Existence of ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]$ to a finite field












5












$begingroup$



Does a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]$ to a finite field with characteristic $pequiv 3 bmod 4$ such that the unity is mapped onto the unity exist?




Thank for your help.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    5












    $begingroup$



    Does a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]$ to a finite field with characteristic $pequiv 3 bmod 4$ such that the unity is mapped onto the unity exist?




    Thank for your help.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      5












      5








      5


      1



      $begingroup$



      Does a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]$ to a finite field with characteristic $pequiv 3 bmod 4$ such that the unity is mapped onto the unity exist?




      Thank for your help.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$





      Does a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]$ to a finite field with characteristic $pequiv 3 bmod 4$ such that the unity is mapped onto the unity exist?




      Thank for your help.







      abstract-algebra number-theory ring-theory finite-fields ring-homomorphism






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 8 '18 at 22:13









      Batominovski

      33.1k33293




      33.1k33293










      asked Jun 20 '15 at 1:43









      kiwikiwi

      261




      261






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          Yes, there does exist such a homomorphism. Let $p$ be any prime congruent to $3$ mod $4$, and let $n$ be any even natural number. Then




          • the finite field $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$ has characteristic $p$

          • there is a root $alpha$ of the polynomial $x^2+1$ in $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$

          • since $p$ is odd, there exists a $frac{1}{2}inmathbb{F}_{p^n}$


          Then we can form the ring homomorphism $f:mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]tomathbb{F}_{p^n}$ defined by $f(1)=1$ and $f(frac{i}{2})=frac{alpha}{2}$.



          However, again with $pequiv 3bmod 4$, there is no homomorphism $f:mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]tomathbb{F}_{p^n}$ when $n$ is odd.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Nice answer....
            $endgroup$
            – Bhaskar Vashishth
            Jun 20 '15 at 8:46



















          6












          $begingroup$

          Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p$, where $p$ is a prime natural number. Write $R$ for the ring $mathbb{Z}left[frac{text{i}}{2}right]$. Suppose $varphi:Rto K$ is a ring homomorphism sending $1 in R$ to $1 in K$. Assume that $omega$ is the image of $u:=dfrac{text{i}}{2}$. Then, we have $$4omega^2=(2omega)^2=big(2varphi(u)big)^2=big(varphi(2u)big)^2=big(varphi(text{i})big)^2=varphileft(text{i}^2right)=varphi(-1)=-1,.$$ (For this to make sense, $p neq 2$.)



          If $pequiv 1pmod{4}$, then clearly $omega$ is in the prime field $mathbb{F}_p subseteq K$. Elements of $R$ take the form $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n}$, where $a,binmathbb{Z}$ and $n in mathbb{N}_0$. Hence, $varphi:Rto mathbb{F}_p$ sends $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n} in R$ to $dfrac{a+2bomega}{2^n} in mathbb{F}_p$. (Of course, there are two such $varphi$'s.)



          If $p equiv 3pmod{4}$, then $omega$ lies within a subfield $E$ of $K$ isomorphic to $$mathbb{F}_{p^2}congmathbb{F}_{p}[x]/leftlangle x^2+1rightranglecong mathbb{F}_p[text{i}],.$$ Consequently, for $varphi$ to exist, $K$ must have such a subfield $E$ (and therefore, in the case that $K$ is finite, we must have $|K|=p^{2t}$, or $Kcong mathbb{F}_{p^{2t}}$, for some $t in mathbb{N}$). As elements of $R$ take the form $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n}$, where $a,binmathbb{Z}$ and $n in mathbb{N}_0$, $varphi:Rto E$ sends $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n} in R$ to $dfrac{a+2bomega}{2^n} in E$. (Again, there are two such $varphi$'s for a given $E$ or $K$.)



          To answer your question, if $p equiv 3pmod{4}$, such a homomorphism exists if and only if the finite field in question is of order $p^{2t}$ for some $t in mathbb{N}$. If we omit the unitary homomorphism condition (i.e., $1in R$ does not have to be mapped to $1in K$), then we have one extra map for any prime $p$---the zero map.



          EDIT: I just want to add a little note on some discussion I had with a user regarding the comments below. To be clear, the term "ring homomorphisms" when rings involved may be nonunital will make no sense if we enforce the "unitary condition" (i.e., the multiplicative identity of one ring must be mapped to the multiplicative identity of another ring). Hence, a homomorphism between two unital rings doesn't have to have this unitary property, but it will be called "unitary" if it satisfies this unitary condition. It is not true that all homomorphisms between two unital rings must be unitary.



