Computing $phi(frac32)$ where $phi$ is an automorphism of $mathbb Q[sqrt2]$ such that $phi(1)=1$ and...












6












$begingroup$


This question is a followup to this question about Field Automorphisms of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$.



Since $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$ is a vector space over $mathbb{Q}$ with basis ${1, sqrt{2}}$, I naively understand why it is the case that automorphisms $phi$ of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$ are determined wholly by the image of $1$ and $sqrt{2}$. My problem is using this fact explicitly. For example, suppose I consider the automorphism $phi$ such that $phi(1) = 1$ and $phi(sqrt{2}) = sqrt{2}$, and I want to compute the value of $phileft(frac{3}{2}right)$. I can do the following:



$$ phileft(frac{3}{2}right) = phi(3) phileft(frac{1}{2}right) = [phi(1) + phi(1) + phi(1)] phileft(frac{1}{2}right) = 3phileft(frac{1}{2}right).$$



I am unsure how to proceed from here. I would assume that it is true that $$phileft(frac{1}{1 + 1}right) = frac{phi(1)}{phi(1) + phi(1)} = frac{1}{2},$$ but I don't know what property of ring isomorphisms would allow me to do this.






abstract-algebra ring-theory field-theory galois-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    6












    $begingroup$


    This question is a followup to this question about Field Automorphisms of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$.



    Since $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$ is a vector space over $mathbb{Q}$ with basis ${1, sqrt{2}}$, I naively understand why it is the case that automorphisms $phi$ of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$ are determined wholly by the image of $1$ and $sqrt{2}$. My problem is using this fact explicitly. For example, suppose I consider the automorphism $phi$ such that $phi(1) = 1$ and $phi(sqrt{2}) = sqrt{2}$, and I want to compute the value of $phileft(frac{3}{2}right)$. I can do the following:



    $$ phileft(frac{3}{2}right) = phi(3) phileft(frac{1}{2}right) = [phi(1) + phi(1) + phi(1)] phileft(frac{1}{2}right) = 3phileft(frac{1}{2}right).$$



    I am unsure how to proceed from here. I would assume that it is true that $$phileft(frac{1}{1 + 1}right) = frac{phi(1)}{phi(1) + phi(1)} = frac{1}{2},$$ but I don't know what property of ring isomorphisms would allow me to do this.






    abstract-algebra ring-theory field-theory galois-theory







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$


      This question is a followup to this question about Field Automorphisms of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$.



      Since $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$ is a vector space over $mathbb{Q}$ with basis ${1, sqrt{2}}$, I naively understand why it is the case that automorphisms $phi$ of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$ are determined wholly by the image of $1$ and $sqrt{2}$. My problem is using this fact explicitly. For example, suppose I consider the automorphism $phi$ such that $phi(1) = 1$ and $phi(sqrt{2}) = sqrt{2}$, and I want to compute the value of $phileft(frac{3}{2}right)$. I can do the following:



      $$ phileft(frac{3}{2}right) = phi(3) phileft(frac{1}{2}right) = [phi(1) + phi(1) + phi(1)] phileft(frac{1}{2}right) = 3phileft(frac{1}{2}right).$$



      I am unsure how to proceed from here. I would assume that it is true that $$phileft(frac{1}{1 + 1}right) = frac{phi(1)}{phi(1) + phi(1)} = frac{1}{2},$$ but I don't know what property of ring isomorphisms would allow me to do this.






      abstract-algebra ring-theory field-theory galois-theory







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      This question is a followup to this question about Field Automorphisms of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$.



      Since $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$ is a vector space over $mathbb{Q}$ with basis ${1, sqrt{2}}$, I naively understand why it is the case that automorphisms $phi$ of $mathbb{Q}[sqrt{2}]$ are determined wholly by the image of $1$ and $sqrt{2}$. My problem is using this fact explicitly. For example, suppose I consider the automorphism $phi$ such that $phi(1) = 1$ and $phi(sqrt{2}) = sqrt{2}$, and I want to compute the value of $phileft(frac{3}{2}right)$. I can do the following:



      $$ phileft(frac{3}{2}right) = phi(3) phileft(frac{1}{2}right) = [phi(1) + phi(1) + phi(1)] phileft(frac{1}{2}right) = 3phileft(frac{1}{2}right).$$



