Isomorphism of fields via the forgetful functorWhy is $text{Aut}(F)$ of the forgetful functor $F$ on $G$-sets...
Is it cheaper to drop cargo than to land it?
Survey Confirmation - Emphasize the question or the answer?
How to implement float hashing with approximate equality
Does the time required to copy a spell into a spellbook have to be consecutive, or is that just the cumulative time required?
Was the ancestor of SCSI, the SASI protocol, nothing more than a draft?
Is there a QGIS plugin that reclassify raster symbology based on current extent?
Stark VS Thanos
The barbers paradox first order logic formalization
What happens if I start too many background jobs?
If Earth is tilted, why is Polaris always above the same spot?
Why debootstrap can only run as root?
How can I close a gap between my fence and my neighbor's that's on his side of the property line?
Unidentified items in bicycle tube repair kit
I lost my Irish passport. Can I travel to Thailand and back from the UK using my US passport?
Pigeonhole Principle Problem
What are the spoon bit of a spoon and fork bit of a fork called?
If 1. e4 c6 is considered as a sound defense for black, why is 1. c3 so rare?
Why is the SNP putting so much emphasis on currency plans?
How did Captain America use this power?
Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics
Can I use 1000v rectifier diodes instead of 600v rectifier diodes?
Public Salesforce Site and Security Review
LT Spice Voltage Output
Melee attacking upwards (enemy on 10ft ceiling)
Isomorphism of fields via the forgetful functor
Why is $text{Aut}(F)$ of the forgetful functor $F$ on $G$-sets isomorphic to $G$?Trying to find a left adjointadjoint of forgetful functor related to localizationAlgebraic theories and forgetful functorWhat categorical property do these forgetful functors have in common?For what $k$ does the forgetful functor $mathsf{Fld}_k to mathsf{Set}$ have a left adjoint?Fields on uncountable setsExistence of a cofree functor (right adjoint)Legitimate functor metacategory.Trying to find a left adjoint to the forgetful functor from [C,Set] to Set^{Ob(C)}
$begingroup$
The following article https://tinyurl.com/yydxzxe3 says that
"For the case of fields, given a field F and an isomorphism of sets U(F) → S, there is a unique field whose underlying set is S and which is isomorphic to F as a field via the given function"
The U above is the forgetful functor which we know for fields doesn't have a left adjoint but this could still be possible as we need a weaker condition (i.e. all bijections give us isomorphisms not all morphisms ).
But I don't get how. Say $mathbb{F}_{2^n} = mathbb{F}_{2}[x]/p(x) $ is a fixed finite field and I have a permutation $pi$ on $2^n$ elements. How do I construct $f(x)$ such that $ mathbb{F}_{2}[x]/f(x) cong mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ via $pi$?
abstract-algebra category-theory finite-fields
asked 7 hours ago
Tushant MittalTushant Mittal
752412
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The following article https://tinyurl.com/yydxzxe3 says that
"For the case of fields, given a field F and an isomorphism of sets U(F) → S, there is a unique field whose underlying set is S and which is isomorphic to F as a field via the given function"
The U above is the forgetful functor which we know for fields doesn't have a left adjoint but this could still be possible as we need a weaker condition (i.e. all bijections give us isomorphisms not all morphisms ).
But I don't get how. Say $mathbb{F}_{2^n} = mathbb{F}_{2}[x]/p(x) $ is a fixed finite field and I have a permutation $pi$ on $2^n$ elements. How do I construct $f(x)$ such that $ mathbb{F}_{2}[x]/f(x) cong mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ via $pi$?
abstract-algebra category-theory finite-fields
asked 7 hours ago
Tushant MittalTushant Mittal
752412
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The following article https://tinyurl.com/yydxzxe3 says that
"For the case of fields, given a field F and an isomorphism of sets U(F) → S, there is a unique field whose underlying set is S and which is isomorphic to F as a field via the given function"
The U above is the forgetful functor which we know for fields doesn't have a left adjoint but this could still be possible as we need a weaker condition (i.e. all bijections give us isomorphisms not all morphisms ).