          Let $f:Rto S$ be a ring homomorphism of rings $R$ and $S$. Assume that the two rings are unital. It doesn't matter (to him) wheter $f$ sends $1_R$ to $1_S$. In his argument, let $g$ be the restriction of $f$ to its image (i.e., $g:Rto text{im}(f)$ is identical to $f$). There is no denial (from me) that $text{im}(f)$ is a unital ring and $g$ would be a unitary ring homomorphism. My point is, even that is so, it doesn't mean $f$ is also unitary. For better clarification, I provided an example of a homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$. While this homomorphism isn't unitary, its restriction to the image is.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Are you saying that the zero map is not a ring homomorphism? Very well, I guess that our definitions of ring homomorphisms differ. The definition I use encapsulates the possibility that the rings involved are nonunital (hence, even if two given rings are unital, a homomorphism between them need not send the multiplicative identity of one ring to the multiplicative identity of another ring). That is why I used the term "unitary homomorphisms."
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:42












          • $begingroup$
            For example, there is a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ sending $1 in mathbb{Z}$ to $3inmathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:49












          • $begingroup$
            I was not discussing the zero ring anywhere. It's you who suddenly brought this ring up out of nowhere. Suppose $R$ and $Sneq 0$ are unital rings and $phi:Rto S$ is the zero map. Yes, $text{im}(phi)$ is isomorphic as a ring to the zero ring, and therefore, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to the image ($0$) would be a unitary homomorphism, just like you claim. HOWEVER, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to $S$ is NOT a unitary homomorphism, because $phileft(1_Rright)=0_Sneq 1_S$. Categorically speaking, $phi:Rto S$ and $phi:Rto 0$ are not even the same morphism.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:59












          • $begingroup$
            Isn't that clear what the map $mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ is if I give you the image of $1$? The ring $mathbb{Z}$ is generated by $1$, so you should have been able to work that out on yourself. But since you asked, this map is given by $kmapsto 3k$.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 10:02












          • $begingroup$
            I was 100% wrong and I apologize for wasting your time. The question asked is only even meaningful under the correct interpretation of ring homomorphism as you have stated were the multiplicative identity is the codomain's and not the image's. Also this is not required either; in order for the question to again be meaningful. Well then.
            $endgroup$
            – marshal craft
            Jun 22 '15 at 20:09











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1332162%2fexistence-of-ring-homomorphism-from-mathbbz-fraci2-to-a-finite-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          6












          $begingroup$

          Yes, there does exist such a homomorphism. Let $p$ be any prime congruent to $3$ mod $4$, and let $n$ be any even natural number. Then




          • the finite field $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$ has characteristic $p$

          • there is a root $alpha$ of the polynomial $x^2+1$ in $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$

          • since $p$ is odd, there exists a $frac{1}{2}inmathbb{F}_{p^n}$


          Then we can form the ring homomorphism $f:mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]tomathbb{F}_{p^n}$ defined by $f(1)=1$ and $f(frac{i}{2})=frac{alpha}{2}$.



          However, again with $pequiv 3bmod 4$, there is no homomorphism $f:mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]tomathbb{F}_{p^n}$ when $n$ is odd.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Nice answer....
            $endgroup$
            – Bhaskar Vashishth
            Jun 20 '15 at 8:46
















          6












          $begingroup$

          Yes, there does exist such a homomorphism. Let $p$ be any prime congruent to $3$ mod $4$, and let $n$ be any even natural number. Then




          • the finite field $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$ has characteristic $p$

          • there is a root $alpha$ of the polynomial $x^2+1$ in $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$

          • since $p$ is odd, there exists a $frac{1}{2}inmathbb{F}_{p^n}$


          Then we can form the ring homomorphism $f:mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]tomathbb{F}_{p^n}$ defined by $f(1)=1$ and $f(frac{i}{2})=frac{alpha}{2}$.



          However, again with $pequiv 3bmod 4$, there is no homomorphism $f:mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]tomathbb{F}_{p^n}$ when $n$ is odd.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Nice answer....
            $endgroup$
            – Bhaskar Vashishth
            Jun 20 '15 at 8:46














          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          Yes, there does exist such a homomorphism. Let $p$ be any prime congruent to $3$ mod $4$, and let $n$ be any even natural number. Then




          • the finite field $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$ has characteristic $p$

          • there is a root $alpha$ of the polynomial $x^2+1$ in $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$

          • since $p$ is odd, there exists a $frac{1}{2}inmathbb{F}_{p^n}$


          Then we can form the ring homomorphism $f:mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]tomathbb{F}_{p^n}$ defined by $f(1)=1$ and $f(frac{i}{2})=frac{alpha}{2}$.



