I know there are finite fields like $\mathbb F_2$, $\mathbb F_4$ or the $\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z$ for prime $n$ with modulo operations. For other special $n$, I've seen fields $\mathbb F_n$ with $n$ elements being constructed. And of course there are the usual infinite fields (take $\mathbb Q$ and so on).

So I wonder: Let $M$ be an arbitrary set that contains at least two elements. Can you always find operations $+ : M\times M \to M$ and $\cdot : M \times M \to M$, such that $(M, +, \cdot)$ is a field?

  • 14
    $\begingroup$ The cardinality of finite field always must be a power of prime number. Thus, for example, you can not build a field of 20 elements. $\endgroup$ – Norbert Jan 12 '12 at 12:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To complete Norbert's comment : You can see from this Wikipedia page : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_field that a finite fields exists if and only its cardinal is a power of a prime number. $\endgroup$ – Student Jan 12 '12 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/868399 $\endgroup$ – Watson Aug 22 '16 at 13:14

As the comments remarks, for finite sets this is impossible unless $|M|=p^k$ for some prime number $p$ and $k>0$. This is because the characteristic of the field must divide the number of elements in the field.

If $M$ is infinite, however, this is possible:

If $M$ is infinite, then the $\mathbb Q(M)$, which is the field of rational functions whose variables are the elements of $M$, is equinumerous with $M$ (to see that, note that this is the fraction field of polynomials and there are $\max\{|M|,\aleph_0\}=|M|$ many of those, therefore the field is of the same cardinality).

Therefore there is $f:M\to\mathbb Q(M)$ which is a bijection, and we can use it to define the operations: $m_1\cdot m_2 = f^{-1}(f(m_1)\cdot f(m_2))$ and similarly with addition.

Do note that this requires heavily the axiom of choice, since the assertion that $M$ has a structure of a group is already equivalent to the axiom of choice - so requiring it to be a ring or a field is to require "more".


No. If $M$ is finite, there is always at least one ring structure on $M$; if the cardinality of $M$ is $n$, then put the elements of $M$ in one-to-one correspondence with the elements of the ring $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$; and let the operations $+$ and $\times$ be those induced on $M$ by the correspondence. However, unless $n$ is a power of a prime, there is no field structure on $M$.

The problem is that if $M$ is finite and its order is not a power of a prime, any ring structure on $M$ will contain zero divisors i.e. nonzero elements $a,b$ such that $ab=0$. These elements cannot possibly have inverses; e.g. if $a$ had an inverse, we could multiply $ab=0$ by $a^{-1}$ to obtain $b=0$ but $b$ was presumed nonzero. But in a field, all nonzero elements have inverses.

The reason that $M$ must contain zero divisors if $n$ is not a power of a prime is as follows:

Let $M$ be an arbitrary ring of order $n$. There is a unique homomorphism of $\mathbb{Z}$ into any ring. If $\bar{1}$ is the multiplicative identity of the ring, the homomorphism is defined by sending $1\mapsto\bar{1}$, $2\mapsto \bar{1}+\bar{1}$, etc. The image of this homomorphism is a subring $S\subset M$. Let $h$ be the order of $S$. Then $S$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}/h\mathbb{Z}$, because it is (by the first isomorphism theorem) isomorphic to a quotient of $\mathbb{Z}$, and it is order $h$.

Now if $h$ is composite, then $\mathbb{Z}/h\mathbb{Z}$ contains zero divisors: if $h=ab$ is a nontrivial factorization, then the residues of $a,b$ mod $h$ satisfy $\bar{a}\bar{b}=0$ in $\mathbb{Z}/h\mathbb{Z}$. So if $M$ is a field, $h$ has to be prime. Then $S\cong \mathbb{Z}/h\mathbb{Z}$ is a subfield of $M$.

Now we know if $M$ is a field of finite order $n$, it has a subfield $S$ with a prime number of elements. Then $M$ is actually a vector space over $S$. It is a finite dimensional vector space because it only has a finite number of elements. Say it is dimension $m$. Then it is isomorphic as a vector space to $S^m$ for some finite number $m$. (This is not a field isomorphism because $S^m$ is not a field.) But the order of $S^m$ is $h^m$, so this is the order of $M$. We saw that $h$ must be prime for $M$ to be a field, otherwise $S$ contains zero divisors, so this proves that the order of $M$ must be a power of a prime.

This answers the question, but I made a slightly stronger claim: if $n$ is not a power of a prime, then any ring structure on $M$ contains zero divisors. I have shown that if $S$, the homomorphic image of $\mathbb{Z}$, is not of prime order, then $S$ and therefore $M$ contains zero divisors, and that if $M$ happens to be a field, then the order of $M$ is a power of that of $S$. The stronger claim rests on the observation that it is not possible for a ring structure on a finite set $M$ to avoid having zero divisors without turning it into a field.

Here is one way to prove this: if $M$ is a finite ring and no element of $M$ is a zero divisor, then let $a$ be any nonzero element of $M$. Two elements of the form $ba$ and $ca$ cannot be equal unless $b=c$, because if they were we'd have $(b-c)a=ba-ca=0$, but we said there were no zero divisors and $a$ is nonzero, so we conclude $b-c=0$ i.e. $b=c$. To summarize, if $ba=ca$ then $b=c$. This means multiplication of the elements of $M$ by $a$ is an injective function on $M$. Because $M$ is finite, this implies it is bijective and in particular surjective. So there is some element that when multiplied by $a$ yields $1$. This means $a$ is invertible in $M$. Since the argument applies to any nonzero $a$, this shows that every nonzero element of the ring $M$ is invertible; i.e. $M$ is a field.

To summarize the results: if $M$ is a finite ring and has no zero divisors, then it is a field, which means the homomorphic image of $\mathbb{Z}$ in $M$ (which we called $S$) has prime order ($h$), and $M$ is a finite-dimensional vector space over this subfield, so its order is a power of a prime. So if $M$ is not a power of a prime, any ring structure on $M$ must have zero divisors.


In the case of infinite sets $M$, this property implies the axiom of choice. Indeed, this mathoverflow answer shows that even the assertion that every set admits a group structure already implies the axiom of choice.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $$\huge\stackrel{\small\wedge\wedge}{\smile}$$ $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 12 '12 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ Roughly the time it takes Usain Bolt to run those sprints... ;-) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 12 '12 at 13:24
  • $\begingroup$ I should have hit enter before running, instead of after. $\endgroup$ – JDH Jan 12 '12 at 13:35

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.