Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I recently learned that the dyadic rationals is the set of rational numbers of the form $$\frac{p}{2^q}$$ where $p$ is an integer and $q$ is greater than or equal to zero.

I think the set of dyadic rationals is not a field. Here's why:

One of the requirements for a set to be a field is this:

Every element $a$ in the set has exactly one reciprocal such that $a$ multiplied by the reciprocal equals $1$.

I think that this dyadic rational does not have a reciprocal: $$\frac34$$ The reciprocal is $4/3$, but that is not a dyadic rational because there is no integer $q$ greater than or equal to $0$ such that $2^q=3$.

Therefore the dyadic rationals fails one of the requirements for being a field.

Therefore the dyadic rationals are not a field.

Ha! How about that logic. Am I thinking correctly? Am I correct?

share|cite|improve this question
Yes, that's correct. – Zhen Lin Aug 1 '12 at 9:48
up vote 5 down vote accepted


The ring of dyadic rationals is obtained from the integers $\Bbb Z$ inverting $2$. But that is not enough to invert all non-zero integers.

Besides, there's no smaller field of the rationals $\Bbb Q$ containing $\Bbb Z$.

share|cite|improve this answer

It is true that the ring $\Bbb D$ of dyadic rationals is not a field. But your argument is missing too many details to judge its correctness. To show that $\Bbb D$ is not a field it suffices to show that $\rm\:3\:$ has no inverse in $\Bbb D.\:$ Suppose $\rm\:1/3 = n/2^k.\:$ We may assume that $\rm\:n\:$ is odd by cancelling $2$'s. Therefore $\rm\:2^k = 3n\:$ is odd, so $\rm\:k=0,\:$ so $\rm\:1/3 = n/2^0 = n\in \Bbb Z,\:$ contradiction.

$\Bbb D = \Bbb Z[1/2]\:$ is the ring generated by adjoining $\,1/2\,$ to $\Bbb Z.\:$ To generate a field we need that every nonzero integer is invertible, or, equivalently, every prime is invertible. This will be true iff one adjoins to $\Bbb Z$ a set of rationals such that every prime occurs in some (lowest-terms) denominator. These matters are clarified when one studies generalizations of fraction rings (localizations) in commutative algebra.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.