      I am unsure how to proceed from here. I would assume that it is true that $$phileft(frac{1}{1 + 1}right) = frac{phi(1)}{phi(1) + phi(1)} = frac{1}{2},$$ but I don't know what property of ring isomorphisms would allow me to do this.






      abstract-algebra ring-theory field-theory galois-theory




      abstract-algebra ring-theory field-theory galois-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Apr 17 at 9:47









      Asaf Karagila♦

      309k33441775




      309k33441775










      asked Apr 17 at 1:08









      Solarflare0Solarflare0

      11814




      11814






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          $$
          2phi(frac{3}{2}) = phi(3) = 3phi(1) = 3
          implies
          phi(frac{3}{2}) =frac{3}{2}
          $$
          Generalizing this argument gives $phi(q) = q$ for all $q in mathbb Q$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            In the interest of clarity's sake it might be worth noting this is the multiplicative property of ring/field homomorphisms, i.e. $phi(xy)=phi(x)phi(y)$, under the consideration $3 = 3cdot 1$.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            Apr 17 at 5:28






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @EeveeTrainer, I don't think it is. In a ring $2t=t+t$ and this calculation can be justified purely by the additiveness of the homomorphism once we know $phi(1)=1$. .
            $endgroup$
            – ancientmathematician
            Apr 17 at 7:11





















          5












          $begingroup$

          Every automorphism fixes $mathbb{Q}$. That is, if $K$ is any field of characteristic zero, then any automorphism of $K$ fixes the unique subfield of $K$ isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$.



          For the proof, we assume WLOG that $mathbb{Q} subseteq K$. Then:




          • $phi$ fixes $0$ and $1$, by definition.


          • $phi$ fixes all positive integers, since $phi(n) = phi(1 + 1 + cdots + 1) = n phi(1) = n$.


          • $phi$ fixes all negative integers, since $phi(n) + phi(-n) = phi(n-n) = 0$, so $phi(-n) = -phi(n) = -n$.


          • $phi$ fixes all rational numbers, since $n cdot phileft(frac{m}{n}right) = phi(m) = m$, so $phileft(frac{m}{n}right) = frac{m}{n}$.




          More generally, when we consider automorphisms of a field extension $K / F$, we often restrict our attention only to automorphisms which fix the base field $F$. But when $F = mathbb{Q}$, since all automorphisms fix $mathbb{Q}$, such a restriction is unnecessary.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$














            Your Answer








            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%2f3190546%2fcomputing-phi-frac32-where-phi-is-an-automorphism-of-mathbb-q-sqrt2%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












            $begingroup$

            $$
            2phi(frac{3}{2}) = phi(3) = 3phi(1) = 3
            implies
            phi(frac{3}{2}) =frac{3}{2}
            $$
            Generalizing this argument gives $phi(q) = q$ for all $q in mathbb Q$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              In the interest of clarity's sake it might be worth noting this is the multiplicative property of ring/field homomorphisms, i.e. $phi(xy)=phi(x)phi(y)$, under the consideration $3 = 3cdot 1$.
              $endgroup$
              – Eevee Trainer
              Apr 17 at 5:28






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @EeveeTrainer, I don't think it is. In a ring $2t=t+t$ and this calculation can be justified purely by the additiveness of the homomorphism once we know $phi(1)=1$. .
              $endgroup$
              – ancientmathematician
              Apr 17 at 7:11


















            6












            $begingroup$

            $$
            2phi(frac{3}{2}) = phi(3) = 3phi(1) = 3
            implies
            phi(frac{3}{2}) =frac{3}{2}
            $$
            Generalizing this argument gives $phi(q) = q$ for all $q in mathbb Q$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              In the interest of clarity's sake it might be worth noting this is the multiplicative property of ring/field homomorphisms, i.e. $phi(xy)=phi(x)phi(y)$, under the consideration $3 = 3cdot 1$.
              $endgroup$
              – Eevee Trainer
              Apr 17 at 5:28






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @EeveeTrainer, I don't think it is. In a ring $2t=t+t$ and this calculation can be justified purely by the additiveness of the homomorphism once we know $phi(1)=1$. .
              $endgroup$
              – ancientmathematician
              Apr 17 at 7:11
















