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.

Are there any injective multiplicative homomophisms from $\mathbb{Z}$ to $\mathbb{F}[x]$ where $\mathbb{F}$ is a field of Characteristic $p$?

share|improve this question
There is always exactly one homomorphism $\mathbb{Z}\to R$ for any ring $R$. The characteristic of a ring can be defined via this unique homomorphism. Using these remarks it should be clear what the correct answers are. –  Curufin Jan 22 '13 at 22:29
@Curufin: Why not post that as an answer? –  Clive Newstead Jan 22 '13 at 22:33
@Curufin: I think you have assumed that $R$ is unital and the homomorphism is onto. With these assumptions you are right. But without them, one can construct several homomorphisms. For instance from $\mathbb{Z}$ into $\mathbb{Z}\oplus \mathbb{Z}$ there are at least three different homomorphisms. –  Vahid Shirbisheh Jan 22 '13 at 22:40
@Vahid: Why do we need surjectivity as well as $1$? If somewhere in your definition of ring homomorphisms you require that they preserve multiplicative identities, then for any given (unital) ring $R$ there can be only one ring homomorphism $f: \mathbb{Z} \to R$ (since $f(n)$ is determined by $f(1)$ for each $n \in \mathbb{Z}$). –  Clive Newstead Jan 22 '13 at 22:52
@CliveNewstead: You misinterpreted my statement a little. First, assuming surjectivity and $R$ being unital implies that the image of $1$ is the unit element of $R$ (in other words, the homomorphism preserves units). Secondly, you can assume the homomorphism is unital (preserves units) and drop the surjectivity assumption. –  Vahid Shirbisheh Jan 22 '13 at 23:11

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

If you intended ring homomorphisms, then I second Curufin's comment. But I assumed that, since you wrote "multiplicative", you intend your homomorphisms to just preserve multiplication, not necessarily addition. In that case, such homomorphisms would exist as long as the characteristic of $\mathbb F$ is not 2. You can define a homomorphism by sending each prime number $q$ to an arbitrarily chosen polynomial $f_q(x)$ in $\mathbb F[x]$ and then extending the map to all integers using the prime factorization: send $\pm q_1^{k_1}\dots q_r^{k_r}$ to $\pm f_{q_1}(x)^{k_1}\dots f_{q_r}(x)^{k_r}$. To make this homomorphism injective, choose the $f_q$'s a little carefully; for example, choose distinct, irreducible polynomials for distinct primes $q$.

share|improve this answer
This looks very close to what I may want. Are there any such things such as "near multiplicative homomorphisms"? –  Turbo Jan 22 '13 at 22:46
Ah, I see what he meant. In fancy language: We're looking for injective semi-group homomorphisms from $(\mathbb{Z},\cdot)$ to $(\mathbb{F}[x], \cdot)$. In fact it seems that every injective semi-group-homomorphism maps prime numbers to polynomials that are relativly prime to every other image of a prime number. –  Curufin Jan 22 '13 at 23:00
Are thee any other non-trivial homomorphisms? –  Turbo Jan 22 '13 at 23:11
Any multiplicative homomorphism is determined by where it sends the primes and where it sends $-1$, because every integer is a product of these. The examples in my answer (before I specialized to the injective case) are the ones that send $-1$ to $-1$. There are similar ones sending $-1$ to $1$; just delete the $\pm$ from the output (but not the input) in my examples. The only other option is to send $-1$ to $0$ but then, by multiplicativity, everything has to map to $0$ –  Andreas Blass Jan 22 '13 at 23:23
"Any multiplicative homomorphism is determined by where it sends the primes" Is there a proof for this? I mean would all multiplicative homomorphisms have to arise by fixing primes to polynomials? –  Turbo Jan 23 '13 at 1:33

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.