But I don't get how. Say $mathbb{F}_{2^n} = mathbb{F}_{2}[x]/p(x) $ is a fixed finite field and I have a permutation $pi$ on $2^n$ elements. How do I construct $f(x)$ such that $ mathbb{F}_{2}[x]/f(x) cong mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ via $pi$?
abstract-algebra category-theory finite-fields
asked 7 hours ago
Tushant MittalTushant Mittal
752412
$endgroup$
The following article https://tinyurl.com/yydxzxe3 says that
"For the case of fields, given a field F and an isomorphism of sets U(F) → S, there is a unique field whose underlying set is S and which is isomorphic to F as a field via the given function"
The U above is the forgetful functor which we know for fields doesn't have a left adjoint but this could still be possible as we need a weaker condition (i.e. all bijections give us isomorphisms not all morphisms ).
But I don't get how. Say $mathbb{F}_{2^n} = mathbb{F}_{2}[x]/p(x) $ is a fixed finite field and I have a permutation $pi$ on $2^n$ elements. How do I construct $f(x)$ such that $ mathbb{F}_{2}[x]/f(x) cong mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ via $pi$?
abstract-algebra category-theory finite-fields
abstract-algebra category-theory finite-fields
asked 7 hours ago
Tushant MittalTushant Mittal
752412
asked 7 hours ago
Tushant MittalTushant Mittal
752412
asked 7 hours ago
Tushant MittalTushant Mittal
752412
asked 7 hours ago
Tushant MittalTushant Mittal
752412
asked 7 hours ago
Tushant MittalTushant Mittal
752412
752412
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The observation here is just that we can "transport structure" along any isomorphism.
Suppose $F$ is a field and $picolon U(F)to S$ is a bijection of sets. We define operations $+$ and $times$ on $S$ in such a way that $(S;+,times)$ is a field and $picolon Fto (S;+,times)$ is a field isomorphism. For any $a,bin S$, define: begin{align*} a+b &= pi(pi^{-1}(a) + pi^{-1}(b))\ atimes b &= pi(pi^{-1}(a)times pi^{-1}(b)).end{align*}
Note that on the right hand sides of the above equations, $+$ and $times$ are the field operations in $F$.
In your example of a permutation $pi$ of the set $U(mathbb{F}_{2^n}) = mathbb{F}_2[x]/p(x)$, this doesn't amount to finding a new quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, we just get totally new field structure on the set $mathbb{F}_2[x]/p(x)$ which has nothing to do with the original one, or with the ring structure on $mathbb{F}_2[x]$ (e.g. in most cases it will have a different $0$ and a different $1$).
answered 6 hours ago
Alex KruckmanAlex Kruckman
29.2k32758
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Exactly, but since we know that all finite fields are of the above type we should be able to find a new quotient, right? The motivation for the question is that a bijection in F_2^n is given by 2^n images but by converting it to a field isomorphism I just need to specify images of the n generators. This would be helpful in creating smaller computational circuits (given that I somehow precompute the f)
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
All finite fields are of the above type up to isomorphism. The new field is isomorphic to $mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ by construction, so it's isomorphic to the same quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, not a new one!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah. I get it now. The isomorphism, equality problem again. That's exactly what the article is about and I still made that error!
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3207070%2fisomorphism-of-fields-via-the-forgetful-functor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The observation here is just that we can "transport structure" along any isomorphism.
Suppose $F$ is a field and $picolon U(F)to S$ is a bijection of sets. We define operations $+$ and $times$ on $S$ in such a way that $(S;+,times)$ is a field and $picolon Fto (S;+,times)$ is a field isomorphism. For any $a,bin S$, define: begin{align*} a+b &= pi(pi^{-1}(a) + pi^{-1}(b))\ atimes b &= pi(pi^{-1}(a)times pi^{-1}(b)).end{align*}
Note that on the right hand sides of the above equations, $+$ and $times$ are the field operations in $F$.