          However, again with $pequiv 3bmod 4$, there is no homomorphism $f:mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]tomathbb{F}_{p^n}$ when $n$ is odd.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Yes, there does exist such a homomorphism. Let $p$ be any prime congruent to $3$ mod $4$, and let $n$ be any even natural number. Then




          • the finite field $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$ has characteristic $p$

          • there is a root $alpha$ of the polynomial $x^2+1$ in $mathbb{F}_{p^n}$

          • since $p$ is odd, there exists a $frac{1}{2}inmathbb{F}_{p^n}$


          Then we can form the ring homomorphism $f:mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]tomathbb{F}_{p^n}$ defined by $f(1)=1$ and $f(frac{i}{2})=frac{alpha}{2}$.



          However, again with $pequiv 3bmod 4$, there is no homomorphism $f:mathbb{Z}[frac{i}{2}]tomathbb{F}_{p^n}$ when $n$ is odd.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jun 20 '15 at 2:05

























          answered Jun 20 '15 at 2:00









          Zev ChonolesZev Chonoles

          110k16228428




          110k16228428












          • $begingroup$
            Nice answer....
            $endgroup$
            – Bhaskar Vashishth
            Jun 20 '15 at 8:46


















          • $begingroup$
            Nice answer....
            $endgroup$
            – Bhaskar Vashishth
            Jun 20 '15 at 8:46
















          $begingroup$
          Nice answer....
          $endgroup$
          – Bhaskar Vashishth
          Jun 20 '15 at 8:46




          $begingroup$
          Nice answer....
          $endgroup$
          – Bhaskar Vashishth
          Jun 20 '15 at 8:46











          6












          $begingroup$

          Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p$, where $p$ is a prime natural number. Write $R$ for the ring $mathbb{Z}left[frac{text{i}}{2}right]$. Suppose $varphi:Rto K$ is a ring homomorphism sending $1 in R$ to $1 in K$. Assume that $omega$ is the image of $u:=dfrac{text{i}}{2}$. Then, we have $$4omega^2=(2omega)^2=big(2varphi(u)big)^2=big(varphi(2u)big)^2=big(varphi(text{i})big)^2=varphileft(text{i}^2right)=varphi(-1)=-1,.$$ (For this to make sense, $p neq 2$.)



          If $pequiv 1pmod{4}$, then clearly $omega$ is in the prime field $mathbb{F}_p subseteq K$. Elements of $R$ take the form $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n}$, where $a,binmathbb{Z}$ and $n in mathbb{N}_0$. Hence, $varphi:Rto mathbb{F}_p$ sends $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n} in R$ to $dfrac{a+2bomega}{2^n} in mathbb{F}_p$. (Of course, there are two such $varphi$'s.)



          If $p equiv 3pmod{4}$, then $omega$ lies within a subfield $E$ of $K$ isomorphic to $$mathbb{F}_{p^2}congmathbb{F}_{p}[x]/leftlangle x^2+1rightranglecong mathbb{F}_p[text{i}],.$$ Consequently, for $varphi$ to exist, $K$ must have such a subfield $E$ (and therefore, in the case that $K$ is finite, we must have $|K|=p^{2t}$, or $Kcong mathbb{F}_{p^{2t}}$, for some $t in mathbb{N}$). As elements of $R$ take the form $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n}$, where $a,binmathbb{Z}$ and $n in mathbb{N}_0$, $varphi:Rto E$ sends $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n} in R$ to $dfrac{a+2bomega}{2^n} in E$. (Again, there are two such $varphi$'s for a given $E$ or $K$.)



          To answer your question, if $p equiv 3pmod{4}$, such a homomorphism exists if and only if the finite field in question is of order $p^{2t}$ for some $t in mathbb{N}$. If we omit the unitary homomorphism condition (i.e., $1in R$ does not have to be mapped to $1in K$), then we have one extra map for any prime $p$---the zero map.



          EDIT: I just want to add a little note on some discussion I had with a user regarding the comments below. To be clear, the term "ring homomorphisms" when rings involved may be nonunital will make no sense if we enforce the "unitary condition" (i.e., the multiplicative identity of one ring must be mapped to the multiplicative identity of another ring). Hence, a homomorphism between two unital rings doesn't have to have this unitary property, but it will be called "unitary" if it satisfies this unitary condition. It is not true that all homomorphisms between two unital rings must be unitary.