            6












            6








            6





            $begingroup$

            $$
            2phi(frac{3}{2}) = phi(3) = 3phi(1) = 3
            implies
            phi(frac{3}{2}) =frac{3}{2}
            $$
            Generalizing this argument gives $phi(q) = q$ for all $q in mathbb Q$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            $$
            2phi(frac{3}{2}) = phi(3) = 3phi(1) = 3
            implies
            phi(frac{3}{2}) =frac{3}{2}
            $$
            Generalizing this argument gives $phi(q) = q$ for all $q in mathbb Q$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Apr 17 at 1:12









            lhflhf

            168k11173405




            168k11173405








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              In the interest of clarity's sake it might be worth noting this is the multiplicative property of ring/field homomorphisms, i.e. $phi(xy)=phi(x)phi(y)$, under the consideration $3 = 3cdot 1$.
              $endgroup$
              – Eevee Trainer
              Apr 17 at 5:28






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @EeveeTrainer, I don't think it is. In a ring $2t=t+t$ and this calculation can be justified purely by the additiveness of the homomorphism once we know $phi(1)=1$. .
              $endgroup$
              – ancientmathematician
              Apr 17 at 7:11
















            • 1




              $begingroup$
              In the interest of clarity's sake it might be worth noting this is the multiplicative property of ring/field homomorphisms, i.e. $phi(xy)=phi(x)phi(y)$, under the consideration $3 = 3cdot 1$.
              $endgroup$
              – Eevee Trainer
              Apr 17 at 5:28






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @EeveeTrainer, I don't think it is. In a ring $2t=t+t$ and this calculation can be justified purely by the additiveness of the homomorphism once we know $phi(1)=1$. .
              $endgroup$
              – ancientmathematician
              Apr 17 at 7:11










            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            In the interest of clarity's sake it might be worth noting this is the multiplicative property of ring/field homomorphisms, i.e. $phi(xy)=phi(x)phi(y)$, under the consideration $3 = 3cdot 1$.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            Apr 17 at 5:28




            $begingroup$
            In the interest of clarity's sake it might be worth noting this is the multiplicative property of ring/field homomorphisms, i.e. $phi(xy)=phi(x)phi(y)$, under the consideration $3 = 3cdot 1$.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            Apr 17 at 5:28




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @EeveeTrainer, I don't think it is. In a ring $2t=t+t$ and this calculation can be justified purely by the additiveness of the homomorphism once we know $phi(1)=1$. .
            $endgroup$
            – ancientmathematician
            Apr 17 at 7:11






            $begingroup$
            @EeveeTrainer, I don't think it is. In a ring $2t=t+t$ and this calculation can be justified purely by the additiveness of the homomorphism once we know $phi(1)=1$. .
            $endgroup$
            – ancientmathematician
            Apr 17 at 7:11













            5












            $begingroup$

            Every automorphism fixes $mathbb{Q}$. That is, if $K$ is any field of characteristic zero, then any automorphism of $K$ fixes the unique subfield of $K$ isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$.



            For the proof, we assume WLOG that $mathbb{Q} subseteq K$. Then:




            • $phi$ fixes $0$ and $1$, by definition.


            • $phi$ fixes all positive integers, since $phi(n) = phi(1 + 1 + cdots + 1) = n phi(1) = n$.


            • $phi$ fixes all negative integers, since $phi(n) + phi(-n) = phi(n-n) = 0$, so $phi(-n) = -phi(n) = -n$.


            • $phi$ fixes all rational numbers, since $n cdot phileft(frac{m}{n}right) = phi(m) = m$, so $phileft(frac{m}{n}right) = frac{m}{n}$.




            More generally, when we consider automorphisms of a field extension $K / F$, we often restrict our attention only to automorphisms which fix the base field $F$. But when $F = mathbb{Q}$, since all automorphisms fix $mathbb{Q}$, such a restriction is unnecessary.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              5












              $begingroup$

              Every automorphism fixes $mathbb{Q}$. That is, if $K$ is any field of characteristic zero, then any automorphism of $K$ fixes the unique subfield of $K$ isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$.



              For the proof, we assume WLOG that $mathbb{Q} subseteq K$. Then:




              • $phi$ fixes $0$ and $1$, by definition.


