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.

let $F$ be a field. for which ring $R$, $F$ is an $R$-module. i know already that as an abelian group $F$ is a $\mathbb Z$- module, what else can we say for a general field $F$.

share|improve this question
    
Small comment: note that this question is equivalent to the question: for which rings $R$ there is an homomorphism $R \to F$. –  the L Jun 7 '11 at 10:07
2  
$R$ can be any subring of $F$. –  wxu Jun 7 '11 at 10:11
    
@anonymous: why there is such equivalence –  palio Jun 7 '11 at 11:18
    
actually there is no. My mistake. Such homomorphisms will give you all possible structures of $F$ as an $R$-algebra, but I see you want less. –  the L Jun 7 '11 at 11:38

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I'm afraid there isn't an awful lot we can say in general. The way the question was posed, the field multiplication is not tied to the $R$-module action at all. Therefore any kind of a module action on the additive group will work. For example, if $F=\mathbf{Q}(i,\sqrt{5})$, then additively $F$ is isomorphic to the Cartesian power $\mathbf{Q}^4$, and therefore $F$ can be viewed as a module over any ring that has a 4-dimensional rational representation, e.g. the ring of rational Hamiltonian quaternions. Similarly $F$ can be turned into a $\mathbf{Q}[G]$-module for a group $G$ that is isomorphic to any $\mathbf{Q}[G]$-module $V$ with $\dim_{\mathbf{Q}}V=4$ simply by defining the module action in such a way that a linear isomorphism between $V$ and $F$ becomes a module isomorphism.

The characteristic of the field will place some restrictions. If $F$ has characteristic zero, then it has no additive torsion, and the ring $R$ cannot have any torsion either. If $F$ has characteristic $p$, then the additive order of $1_R$ must be either infinite or a multiple of $p$. In other words $F$ will always be either a $\mathbf{Q}$-module (when $char F=0$) or a $\mathbf{Z}/p\mathbf{Z}$-module (when $char F=p$).

Similarly, as you have seen in a field theory course, $F$ is always a module over any of its subfields.

The question would become quite a bit more interesting, if you tie the $R$-action to the $F$-multiplication. A natural way of doing that would be to insist that for all $x\in F$ the mapping $\rho_x:F\rightarrow F, a\mapsto ax$ would also be a homomorphism of $R$-modules. IOW, $F$ would be what is known as a $(R,F)$-bimodule. This places more severe constraints on the ring $R$.

But before we attempt anything like that I ask you to comment. Is this anything like what you expect? I am uncertain as to exactly what you want to learn? I understood the question to mean that given a field $F$, what kind of rings $R$ act on it in a way that turn the additive group $(F,+)$ into an $R$-module. If you wanted to ask something else, please be more specific :-)

share|improve this answer
    
thanks jykri. my question is that given a field $F$ what are the most known ways to turn $F$ into module for example i know that it is a $\mathbb Z$-module as an abelian group and also an $F$-module... is there other known ways? –  palio Jun 7 '11 at 17:28
1  
@palio: I listed a few such ways. Most of the ones that I can think of right away depend on our ability to view $F$ as a vector space over any of its subfields, and it is not difficult to define module actions on a more or less arbitrary vector space. To add one more to the list: We can view $F$ an $F[x]$ module by letting $x$ act as multiplication by a constant $\lambda\in F$. This gives a module action in which a polynomial $p(x)\in F[x]$ acts a multiplication by the constant $p(\lambda)$. –  Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 7 '11 at 17:47
1  
I agree with your interpretation as asking for which R can (F,+) be an R-module. I think though one can give a succinct characterization of such rings: those with a ring homomorphism into the endomorphism ring of the additive group of F. This is tautological, so probably useless. Anonymous's interpretation as looking for R in which F is an R-algebra is also reasonable (R with a homomorphism into F). Your bimodule interpretation may be a nice middle ground. –  Jack Schmidt Jun 7 '11 at 18:43

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.