          Let $f:Rto S$ be a ring homomorphism of rings $R$ and $S$. Assume that the two rings are unital. It doesn't matter (to him) wheter $f$ sends $1_R$ to $1_S$. In his argument, let $g$ be the restriction of $f$ to its image (i.e., $g:Rto text{im}(f)$ is identical to $f$). There is no denial (from me) that $text{im}(f)$ is a unital ring and $g$ would be a unitary ring homomorphism. My point is, even that is so, it doesn't mean $f$ is also unitary. For better clarification, I provided an example of a homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$. While this homomorphism isn't unitary, its restriction to the image is.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Are you saying that the zero map is not a ring homomorphism? Very well, I guess that our definitions of ring homomorphisms differ. The definition I use encapsulates the possibility that the rings involved are nonunital (hence, even if two given rings are unital, a homomorphism between them need not send the multiplicative identity of one ring to the multiplicative identity of another ring). That is why I used the term "unitary homomorphisms."
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:42












          • $begingroup$
            For example, there is a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ sending $1 in mathbb{Z}$ to $3inmathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:49












          • $begingroup$
            I was not discussing the zero ring anywhere. It's you who suddenly brought this ring up out of nowhere. Suppose $R$ and $Sneq 0$ are unital rings and $phi:Rto S$ is the zero map. Yes, $text{im}(phi)$ is isomorphic as a ring to the zero ring, and therefore, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to the image ($0$) would be a unitary homomorphism, just like you claim. HOWEVER, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to $S$ is NOT a unitary homomorphism, because $phileft(1_Rright)=0_Sneq 1_S$. Categorically speaking, $phi:Rto S$ and $phi:Rto 0$ are not even the same morphism.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:59












          • $begingroup$
            Isn't that clear what the map $mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ is if I give you the image of $1$? The ring $mathbb{Z}$ is generated by $1$, so you should have been able to work that out on yourself. But since you asked, this map is given by $kmapsto 3k$.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 10:02












          • $begingroup$
            I was 100% wrong and I apologize for wasting your time. The question asked is only even meaningful under the correct interpretation of ring homomorphism as you have stated were the multiplicative identity is the codomain's and not the image's. Also this is not required either; in order for the question to again be meaningful. Well then.
            $endgroup$
            – marshal craft
            Jun 22 '15 at 20:09
















          6












          $begingroup$

          Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p$, where $p$ is a prime natural number. Write $R$ for the ring $mathbb{Z}left[frac{text{i}}{2}right]$. Suppose $varphi:Rto K$ is a ring homomorphism sending $1 in R$ to $1 in K$. Assume that $omega$ is the image of $u:=dfrac{text{i}}{2}$. Then, we have $$4omega^2=(2omega)^2=big(2varphi(u)big)^2=big(varphi(2u)big)^2=big(varphi(text{i})big)^2=varphileft(text{i}^2right)=varphi(-1)=-1,.$$ (For this to make sense, $p neq 2$.)



          If $pequiv 1pmod{4}$, then clearly $omega$ is in the prime field $mathbb{F}_p subseteq K$. Elements of $R$ take the form $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n}$, where $a,binmathbb{Z}$ and $n in mathbb{N}_0$. Hence, $varphi:Rto mathbb{F}_p$ sends $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n} in R$ to $dfrac{a+2bomega}{2^n} in mathbb{F}_p$. (Of course, there are two such $varphi$'s.)



          If $p equiv 3pmod{4}$, then $omega$ lies within a subfield $E$ of $K$ isomorphic to $$mathbb{F}_{p^2}congmathbb{F}_{p}[x]/leftlangle x^2+1rightranglecong mathbb{F}_p[text{i}],.$$ Consequently, for $varphi$ to exist, $K$ must have such a subfield $E$ (and therefore, in the case that $K$ is finite, we must have $|K|=p^{2t}$, or $Kcong mathbb{F}_{p^{2t}}$, for some $t in mathbb{N}$). As elements of $R$ take the form $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n}$, where $a,binmathbb{Z}$ and $n in mathbb{N}_0$, $varphi:Rto E$ sends $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n} in R$ to $dfrac{a+2bomega}{2^n} in E$. (Again, there are two such $varphi$'s for a given $E$ or $K$.)