In your example of a permutation $pi$ of the set $U(mathbb{F}_{2^n}) = mathbb{F}_2[x]/p(x)$, this doesn't amount to finding a new quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, we just get totally new field structure on the set $mathbb{F}_2[x]/p(x)$ which has nothing to do with the original one, or with the ring structure on $mathbb{F}_2[x]$ (e.g. in most cases it will have a different $0$ and a different $1$).
answered 6 hours ago
Alex KruckmanAlex Kruckman
29.2k32758
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Exactly, but since we know that all finite fields are of the above type we should be able to find a new quotient, right? The motivation for the question is that a bijection in F_2^n is given by 2^n images but by converting it to a field isomorphism I just need to specify images of the n generators. This would be helpful in creating smaller computational circuits (given that I somehow precompute the f)
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
All finite fields are of the above type up to isomorphism. The new field is isomorphic to $mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ by construction, so it's isomorphic to the same quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, not a new one!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah. I get it now. The isomorphism, equality problem again. That's exactly what the article is about and I still made that error!
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The observation here is just that we can "transport structure" along any isomorphism.
Suppose $F$ is a field and $picolon U(F)to S$ is a bijection of sets. We define operations $+$ and $times$ on $S$ in such a way that $(S;+,times)$ is a field and $picolon Fto (S;+,times)$ is a field isomorphism. For any $a,bin S$, define: begin{align*} a+b &= pi(pi^{-1}(a) + pi^{-1}(b))\ atimes b &= pi(pi^{-1}(a)times pi^{-1}(b)).end{align*}
Note that on the right hand sides of the above equations, $+$ and $times$ are the field operations in $F$.
In your example of a permutation $pi$ of the set $U(mathbb{F}_{2^n}) = mathbb{F}_2[x]/p(x)$, this doesn't amount to finding a new quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, we just get totally new field structure on the set $mathbb{F}_2[x]/p(x)$ which has nothing to do with the original one, or with the ring structure on $mathbb{F}_2[x]$ (e.g. in most cases it will have a different $0$ and a different $1$).
answered 6 hours ago
Alex KruckmanAlex Kruckman
29.2k32758
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Exactly, but since we know that all finite fields are of the above type we should be able to find a new quotient, right? The motivation for the question is that a bijection in F_2^n is given by 2^n images but by converting it to a field isomorphism I just need to specify images of the n generators. This would be helpful in creating smaller computational circuits (given that I somehow precompute the f)
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
All finite fields are of the above type up to isomorphism. The new field is isomorphic to $mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ by construction, so it's isomorphic to the same quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, not a new one!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah. I get it now. The isomorphism, equality problem again. That's exactly what the article is about and I still made that error!
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The observation here is just that we can "transport structure" along any isomorphism.
Suppose $F$ is a field and $picolon U(F)to S$ is a bijection of sets. We define operations $+$ and $times$ on $S$ in such a way that $(S;+,times)$ is a field and $picolon Fto (S;+,times)$ is a field isomorphism. For any $a,bin S$, define: begin{align*} a+b &= pi(pi^{-1}(a) + pi^{-1}(b))\ atimes b &= pi(pi^{-1}(a)times pi^{-1}(b)).end{align*}
Note that on the right hand sides of the above equations, $+$ and $times$ are the field operations in $F$.
In your example of a permutation $pi$ of the set $U(mathbb{F}_{2^n}) = mathbb{F}_2[x]/p(x)$, this doesn't amount to finding a new quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, we just get totally new field structure on the set $mathbb{F}_2[x]/p(x)$ which has nothing to do with the original one, or with the ring structure on $mathbb{F}_2[x]$ (e.g. in most cases it will have a different $0$ and a different $1$).
answered 6 hours ago
Alex KruckmanAlex Kruckman
29.2k32758
$endgroup$
The observation here is just that we can "transport structure" along any isomorphism.
