12-240/Fields' Further proof: Difference between revisions

From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[12-240]][[Image:12-240-Splash.png]]
<nowiki>[[12-240]][[Image:12-240-Splash.png]]


[[12-240/Classnotes for Tuesday September 11]]
[[12-240/Classnotes for Tuesday September 11]]
Line 19: Line 19:
IN defination of multiplication
IN defination of multiplication


* 0 1 2 3 .......... b.......n-1
* 0 1 2 3 .......... b.......n-1


0 0 0 0 0 ...........0.........0
0 0 0 0 0 ...........0........0


1 0 . . . ......................
1 0 . . . ......................


2 0 . . . ......................
2 0 . . . ......................


3 0 . . . .......................
3 0 . . . ......................


4 0 . . . .......................
4 0 . . . ......................


.. 0 . . . .......................
. 0 . . . ......................


a 0 (a) (2a) (3a)...........(a*b).....(n-1)*a ''' ( in this row, every element mod n)'''
a 0 (a) (2a) (3a).........(a*b)....(n-1)*a ''' ( in this row, every element mod n)'''


....................................
....0.....................................


....................................
....0.....................................


......................................
....0.....................................


.....................................
....0.....................................
(n-1) 0................................
(n-1) 0...................................


see the (a+1)th row
see the (a+1)th row


Line 77: Line 75:
I am still working on it.
I am still working on it.
----Michael.Wang
----Michael.Wang
<nowiki></nowiki>

Revision as of 15:09, 16 September 2012

[[12-240]][[Image:12-240-Splash.png]] [[12-240/Classnotes for Tuesday September 11]] In the first class, Professor says something about particular fields. Forgive me, because I am an international student, if I can not express information precisely. About: F(n) F(1) F(2) and F(3) are a field, but F(4) is not. Professor said that any number n which is not a prime number can not "form" a field F(n) If you do not understand what the F(n) means, you can look through the file "12-240/Classnotes for Tuesday September 11" '''Why all the numbers which are not prime numbers can not form a field F(n)?''' Here is the proof. If we have a field F(n), and n=a*b (a,b,n∈ N*, a,b≠1) , which means n is not a prime number. IN defination of multiplication * 0 1 2 3 .......... b.......n-1 0 0 0 0 0 ...........0........0 1 0 . . . ...................... 2 0 . . . ...................... 3 0 . . . ...................... 4 0 . . . ...................... . 0 . . . ...................... a 0 (a) (2a) (3a).........(a*b)....(n-1)*a ''' ( in this row, every element mod n)''' ....0..................................... ....0..................................... ....0..................................... ....0..................................... (n-1) 0................................... see the (a+1)th row There must be a "1" in this row, actually each row or column, to meet the rule :Existence of Negatives/Inverses. (About the rule, seen in the file "12-240/Classnotes for Tuesday September 11") So if F(n) is a field, then there must exist k,m ∈N*, m<n to meet the equation: m*a=k*n+1 And we know that n=ab So m*a=k*a*b+1 (a≠1) Hence m=k*b+1/a unless a=1 m will not exist, because m should be an integer. so F(n), when n is not a prime number, is not a field. There is a large need for me to improve my format. Editing is welcomed. PS: But till now, there are still some questions existing. How can we prove that a prime number N can absolutely form a field? Is there any exception? I am still working on it. ----Michael.Wang <nowiki>