          To answer your question, if $p equiv 3pmod{4}$, such a homomorphism exists if and only if the finite field in question is of order $p^{2t}$ for some $t in mathbb{N}$. If we omit the unitary homomorphism condition (i.e., $1in R$ does not have to be mapped to $1in K$), then we have one extra map for any prime $p$---the zero map.



          EDIT: I just want to add a little note on some discussion I had with a user regarding the comments below. To be clear, the term "ring homomorphisms" when rings involved may be nonunital will make no sense if we enforce the "unitary condition" (i.e., the multiplicative identity of one ring must be mapped to the multiplicative identity of another ring). Hence, a homomorphism between two unital rings doesn't have to have this unitary property, but it will be called "unitary" if it satisfies this unitary condition. It is not true that all homomorphisms between two unital rings must be unitary.



          Let $f:Rto S$ be a ring homomorphism of rings $R$ and $S$. Assume that the two rings are unital. It doesn't matter (to him) wheter $f$ sends $1_R$ to $1_S$. In his argument, let $g$ be the restriction of $f$ to its image (i.e., $g:Rto text{im}(f)$ is identical to $f$). There is no denial (from me) that $text{im}(f)$ is a unital ring and $g$ would be a unitary ring homomorphism. My point is, even that is so, it doesn't mean $f$ is also unitary. For better clarification, I provided an example of a homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$. While this homomorphism isn't unitary, its restriction to the image is.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Are you saying that the zero map is not a ring homomorphism? Very well, I guess that our definitions of ring homomorphisms differ. The definition I use encapsulates the possibility that the rings involved are nonunital (hence, even if two given rings are unital, a homomorphism between them need not send the multiplicative identity of one ring to the multiplicative identity of another ring). That is why I used the term "unitary homomorphisms."
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:42












          • $begingroup$
            For example, there is a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ sending $1 in mathbb{Z}$ to $3inmathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:49












          • $begingroup$
            I was not discussing the zero ring anywhere. It's you who suddenly brought this ring up out of nowhere. Suppose $R$ and $Sneq 0$ are unital rings and $phi:Rto S$ is the zero map. Yes, $text{im}(phi)$ is isomorphic as a ring to the zero ring, and therefore, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to the image ($0$) would be a unitary homomorphism, just like you claim. HOWEVER, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to $S$ is NOT a unitary homomorphism, because $phileft(1_Rright)=0_Sneq 1_S$. Categorically speaking, $phi:Rto S$ and $phi:Rto 0$ are not even the same morphism.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:59












          • $begingroup$
            Isn't that clear what the map $mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ is if I give you the image of $1$? The ring $mathbb{Z}$ is generated by $1$, so you should have been able to work that out on yourself. But since you asked, this map is given by $kmapsto 3k$.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 10:02












          • $begingroup$
            I was 100% wrong and I apologize for wasting your time. The question asked is only even meaningful under the correct interpretation of ring homomorphism as you have stated were the multiplicative identity is the codomain's and not the image's. Also this is not required either; in order for the question to again be meaningful. Well then.
            $endgroup$
            – marshal craft
            Jun 22 '15 at 20:09














          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p$, where $p$ is a prime natural number. Write $R$ for the ring $mathbb{Z}left[frac{text{i}}{2}right]$. Suppose $varphi:Rto K$ is a ring homomorphism sending $1 in R$ to $1 in K$. Assume that $omega$ is the image of $u:=dfrac{text{i}}{2}$. Then, we have $$4omega^2=(2omega)^2=big(2varphi(u)big)^2=big(varphi(2u)big)^2=big(varphi(text{i})big)^2=varphileft(text{i}^2right)=varphi(-1)=-1,.$$ (For this to make sense, $p neq 2$.)



          If $pequiv 1pmod{4}$, then clearly $omega$ is in the prime field $mathbb{F}_p subseteq K$. Elements of $R$ take the form $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n}$, where $a,binmathbb{Z}$ and $n in mathbb{N}_0$. Hence, $varphi:Rto mathbb{F}_p$ sends $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n} in R$ to $dfrac{a+2bomega}{2^n} in mathbb{F}_p$. (Of course, there are two such $varphi$'s.)