Suppose $F$ is a field and $picolon U(F)to S$ is a bijection of sets. We define operations $+$ and $times$ on $S$ in such a way that $(S;+,times)$ is a field and $picolon Fto (S;+,times)$ is a field isomorphism. For any $a,bin S$, define: begin{align*} a+b &= pi(pi^{-1}(a) + pi^{-1}(b))\ atimes b &= pi(pi^{-1}(a)times pi^{-1}(b)).end{align*}
Note that on the right hand sides of the above equations, $+$ and $times$ are the field operations in $F$.
In your example of a permutation $pi$ of the set $U(mathbb{F}_{2^n}) = mathbb{F}_2[x]/p(x)$, this doesn't amount to finding a new quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, we just get totally new field structure on the set $mathbb{F}_2[x]/p(x)$ which has nothing to do with the original one, or with the ring structure on $mathbb{F}_2[x]$ (e.g. in most cases it will have a different $0$ and a different $1$).
answered 6 hours ago
Alex KruckmanAlex Kruckman
29.2k32758
edited 6 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
Alex KruckmanAlex Kruckman
29.2k32758
answered 6 hours ago
Alex KruckmanAlex Kruckman
29.2k32758
answered 6 hours ago
Alex KruckmanAlex Kruckman
29.2k32758
29.2k32758
$begingroup$
Exactly, but since we know that all finite fields are of the above type we should be able to find a new quotient, right? The motivation for the question is that a bijection in F_2^n is given by 2^n images but by converting it to a field isomorphism I just need to specify images of the n generators. This would be helpful in creating smaller computational circuits (given that I somehow precompute the f)
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
All finite fields are of the above type up to isomorphism. The new field is isomorphic to $mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ by construction, so it's isomorphic to the same quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, not a new one!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah. I get it now. The isomorphism, equality problem again. That's exactly what the article is about and I still made that error!
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Exactly, but since we know that all finite fields are of the above type we should be able to find a new quotient, right? The motivation for the question is that a bijection in F_2^n is given by 2^n images but by converting it to a field isomorphism I just need to specify images of the n generators. This would be helpful in creating smaller computational circuits (given that I somehow precompute the f)
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
All finite fields are of the above type up to isomorphism. The new field is isomorphic to $mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ by construction, so it's isomorphic to the same quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, not a new one!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah. I get it now. The isomorphism, equality problem again. That's exactly what the article is about and I still made that error!
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Exactly, but since we know that all finite fields are of the above type we should be able to find a new quotient, right? The motivation for the question is that a bijection in F_2^n is given by 2^n images but by converting it to a field isomorphism I just need to specify images of the n generators. This would be helpful in creating smaller computational circuits (given that I somehow precompute the f)
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Exactly, but since we know that all finite fields are of the above type we should be able to find a new quotient, right? The motivation for the question is that a bijection in F_2^n is given by 2^n images but by converting it to a field isomorphism I just need to specify images of the n generators. This would be helpful in creating smaller computational circuits (given that I somehow precompute the f)
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
All finite fields are of the above type up to isomorphism. The new field is isomorphic to $mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ by construction, so it's isomorphic to the same quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, not a new one!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
All finite fields are of the above type up to isomorphism. The new field is isomorphic to $mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ by construction, so it's isomorphic to the same quotient of $mathbb{F}_2[x]$, not a new one!
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah. I get it now. The isomorphism, equality problem again. That's exactly what the article is about and I still made that error!
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah. I get it now. The isomorphism, equality problem again. That's exactly what the article is about and I still made that error!
$endgroup$
– Tushant Mittal
6 hours ago
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3207070%2fisomorphism-of-fields-via-the-forgetful-functor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
