I'm still stuck on the proof of the following theorem. I've asked two questions so far to get to where I am even at this point.

Theorem: Let $p$ be a prime and let $n\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$. If $E$ and $E'$ are fields of order $p^{n}$, then $E\cong E'$.

Proof: Both $E$ And $E'$ have $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ as prime fields (up to isomorphism). By Corollary 33.6, $E$ is a simple extension of $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ of degree $n$, so there exists an irreducible polynomial $f(x)$ in $\mathbb{Z}_{p}[x]$ such that $$E\cong \mathbb{Z}_{p}[x] / \langle f(x)\rangle$$

The next line stumps me again. "Since the elements of $E$ and $E'$ are exactly the roots of $x^{p^{n}} - x$, $f(x)$ is a factor of $x^{p^{n}} - x$ in $\mathbb{Z}_{p}[x]$."

The rest of the proof:

"Because $E'$ also consists of zeros of $x^{p^{n}} - x$, we see that $E'$ also contains zeros of the irreducible $f(x)$ in $\mathbb{Z}_{p}[x]$. Thus because $E'$ also contains $p^{n}$ elements, $E'$ is also isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_{p}[x] / \langle f(x)\rangle$."

It follows from work already done that elements of $E$ and $E'$ are zeros of $x^{p^{n}} - x$. But I don't follow how we get $f(x)$ as a factor of $x^{p^{n}} - x$ from this. This is actually what prompted my Question about algebraic field extensions as I thought that might be relevant; but it turns out not to be the reason.

Thanks very much for any help you can give.

  • $\begingroup$ I would say that "prime-power fields" is not a very good terminology, the term "finite fields" is more appropriate in my opinion (note that a field is finite iff it has number of elements that is a power of a prime) $\endgroup$ – Belgi Aug 4 '12 at 20:13

Are you missing the following bits?

  1. The polynomial $f(x)\in \mathbb{Z}_p[x]$ of degree $n$ has a root in the field $E$. Because the field extension $E/\mathbb{Z}_p$ is Galois, and $f(x)$ is irreducible, all the roots of $f(x)$ are distinct and in $E$. So $$ f(x)=(x-a_1)(x-a_2)\cdots (x-a_n) $$ for some elements $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\in E$.
  2. The elements of $E$ are exactly the zeros of the polynomial $p(x)=x^{p^n}-x$. In other words $$ p(x)=\prod_{a\in E}(x-a). $$

The troubling claim follows from this. The zeros $a_i,i=1,2,\ldots,n,$ are among the zeros of $p(x)$, so $f(x)\mid p(x)$.

In particular, the polynomial $f(x)$ also has $n$ zeros in $E'$, because $p(x)$ has $p^n$ roots there, and the roots of $f(x)$ are among those.

Edit: Proving my first claim. This depends heavily on the properties of the so called Frobenius homomorhpism $F:E\to E, x\mapsto x^p$. This is a homomorphism, because obviously $F(1)=1$ and $F(xy)=(xy)^p=x^py^p=F(x)F(y)$ for all $x,y\in E$. Less obvious is that $F$ respects addition as well, i.e. $$ F(x+y)=(x+y)^p=x^p+y^p=F(x)+F(y) $$ for all $x,y\in E$. This follows from the binomial formula together with the observation that the binomial coefficients ${p\choose i}$ are all divisible by $p$, when $1\le i\le p-1$.

From little Fermat it follows that $F(x)=x^p=x$ for all the elements $x$ of the subfield $\mathbb{Z}_p$. We need to also make the observation that $x^p=x$ only when $x\in\mathbb{Z}_p$. This is because the polynomial equation $x^p-x=0$ can have at most $p$ solutions in the field $E$, and we already found $p$ solutions.

So we assume that $f(x)=x^n+f_{n-1}x^{n-1}+f_{n-2}x^{n-2}+\cdots+f_1x+f_0\in \mathbb{Z}_p[x]$ is irreducible, and has a root $a_1$ in $E$ (=the coset of $x$ in $\mathbb{Z}_p[x]/\langle f(x)\rangle$). In other words $a_1\notin\mathbb{Z}_p$ and $$ a_1^n+f_{n-1}a_1^{n-1}+\cdots f_1a_1+f_0=0. $$ Let's apply the mapping $F$ to this equation. Remember that $F(f_i)=f_i$ for all $i$. We get $$ a_1^{pn}+f_{n-1}a_1^{p(n-1)}+\cdots f_1a_1^p+f_0=0, $$ or, upon inspection, $f(a_1^p)=0$. Because $a_1\notin\mathbb{Z}_p$, $a_1^p\neq a_1$. Therefore we have found another zero $a_2=a_1^p$ of $f(x)$ in $E$.