          If $p equiv 3pmod{4}$, then $omega$ lies within a subfield $E$ of $K$ isomorphic to $$mathbb{F}_{p^2}congmathbb{F}_{p}[x]/leftlangle x^2+1rightranglecong mathbb{F}_p[text{i}],.$$ Consequently, for $varphi$ to exist, $K$ must have such a subfield $E$ (and therefore, in the case that $K$ is finite, we must have $|K|=p^{2t}$, or $Kcong mathbb{F}_{p^{2t}}$, for some $t in mathbb{N}$). As elements of $R$ take the form $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n}$, where $a,binmathbb{Z}$ and $n in mathbb{N}_0$, $varphi:Rto E$ sends $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n} in R$ to $dfrac{a+2bomega}{2^n} in E$. (Again, there are two such $varphi$'s for a given $E$ or $K$.)



          To answer your question, if $p equiv 3pmod{4}$, such a homomorphism exists if and only if the finite field in question is of order $p^{2t}$ for some $t in mathbb{N}$. If we omit the unitary homomorphism condition (i.e., $1in R$ does not have to be mapped to $1in K$), then we have one extra map for any prime $p$---the zero map.



          EDIT: I just want to add a little note on some discussion I had with a user regarding the comments below. To be clear, the term "ring homomorphisms" when rings involved may be nonunital will make no sense if we enforce the "unitary condition" (i.e., the multiplicative identity of one ring must be mapped to the multiplicative identity of another ring). Hence, a homomorphism between two unital rings doesn't have to have this unitary property, but it will be called "unitary" if it satisfies this unitary condition. It is not true that all homomorphisms between two unital rings must be unitary.



          Let $f:Rto S$ be a ring homomorphism of rings $R$ and $S$. Assume that the two rings are unital. It doesn't matter (to him) wheter $f$ sends $1_R$ to $1_S$. In his argument, let $g$ be the restriction of $f$ to its image (i.e., $g:Rto text{im}(f)$ is identical to $f$). There is no denial (from me) that $text{im}(f)$ is a unital ring and $g$ would be a unitary ring homomorphism. My point is, even that is so, it doesn't mean $f$ is also unitary. For better clarification, I provided an example of a homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$. While this homomorphism isn't unitary, its restriction to the image is.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p$, where $p$ is a prime natural number. Write $R$ for the ring $mathbb{Z}left[frac{text{i}}{2}right]$. Suppose $varphi:Rto K$ is a ring homomorphism sending $1 in R$ to $1 in K$. Assume that $omega$ is the image of $u:=dfrac{text{i}}{2}$. Then, we have $$4omega^2=(2omega)^2=big(2varphi(u)big)^2=big(varphi(2u)big)^2=big(varphi(text{i})big)^2=varphileft(text{i}^2right)=varphi(-1)=-1,.$$ (For this to make sense, $p neq 2$.)



          If $pequiv 1pmod{4}$, then clearly $omega$ is in the prime field $mathbb{F}_p subseteq K$. Elements of $R$ take the form $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n}$, where $a,binmathbb{Z}$ and $n in mathbb{N}_0$. Hence, $varphi:Rto mathbb{F}_p$ sends $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n} in R$ to $dfrac{a+2bomega}{2^n} in mathbb{F}_p$. (Of course, there are two such $varphi$'s.)



          If $p equiv 3pmod{4}$, then $omega$ lies within a subfield $E$ of $K$ isomorphic to $$mathbb{F}_{p^2}congmathbb{F}_{p}[x]/leftlangle x^2+1rightranglecong mathbb{F}_p[text{i}],.$$ Consequently, for $varphi$ to exist, $K$ must have such a subfield $E$ (and therefore, in the case that $K$ is finite, we must have $|K|=p^{2t}$, or $Kcong mathbb{F}_{p^{2t}}$, for some $t in mathbb{N}$). As elements of $R$ take the form $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n}$, where $a,binmathbb{Z}$ and $n in mathbb{N}_0$, $varphi:Rto E$ sends $dfrac{a+btext{i}}{2^n} in R$ to $dfrac{a+2bomega}{2^n} in E$. (Again, there are two such $varphi$'s for a given $E$ or $K$.)



          To answer your question, if $p equiv 3pmod{4}$, such a homomorphism exists if and only if the finite field in question is of order $p^{2t}$ for some $t in mathbb{N}$. If we omit the unitary homomorphism condition (i.e., $1in R$ does not have to be mapped to $1in K$), then we have one extra map for any prime $p$---the zero map.



