Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Problem:

Let $S=\left \{ 0,1,2 \right \}$. How can someone prove that there is unique way of defining addition and multiplication such that $S$ is a field if $0$ of the set $S$ has the meaning (for any element $a$ in $S$: $0+a=a$), and $1$ in $S$ has the meaning (for any element $a$ in $S$: $1.a=a$)? Also, can $S$ be an ordered field?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

The axioms for a ring already imply that $0\cdot a=0$ for all $a\in S$, so you have almost all of the multiplication table:

$$\begin{array}{c|cc} \cdot&0&1&2\\ \hline 0&0&0&0\\ 1&0&1&2\\ 2&0&2 \end{array}$$

And $2$ has to have a multiplicative inverse, so we must have $2\cdot 2=1$.

For addition we automatically have this much:

$$\begin{array}{c|cc} +&0&1&2\\ \hline 0&0&1&2\\ 1&1&&\\ 2&2& \end{array}$$

Now $1$ must have an additive inverse, so either $1+1=0$, or $1+2=0$. Suppose that $1+1=0$; then what is $1+2$? If $1+2=0$, then $1=1+0=1+(1+2)=(1+1)+2=0+2=2$, which is absurd. If $1+2=1$, then $0=1+1=1+(1+2)=(1+1)+2=0+2=2$, which is also absurd. Thus, $1+2=2$. But we know that $2$ has an additive inverse $-2$, even if we don’t yet know what it is, so $1=1+\big(1+(-2)\big)=(1+2)+(-2)=2+(-2)=0$, which is also impossible. Thus, $1+1$ cannot be $0$. It also can’t be $1$ (why not?), so it must be $2$, and we have

$$\begin{array}{c|cc} +&0&1&2\\ \hline 0&0&1&2\\ 1&1&2&\\ 2&2& \end{array}$$

Clearly $2$ must be $-1$, giving us

$$\begin{array}{c|cc} +&0&1&2\\ \hline 0&0&1&2\\ 1&1&2&0\\ 2&2&0 \end{array}$$

and it’s not hard to check that $2+2$ can now only be $1$.

Added: By the way, that last bit can be shortened to practically nothing if you recall that up to isomorphism there is only one group of order $3$, $\Bbb Z/3\Bbb Z$: that gives you the addition table right away.

How to see that $S$ cannot be an ordered field depends on how you’ve defined ordered field. If you’ve defined it in terms of a positive cone, note that $1+1=2=-1$, so $1$ can’t be in the positive cone: it’s closed under addition and never contains a non-zero element and its additive inverse. Similarly, $(-1)+(-1)=2+2=1$, so $-1$ can’t be in the positive cone, either. But this is also impossible: one of them has to be in it.

If you’ve defined it in terms of an order relation, you can get essentially the same contradictions. If $0<1$, then $1=0+1<1+1=2$, $2=1+1<2+1=0$, so by transitivity $0<0$; OOPS! A similar problem arises if $1<0$.

share|improve this answer
    
Did you avoid the uniqueness of finite fields because you felt it was too advanced than what the OP may understand ? –  Belgi Oct 10 '12 at 4:24
    
@Belgi: I wanted to demonstrate that the problem could be done quite easily with very elementary tools. At most I might have used the uniqueness of a group of order $3$. –  Brian M. Scott Oct 10 '12 at 4:29

Hint #1: The additive group has to be abelian for a field, and there is only one additive group of order $3$. So, what ways can the multiplication be defined so that $1\not=0$? (required for a field)?

Hint #2: (Order) There are only a finite number of elements in your additive group. You'll get your contradiction from $1 \leq 2 \Rightarrow 1+1 = 2 \leq 2+1=0$, and similar arguments.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.