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'm new to this very interesting world of mathematics, and I'm trying to learn some linear algebra from Khan academy.

In the world of vector spaces and fields, I keep coming across the definition of $\mathbb R^2$ as a vector space ontop of the field $\mathbb R$.

This makes me think, Why can't $\mathbb R^2$ be a field of its own? Would that make $\mathbb R^2$ a field and a vector space?


share|cite|improve this question
A field has multiplication. How would you define multiplication on $\mathbb R^2$ so that it is a field? (There is a way to do so, but it isn't "obvious" until you realize that the resulting field is the complex numbers...) – Thomas Andrews Dec 4 '12 at 16:07
$\mathbb{R}^2$ can be a field but with multiplication defined as follows: $(a,b)(c,d) = (ac - bd, ad + bc)$. Indeed, this is one way of defining the complex numbers. – Rankeya Dec 4 '12 at 16:08
But, if you want to try to do this for $\mathbb{R}^n$, for $n \geq 3$ such that $\mathbb{R}$ is naturally embedded in $\mathbb{R}^n$ as a subfield, then it is not possible to do so, and this is a harder fact to prove. – Rankeya Dec 4 '12 at 16:11
ok this just answered my follow-up question. Is there any proof of that being true? – vondip Dec 4 '12 at 16:11
Vondip - Perhaps this is at a slight tangent, but a significant difference between R and C is that R is an ordered field and C is not. e.g. 5 is larger than 3, but which is "larger", 4 + 7i or 6 + 5i ? (Answer: well, defining how "large" or "the length" a complex number is is not as obvious as for the reals. In fact, there are many different ways of defining the length of a complex number). Just something to think about. – Adam Rubinson Dec 4 '12 at 16:37
up vote 10 down vote accepted

If you define:


$$(a,b)\cdot (x,y):=(ax-by,ay+bx)$$

then the set $\,\Bbb R^2=\Bbb R\times\Bbb R\,$ turns into a field, and a rather well known and important one. Can you identify it?

share|cite|improve this answer
Spoiler: take a look at one of the comments given. $\^\smile\^$ – FrenzY DT. Dec 4 '12 at 16:10
complex numbers indeed! fantastic how it all connects! Would that make R^2 a field and a vector space? – vondip Dec 4 '12 at 16:11
Yes, it would, because addition in $\mathbb{R}^2$, as @DonAntonio defines it, is component wise (the usual way). Remember, the vector space structure depends only on the underlying abelian group. – Rankeya Dec 4 '12 at 16:15
What do you mean "vector space"? Any field is a vector space over any subfield, so the field $\,\Bbb R^2\cong\Bbb C\,$ is a vector field ove an infinite number of subfields, say $\,\Bbb C\,,\,\Bbb R\,,\,\Bbb Q\,,\,\Bbb Q(i)\ldots\,$ , etc. – DonAntonio Dec 4 '12 at 16:15
So would that mean that I any vector space could be defined when F -being the field, as : F^n ? – vondip Dec 4 '12 at 16:17

It is important to understand that a set on its own has no algebraic structure. By defining operators on $\mathbb{R}^2$ you could turn it into (almost) anything you like.

The natural operators on $\mathbb{R}^2$, namely $(x, y) + (a, b) \mapsto (x+a, y+b)$ and $(x, y) \cdot (a, b) \mapsto (x\cdot a, y\cdot b)$ do not define a field as $(0, 1)$ has no multiplicative inverse.

share|cite|improve this answer

Usually in mathematics one defines these structures as tuples

A field is a triple $(K,+,\cdot)$ such that $K$ is a set and [...] and $\cdot:K \times K \rightarrow K$

A Vectorspace is a triple $(V,+,\cdot)$ such that $V$ is a set and [...] and $\cdot: K \times V \rightarrow V$

So your question is meaningless: A set (say $\mathbb R^2$) cannot be a field or a vectorspace or a group or anything - only if you add some additional structure (most of the time operations) you can ask this question.

For example $\mathbb R^2$ can be the set used in the definition of a field, as well as the underlying set used in the definition of a vectorspace. And we are happy, the addition operation $$ +:\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2 \rightarrow \mathbb R^2 $$ is the same, and the multiplicaton for "the" vectorspace structure $$ \mathbb R \times \mathbb R^2 \rightarrow \mathbb R^2 $$ is "compatible" with the multiplication for "the" field structure $$ \mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2 \rightarrow \mathbb R^2 $$

share|cite|improve this answer

Adding to the above answer. With the usual exterior multiplication of the $\mathbb{R}-\{0\}$ as a ring with the natural addition and multiplication you can not make a field out of $\mathbb{R}^{2}-(0,0)$ \ But there may exist other products such as the one in the answers which can make a field out of ${\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}-\{ 0\}$ \ According to one of the theorems of Field theory every field is an Integral domain. So by considering : ${\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}}-\{ 0\}$ With the following natural product: $(A,B)*(C,D)=(AB,CD) $ We see that $(1,0)*(0,1)=(0,0) $ Which means that $\mathbb{R}^{2} $is not an integral domain and hence not a field.

share|cite|improve this answer
Why are you considering $\mathbb{R}^*\times\mathbb{R}^*$? – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 23 '15 at 10:16
Bcoz he is asking that if $\mathbb{R}^{2} $is a field ... And I think he meant with the exterior multiplication and exterior addition. Otherwise it is obvious we can consider it as field aince it is isomorphism to $\mathbb{C}$ and hence a field – Romel Feb 23 '15 at 10:21
But what does that have to do with this? You are removing way more elements than $0$ when you consider this (in fact, it is clear that the usual multiplication does turn this into a group). – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 23 '15 at 10:22
And since the natural multiplication is defined on $\mathbb{R}$ We have to consider $\mathbb{R}^{*}$ as the set which the natural multiplication works on – Romel Feb 23 '15 at 10:24
No, to be a field we would need $(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R})\setminus \{0\}$ to be a group, not $\mathbb{R}^*\times\mathbb{R}^*$. – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 23 '15 at 10:25

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.