          EDIT: I just want to add a little note on some discussion I had with a user regarding the comments below. To be clear, the term "ring homomorphisms" when rings involved may be nonunital will make no sense if we enforce the "unitary condition" (i.e., the multiplicative identity of one ring must be mapped to the multiplicative identity of another ring). Hence, a homomorphism between two unital rings doesn't have to have this unitary property, but it will be called "unitary" if it satisfies this unitary condition. It is not true that all homomorphisms between two unital rings must be unitary.



          Let $f:Rto S$ be a ring homomorphism of rings $R$ and $S$. Assume that the two rings are unital. It doesn't matter (to him) wheter $f$ sends $1_R$ to $1_S$. In his argument, let $g$ be the restriction of $f$ to its image (i.e., $g:Rto text{im}(f)$ is identical to $f$). There is no denial (from me) that $text{im}(f)$ is a unital ring and $g$ would be a unitary ring homomorphism. My point is, even that is so, it doesn't mean $f$ is also unitary. For better clarification, I provided an example of a homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$. While this homomorphism isn't unitary, its restriction to the image is.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 8 '18 at 22:13

























          answered Jun 20 '15 at 2:42









          BatominovskiBatominovski

          33.1k33293




          33.1k33293












          • $begingroup$
            Are you saying that the zero map is not a ring homomorphism? Very well, I guess that our definitions of ring homomorphisms differ. The definition I use encapsulates the possibility that the rings involved are nonunital (hence, even if two given rings are unital, a homomorphism between them need not send the multiplicative identity of one ring to the multiplicative identity of another ring). That is why I used the term "unitary homomorphisms."
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:42












          • $begingroup$
            For example, there is a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ sending $1 in mathbb{Z}$ to $3inmathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:49












          • $begingroup$
            I was not discussing the zero ring anywhere. It's you who suddenly brought this ring up out of nowhere. Suppose $R$ and $Sneq 0$ are unital rings and $phi:Rto S$ is the zero map. Yes, $text{im}(phi)$ is isomorphic as a ring to the zero ring, and therefore, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to the image ($0$) would be a unitary homomorphism, just like you claim. HOWEVER, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to $S$ is NOT a unitary homomorphism, because $phileft(1_Rright)=0_Sneq 1_S$. Categorically speaking, $phi:Rto S$ and $phi:Rto 0$ are not even the same morphism.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:59












          • $begingroup$
            Isn't that clear what the map $mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ is if I give you the image of $1$? The ring $mathbb{Z}$ is generated by $1$, so you should have been able to work that out on yourself. But since you asked, this map is given by $kmapsto 3k$.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 10:02












          • $begingroup$
            I was 100% wrong and I apologize for wasting your time. The question asked is only even meaningful under the correct interpretation of ring homomorphism as you have stated were the multiplicative identity is the codomain's and not the image's. Also this is not required either; in order for the question to again be meaningful. Well then.
            $endgroup$
            – marshal craft
            Jun 22 '15 at 20:09


















          • $begingroup$
            Are you saying that the zero map is not a ring homomorphism? Very well, I guess that our definitions of ring homomorphisms differ. The definition I use encapsulates the possibility that the rings involved are nonunital (hence, even if two given rings are unital, a homomorphism between them need not send the multiplicative identity of one ring to the multiplicative identity of another ring). That is why I used the term "unitary homomorphisms."
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:42












          • $begingroup$
            For example, there is a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ sending $1 in mathbb{Z}$ to $3inmathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:49












          • $begingroup$
            I was not discussing the zero ring anywhere. It's you who suddenly brought this ring up out of nowhere. Suppose $R$ and $Sneq 0$ are unital rings and $phi:Rto S$ is the zero map. Yes, $text{im}(phi)$ is isomorphic as a ring to the zero ring, and therefore, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to the image ($0$) would be a unitary homomorphism, just like you claim. HOWEVER, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to $S$ is NOT a unitary homomorphism, because $phileft(1_Rright)=0_Sneq 1_S$. Categorically speaking, $phi:Rto S$ and $phi:Rto 0$ are not even the same morphism.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 9:59












          • $begingroup$
            Isn't that clear what the map $mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ is if I give you the image of $1$? The ring $mathbb{Z}$ is generated by $1$, so you should have been able to work that out on yourself. But since you asked, this map is given by $kmapsto 3k$.
            $endgroup$
            – Batominovski
            Jun 21 '15 at 10:02












          • $begingroup$
            I was 100% wrong and I apologize for wasting your time. The question asked is only even meaningful under the correct interpretation of ring homomorphism as you have stated were the multiplicative identity is the codomain's and not the image's. Also this is not required either; in order for the question to again be meaningful. Well then.
            $endgroup$
            – marshal craft
            Jun 22 '15 at 20:09
