              • $phi$ fixes all positive integers, since $phi(n) = phi(1 + 1 + cdots + 1) = n phi(1) = n$.


              • $phi$ fixes all negative integers, since $phi(n) + phi(-n) = phi(n-n) = 0$, so $phi(-n) = -phi(n) = -n$.


              • $phi$ fixes all rational numbers, since $n cdot phileft(frac{m}{n}right) = phi(m) = m$, so $phileft(frac{m}{n}right) = frac{m}{n}$.




              More generally, when we consider automorphisms of a field extension $K / F$, we often restrict our attention only to automorphisms which fix the base field $F$. But when $F = mathbb{Q}$, since all automorphisms fix $mathbb{Q}$, such a restriction is unnecessary.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                5












                5








                5





                $begingroup$

                Every automorphism fixes $mathbb{Q}$. That is, if $K$ is any field of characteristic zero, then any automorphism of $K$ fixes the unique subfield of $K$ isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$.



                For the proof, we assume WLOG that $mathbb{Q} subseteq K$. Then:




                • $phi$ fixes $0$ and $1$, by definition.


                • $phi$ fixes all positive integers, since $phi(n) = phi(1 + 1 + cdots + 1) = n phi(1) = n$.


                • $phi$ fixes all negative integers, since $phi(n) + phi(-n) = phi(n-n) = 0$, so $phi(-n) = -phi(n) = -n$.


                • $phi$ fixes all rational numbers, since $n cdot phileft(frac{m}{n}right) = phi(m) = m$, so $phileft(frac{m}{n}right) = frac{m}{n}$.




                More generally, when we consider automorphisms of a field extension $K / F$, we often restrict our attention only to automorphisms which fix the base field $F$. But when $F = mathbb{Q}$, since all automorphisms fix $mathbb{Q}$, such a restriction is unnecessary.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Every automorphism fixes $mathbb{Q}$. That is, if $K$ is any field of characteristic zero, then any automorphism of $K$ fixes the unique subfield of $K$ isomorphic to $mathbb{Q}$.



                For the proof, we assume WLOG that $mathbb{Q} subseteq K$. Then:




                • $phi$ fixes $0$ and $1$, by definition.


                • $phi$ fixes all positive integers, since $phi(n) = phi(1 + 1 + cdots + 1) = n phi(1) = n$.


                • $phi$ fixes all negative integers, since $phi(n) + phi(-n) = phi(n-n) = 0$, so $phi(-n) = -phi(n) = -n$.


                • $phi$ fixes all rational numbers, since $n cdot phileft(frac{m}{n}right) = phi(m) = m$, so $phileft(frac{m}{n}right) = frac{m}{n}$.




                More generally, when we consider automorphisms of a field extension $K / F$, we often restrict our attention only to automorphisms which fix the base field $F$. But when $F = mathbb{Q}$, since all automorphisms fix $mathbb{Q}$, such a restriction is unnecessary.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Apr 17 at 1:30









                60056005

                37.2k753127




                37.2k753127






























                    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%2f3190546%2fcomputing-phi-frac32-where-phi-is-an-automorphism-of-mathbb-q-sqrt2%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

                    Image
                    Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l
                    Read more

                    In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                    Image
                    .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 OneNote has two useful keyboard shortcuts for bulleted and numbered lists, namely Ctrl + . and Ctrl + - . Is there something similar for PowerPoint where the work with lists is also very common? Haven't found anything here: Use keyboard shortcuts in PowerPoint. keyboard-shortcuts microsoft-powerpoint share | improve this question edited Aug 14 '14 at 14:49 Linger 2,826 10 28 40
                    Read more

                    How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...

                    Image
                    1 0 I want to put 3 images in LateX such as 2 figures are side by side horizotally and 3rd figure below these 2 side by side figures but in middle. I have following code: begin{figure}[H] centering begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.50linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8010_AP.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8010 AP} label{fig:Genelec 8010} end{minipage}% begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.69linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8020_CPM.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8020 CPM} label{fig:Genelec 8020} end{minipage}% end{figure} %%Here is my 3rd picture code begin{figure} centering includegraphics[width=5cm]{Text/Images/Genelec_8030_BPM.jpg} caption{Genelec 8030 BPM} label{fig:Genelec 8030} end{figure} I want to ask ho
                    Read more