Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

For fields it is well known, that all fields with finite cardinality $n$ are isomorphic. Does a similar result also hold for rings, i.e. are rings that have the same finite cardinality isomorphic ?

EDIT: Sorry, user Keenan Kidwell got it right, I mean "cardinality", not characteristic.

share|cite|improve this question
I know that isn't nice to answer to a question with another question, but I'll take the risk. Show that the ring $R=\mathbb{Z}[X]/(2,X^2+1)$ is not a field, has $4$ elements and characteristic $2$, but is not isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$ which is not a field, has $4$ elements and characteristic $2$. – user26857 Dec 2 '12 at 21:04
Using the fact that fields are a subset of rings, we have a field of size $p^n$ for any pair $(n,p)$, but we also have a ring that is not a field of size $p^n$. Specifically, that is $\mathbb{Z}_p \oplus \ldots \oplus \mathbb{Z}_p$. – andybenji Dec 2 '12 at 22:42
@andybenji If you have looked on this page would have seen that there already were such examples. – user26857 Dec 3 '12 at 9:03
up vote 3 down vote accepted

A more dramatic example would be $\mathbb{F}_p$ and $\mathbb{F}_p(t)$ where $t$ is an indeterminate, and $p$ is prime. They both have characteristic $p$, but one of them is finite while the other is not. You can also take an algebraic closure of $\mathbb{F}_p$, instead of $\mathbb{F}_p(t)$.

Later edit: As a counterexaple to your revised statement take $\mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. They both have the same cardinality, but cannot be isomorphic. One has characteristic $4$, while the other has characteristic $8$.

share|cite|improve this answer
What happens if the rings have also the same characteristic? – user26857 Dec 2 '12 at 20:40
Take $\mathbb{F}_{2^3}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$. – Rankeya Dec 2 '12 at 20:44
I've thought about $\mathbb{F}_{2^2}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$ :) – user26857 Dec 2 '12 at 20:51

This is not true for fields. $\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$ is a field (in particular, a ring) of characteristic $p$, and so is $\mathbb{F}_{p^m}$, but these fields are isomorphic if and only if $n = m$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Surely not. For example, $\mathbb Z_2$ and $\mathbb Z_2\oplus\mathbb Z_2$ have both characteristic $2$. They cannot be isomorphic, as they have different cardinality.

share|cite|improve this answer

I guess that you're mixing up characteristic with cardinality. Any two fields of the same finite cardinality are isomorphic. On the other hand, the characteristic of a field, defined as the smallest positive integer $n$ such that $1+\cdots+1=0$ ($1$ added to itself $n$ times) in the field, or else if no such integer exists, as $0$, is either $0$ or $p$ with $p$ a prime, so always "finite." But there is no relationship between characteristic and cardinality beyond the fact that a field with finite cardinality must have positive characteristic.

share|cite|improve this answer

Even with your edit it is not true.

Consider $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. Both have $4$ elements. The first one has an element of (additive) order $4$, the second does not, so they cannot be isomorphic.

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.