wu :: forums
« wu :: forums - Fertile fields »

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Mar 28th, 2024, 3:49am

RIDDLES SITE WRITE MATH! Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
   wu :: forums
   riddles
   putnam exam (pure math)
(Moderators: SMQ, Icarus, william wu, Grimbal, Eigenray, towr)
   Fertile fields
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Fertile fields  (Read 1039 times)
TimMann
Senior Riddler
****






   
WWW

Gender: male
Posts: 330
Fertile fields  
« on: Nov 8th, 2003, 12:08am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Is there a field whose additive group is isomorphic to its multiplicative group?
 
I don't know the answer to this one. I found it in a sheaf of papers in my files. The person who gave it to me had written down a purported example of such a field, and this same example was the first thing that came to mind for me too, but it's wrong. I'll give this incorrect try as a sort of hint, if necessary, after folks have had time to think about the problem.
« Last Edit: Nov 8th, 2003, 12:08am by TimMann » IP Logged

http://tim-mann.org/
Eigenray
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 1948
Re: Fertile fields  
« Reply #1 on: Nov 8th, 2003, 5:49am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

This problem was address in this thread.
Essentially it comes down to looking at elements of order 2.
IP Logged
TimMann
Senior Riddler
****






   
WWW

Gender: male
Posts: 330
Re: Fertile fields  
« Reply #2 on: Nov 8th, 2003, 9:47am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Thanks -- I should have searched before posting. I think your proof in that thread could be condensed a bit, but it looks right.
 
The wrong example that someone had scrawled was "reals, logarithms." But that's wrong, because negative numbers don't have logarithms over the reals. It does establish an isomorphism between the additive group and a subgroup of the multiplicative group (namely the positive reals under multiplication), but that's not what was requested.
 
I'd gotten as far as showing that it can't work for finite fields, and that it can't work for the reals because of -1, but not as far as generalizing that to all fields.
IP Logged

http://tim-mann.org/
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board