We can repeat the argument and keep finding roots of $f(x)$: $a_3=a_2^p$, $a_4=a_3^p$ et cetera. Because $f(x)$ can have at most $n$ roots in $E$, this sequence of roots will have to start repeating at some point. Because $F$ is injective (its kernel is trivial), the repetition must start from $a_1$, in other words $a_1=a_1^{p^k}$ for some $k, 2\le k\le n$.

The polynomial $$ g(x)=(x-a_1)(x-a_1^p)\cdots (x-a_1^{p^{k-1}}) $$ is stable under $F$, so its coefficients are in $\mathbb{Z}_p$. Furthermore, $g(x)\mid f(x)$. But $f(x)$ was irreducible, so we must have $g(x)=f(x)$, and $k=n$. But all the roots of $g(x)$ are distinct and in $E$ by construction. Therefore the same holds for $f(x)=g(x)$.

  • $\begingroup$ Part $1$ is novel to me. I'm not familiar with what it means to be Galois, but I suspect this may result in circular development since the point of the chapter was to prove (in the previous theorem) the existence of the finite field $GF(p^n)$ (which I believe is called the Galois Field?) for each prime $p$ and $n\geq 1$. Galois Theory is developed in a later section. Is there a more elementary way to verify that the roots of $f(x)$ are all contained within $E$? (It is clear now that this is what the problem reduces to.) $\endgroup$ – roo Aug 4 '12 at 16:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Kyle: Yes, there is another way, but it is essentially a way of doing Galois theory without calling it by that name. It will not be circular, though. Normally the uniqueness of a field of $p^n$ elements is presented as a consequence of the uniqueness of a splitting field of a polynomial ($p(x)$ in this case). If you want me to attempt to explain it, I can give it a try (in an hour or so, I need to do some sport next). $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 4 '12 at 17:15
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for being so generous with your time. I would appreciate that, and there is indeed no rush so please take your time. Just as a side note, splitting fields are also not defined until later in the book as well. Also, I've been a bit bothered by the fact that I feel like there is an easier argument (which probably doesn't work otherwise I'm sure the author would have used it instead). I will post it as an answer; perhaps you could point out my logic error if there is one? $\endgroup$ – roo Aug 4 '12 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Kyle: I added some background for item 1. Does this help? $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 4 '12 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ It definitely helps, thanks for the time you put into that. I will still have to spend more some time reading this carefully. Thanks again I really appreciate what you have done for me here. $\endgroup$ – roo Aug 5 '12 at 18:43

If $E$ is a finite field with $q=p^f$ elements, then we know that its multiplicative group is cyclic (of order $q-1$). Thus the elements of $E$ are exactly the roots of $X^q-X$ in a (fixed) algebraic closure of $\Bbb F_p$.

Note that the polynomial $X^q-X$ has distinct roots (also) in characteristic $p$.


Note: This answer may very well be incorrect, but I cannot yet see why. It looks messy only because I am insisting on being explicit about identifications as I am still uncomfortable with ignoring them at this point.

Since $E$ and $E'$ have $p^{n}$ elements, they are degree $n$ finite extensions of appropriate subfields which are isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_p$ (any other degree would yield a cardinality different from $p^{n}$).

Roughly speaking, they are isomorphic because they are both $n$ dimensional vector spaces over isomorphic scalar fields.

To make this more precise, I will take a typical element of $E$ and and by converting coefficients and basis elements (via given isomorphisms) I will map it to an appropriate element of $E'$.

Proof: $E$ and $E'$ are degree $n$ finite extensions of appropriate subfields which are isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_p$. Denote these subfields by $E_p$ and $E_p'$. Then letting $\phi:E_{p}\to \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ and $\phi':E_{p}'\to \mathbb{Z}_{p}$ be the respective isomorphisms.

Then let $B = \{b_1, ..., b_n\}\subset E$ and $B' = \{b_1', ..., b_n'\}\subset E'$ be $n$-element bases for $E$ as a vector space over $E_p$ and $E'$ as a vector space over $E_p'$, respectively.

For each $x\in E$, write $x = \sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}b_{i}$ for some choice of $a_{i}\in E_{p}$. Then define the map $f:E\to E'$ by $f(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}'b_{i}'$, where $a_{i}' = [\phi'^{-1}\circ \phi](a_{i})$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This explains why they are isomorphic as additive groups, but I think you need to be more careful with the choice of basis in order for products to commute with $f$. $\endgroup$ – Erick Wong Aug 4 '12 at 21:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not only being more careful with that: it is not true that two fields over the same field with the same dimension over that subfield are isomorphic as fields, as the simple example $\,\Bbb Q(\sqrt 2)\,\,,\,\Bbb Q(\sqrt 3)\,$ , both over $\,\Bbb Q\,$ , shows. $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Aug 5 '12 at 2:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.