          $begingroup$
          Are you saying that the zero map is not a ring homomorphism? Very well, I guess that our definitions of ring homomorphisms differ. The definition I use encapsulates the possibility that the rings involved are nonunital (hence, even if two given rings are unital, a homomorphism between them need not send the multiplicative identity of one ring to the multiplicative identity of another ring). That is why I used the term "unitary homomorphisms."
          $endgroup$
          – Batominovski
          Jun 21 '15 at 9:42






          $begingroup$
          Are you saying that the zero map is not a ring homomorphism? Very well, I guess that our definitions of ring homomorphisms differ. The definition I use encapsulates the possibility that the rings involved are nonunital (hence, even if two given rings are unital, a homomorphism between them need not send the multiplicative identity of one ring to the multiplicative identity of another ring). That is why I used the term "unitary homomorphisms."
          $endgroup$
          – Batominovski
          Jun 21 '15 at 9:42














          $begingroup$
          For example, there is a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ sending $1 in mathbb{Z}$ to $3inmathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$.
          $endgroup$
          – Batominovski
          Jun 21 '15 at 9:49






          $begingroup$
          For example, there is a ring homomorphism from $mathbb{Z}$ to $mathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ sending $1 in mathbb{Z}$ to $3inmathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$.
          $endgroup$
          – Batominovski
          Jun 21 '15 at 9:49














          $begingroup$
          I was not discussing the zero ring anywhere. It's you who suddenly brought this ring up out of nowhere. Suppose $R$ and $Sneq 0$ are unital rings and $phi:Rto S$ is the zero map. Yes, $text{im}(phi)$ is isomorphic as a ring to the zero ring, and therefore, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to the image ($0$) would be a unitary homomorphism, just like you claim. HOWEVER, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to $S$ is NOT a unitary homomorphism, because $phileft(1_Rright)=0_Sneq 1_S$. Categorically speaking, $phi:Rto S$ and $phi:Rto 0$ are not even the same morphism.
          $endgroup$
          – Batominovski
          Jun 21 '15 at 9:59






          $begingroup$
          I was not discussing the zero ring anywhere. It's you who suddenly brought this ring up out of nowhere. Suppose $R$ and $Sneq 0$ are unital rings and $phi:Rto S$ is the zero map. Yes, $text{im}(phi)$ is isomorphic as a ring to the zero ring, and therefore, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to the image ($0$) would be a unitary homomorphism, just like you claim. HOWEVER, $phi$ as a homomorphism from $R$ to $S$ is NOT a unitary homomorphism, because $phileft(1_Rright)=0_Sneq 1_S$. Categorically speaking, $phi:Rto S$ and $phi:Rto 0$ are not even the same morphism.
          $endgroup$
          – Batominovski
          Jun 21 '15 at 9:59














          $begingroup$
          Isn't that clear what the map $mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ is if I give you the image of $1$? The ring $mathbb{Z}$ is generated by $1$, so you should have been able to work that out on yourself. But since you asked, this map is given by $kmapsto 3k$.
          $endgroup$
          – Batominovski
          Jun 21 '15 at 10:02






          $begingroup$
          Isn't that clear what the map $mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}/6mathbb{Z}$ is if I give you the image of $1$? The ring $mathbb{Z}$ is generated by $1$, so you should have been able to work that out on yourself. But since you asked, this map is given by $kmapsto 3k$.
          $endgroup$
          – Batominovski
          Jun 21 '15 at 10:02














          $begingroup$
          I was 100% wrong and I apologize for wasting your time. The question asked is only even meaningful under the correct interpretation of ring homomorphism as you have stated were the multiplicative identity is the codomain's and not the image's. Also this is not required either; in order for the question to again be meaningful. Well then.
          $endgroup$
          – marshal craft
          Jun 22 '15 at 20:09




          $begingroup$
          I was 100% wrong and I apologize for wasting your time. The question asked is only even meaningful under the correct interpretation of ring homomorphism as you have stated were the multiplicative identity is the codomain's and not the image's. Also this is not required either; in order for the question to again be meaningful. Well then.
          $endgroup$
          – marshal craft
          Jun 22 '15 at 20:09


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1332162%2fexistence-of-ring-homomorphism-from-mathbbz-fraci2-to-a-finite-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Plaza Victoria

          Puebla de Zaragoza

          Musa