# Is inversion ever a field automorphism? [closed]

Is the function sending every element of a field to its multiplicative inverse (and 0 to 0) ever a field automorphism?

## closed as off-topic by Travis, GoodDeeds, Gabriel Romon, Kamil Jarosz, Bobson DugnuttMar 2 '16 at 22:43

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Travis, GoodDeeds, Gabriel Romon, Kamil Jarosz, Bobson Dugnutt
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Did you try to see what would happen if it was? – Tobias Kildetoft Mar 2 '16 at 14:13
• Maybe you should first try to show that a field $F$ for which the inversion is a field automorphism must be of characteristic $3$ or $2$ (Hint : for any field $F$ and any automorphism of $F$, the automorphism must be the identity on the primitive field). – Clément Guérin Mar 2 '16 at 14:21

For $F_2$ and $F_3$ inversion is an automorphism, since it is the identity morphism. I'll prove that the field characteristic has to be $2$ or $3$ for iversion to be an automorphism.

Suppose that $\phi(x)={1 \over x}$ is an automophism. It means that

$$\frac{1}{x+y}=\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{y}$$ $$\frac{1}{xy}=\frac{1}{x}\frac{1}{y}$$

The first equation is an interesting one.

Suppose that the field has characteristic other than $2$, and pick $x \neq 0$.

$$\frac{1}{2x}=\frac{1}{x+x}=\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{x}=\frac{2}{x}$$ Multiplying by $x$ we arrive at $4=1$, or, equivalently, $3=0$, so the characteristic has to be $3$.

So, the field characteristic has to be $2$ or $3$.

• Alright, thanks for the necessary condition. Do you know if it's a sufficient one? – Vik78 Mar 2 '16 at 14:33
• Vik... can you check the field with 4 elements and see if that works? – GEdgar Mar 2 '16 at 14:34
• I like the word "iversion" (an i-version by Apple) :) it is a typo, of course. – Dietrich Burde Mar 2 '16 at 19:06

Proposition. Inversion is an automorphism of a field $F$ if and and only if $F$ is one of $\mathbb F_2$, $\mathbb F_3$, or $\mathbb F_4$.

Proof: Let $F$ be a field and suppose that inversion is a field automorphism of $F$. If $x \in F \setminus \{0,1\}$, then $x$ and $1-x$ are both invertible, and hence, by our assumption, $$1=1^{-1}=(x+(1-x))^{-1}=x^{-1} + (1-x)^{-1}.$$ Multiplying out, it follows that $x(1-x)=(1-x) + x=1$, and hence $$x^2-x+1=0.$$ Since a quadratic polynomial over a field has at most two roots, this means that there are at most two possibilities for $x$. Hence $F$ has at most $4$ elements.

If $F=\mathbb F_2$ or $F=\mathbb F_3$, then inversion is the identity map, and hence an automorphism. If $F=\mathbb F_4$, there is only one non-trivial field automorphism $\varphi$, namely the one which satisfies $\varphi(x)=x^2$. We know that multiplicative group $\mathbb F_4^\times$ is cyclic of order $3$. The field automorphism $\varphi$, when restricted to $\mathbb F_4^\times$, induces an automorphism of the multiplicative group $\mathbb F_4^\times$, which must also be non-trivial. However, the only non-trivial automorphism of a cyclic group of order $3$ is inversion. Hence $\varphi$ is the inversion automorphism. (Of course, one can also check this directly for $\mathbb F_4$, if one is more comfortable doing the explicit calculation.)