0
$\begingroup$

Let $F=(F,+,.)$ be a field, then $F$ must satisfy all field axioms, namely both $+$ and $.$ are associative, commutative, invertible, and unital, also $.$ is distributive over $+$.

Let $A$ be a one-dimensional vector space of $F$ where both addition and multiplication are defined. Call $A$ an one-dimensional $F$ algebra.

How many such algebras are there up to isomorphisms?

Clearly $F$ is a one-dimensional algebra over itself, but that is the only one I can come up with.

I guess I have to clarify something. An algebra $A$ of $F$ is a vector space over the field $F$ where multiplication is defined. For example, $\mathbb{C}$ is an algebra of $\mathbb{R}$, since $\mathbb{C}$ is a 2-dimensional vector space of $\mathbb{R}$ AND multiplication is defined as $(x_1,y_1).(x_2,y_2) = (x_1x_2-y_1y_2,x_1y_2+x_2y_1)$.

So the question really is, how many possible ways up to isomorphism are there to define multiplication in $F$.

Let me add that the algebra does not have to be unital.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well, a homomorphism of $F$ algebras is $F$ linear by definition, so trivially that is the only one. It sounds a little bit like you might not be assuming $F$ linearity though, just a ring homomophism between the two. Please clarify. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Jun 30 '17 at 2:19
  • $\begingroup$ If $A$ contains $F$ as a subalgebra and $A$ is one-dimensional, then $A=F$. $\endgroup$ – arctic tern Jun 30 '17 at 2:23
  • $\begingroup$ Could it be the case that $A$ is a subset of $F$? $\endgroup$ – Sid Caroline Jun 30 '17 at 2:24
  • $\begingroup$ @SidCaroline Up to isomorphism, vector spaces are uniquely determined by their dimension, i.e. if $V$ is a 1-dimensional $F$-vector space, then $V\cong F$, where we consider $F$ as a 1-dimensional vector space over itself. $\endgroup$ – Nephry Jun 30 '17 at 10:46
2
$\begingroup$

An algebra $A$ over a commutative ring $R$ is a ring equipped with a ring homomorphism $\varphi\colon R\to A$ such that the image of $\varphi$ is contained in the center of $A$.

Clearly, this defines a structure of $R$-module on $A$.

If $R=F$ is a field, then $\varphi$ is necessarily injective, so $F$ embeds in $A$. If $A$ is one-dimensional vector space over $F$ (that is, $F$-module), then $\varphi$ is surjective.

(Note: all rings are supposed to have an identity and the ring homomorphisms to be unital.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I have two questions: 1. why it it the case that "this clearly defines a structure of $R$-module on $A$? 2. Why is $\phi$ necessarily injective if $R$ is a field? $\endgroup$ – Sid Caroline Jun 30 '17 at 23:31
  • $\begingroup$ @SidCaroline Define, for $r\in R$ and $a\in A$, $ra=\varphi(r)a$ (in the right-hand side multiplication in $A$ is used); just check the axioms are satisfied. A field $F$ has only $(0)$ and $F$ as ideals, so the kernel of $\varphi$ is $(0)$. $\endgroup$ – egreg Jun 30 '17 at 23:40

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.