define addition on the elements consistent with the field axioms. We already know what happens if you take $1+0$, $1+-1$, and $-1+0$. We just need to figure out what happens when you take $1+1$ and $-1+-1$. We know $1+1$ has to be in our set, so $1+1=1,0,-1$. If $1+1=1$ then $1=0$, if $1+1=0$ then $-1=1$ and there's only two elements in your field. So $1+1=-1$. Similarly, $-1+-1=1$. Then you just have to check there's only one way to define multiplication (there is), and you're done.