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.

$1$ has to map to $1$, right? So $n$ has to map to $n$ (for $n \in \mathbb{Z}$), and $\frac{1}{n}$ maps to $\frac{1}{n}$, so $\frac{n}{m}$ maps to itself, so the only possible automorphism is the identity. Is this true or am I deceiving myself? Because I feel like there should definitely be more automorphisms of $\mathbb{Q}$.

Also, if you have some extension of $\mathbb{Q}$ (call it $E$), does every automorphism of $E$ automatically fix $\mathbb{Q}$?

share|improve this question
3  
Here's a much less intuitive fact: There is only one field automorphism of $\mathbb{R}$. (Although certainly there are subfields of $\mathbb{R}$ that have nontrivial automorphisms.) –  Charles Staats Apr 21 '11 at 3:15

2 Answers 2

up vote 17 down vote accepted

When one says "automorphisms", it is important to specify automorphisms of what. There are a lot of automorphisms of $\mathbb{Q}$ as an abelian group (equivalently, as a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space).

However, there is one and only one field automorphism (equivalently, one and only one ring automorphism). Indeed: If you are doing a ring automorphism, then $1$ must map to an idempotent (an element equal to its square); there are only two idempotents in $\mathbb{Q}$, $1$ and $0$; but if you map $1$ to $0$, then you map everything to $0$ and the map is not an automorphism. So $1$ must map to $1$ (you can skip this step if your definition of "homomorphism of rings" requires you to map $1$ to $1$).

Since $1$ maps to $1$, by induction you can show that for every natural number $n$, $n$ maps to $n$. Therefore, $-n$ must map to $-n$ (since the map sends additive inverses to additive inverses), and must sent $\frac{1}{n}$ to $\frac{1}{n}$ (because it maps $1 = n(\frac{1}{n})$ to $n$ times the image of $\frac{1}{n}$, and the only solution to $nx = 1$ in $\mathbb{Q}$ is $x=\frac{1}{n}$. And from here you get that any field automorphism of $\mathbb{Q}$ must be the identity.

As to your second question, yes: if $E$ is an extension of $\mathbb{Q}$, then any field automorphism of $E$ restricts to the identity automorphism of $\mathbb{Q}$. More generally, if $E$ is any field, then any automorphism of $E$ restricts to the identity of its prime field (which is $\mathbb{Q}$ in the case of characteristic 0, and $\mathbb{F}_p$ in the case of characteristic $p$).

share|improve this answer
    
Arturo: I am not sure I understand how ${\mathbb Q}$ is not rigid as a ${\mathbb Q}$-vector space. Perhaps you mean something different from what I have in mind... –  Andres Caicedo Apr 21 '11 at 3:25
1  
@Andres: The map $1\to 2$ defines a nonidentity linear automorphism from $\mathbb{Q}$ to itself (as a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space). Remember that if you specify where to send a basis, there is always an automorphism that does that; here, 1 is a basis for $\mathbb{Q}$. In general, a 1-dimensional vector space over $\mathbf{F}$ has automorphism group isomorphic to $\mathbb{F}^{\times}$. The map $x\mapsto \alpha x$ is linear ($\alpha(x+y) = \alpha x + \alpha y$; $\alpha(qx) = q(\alpha x)$). –  Arturo Magidin Apr 21 '11 at 3:28
    
@Andres: Correction: "there is always an automorphism" should be "there is always a linear map" –  Arturo Magidin Apr 21 '11 at 3:33
    
Arturo: Aha! Thanks. –  Andres Caicedo Apr 21 '11 at 4:46

It's true for both questions. $\mathbb Q$ is a prime field: everything is fixed for those.

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.