Isomorphism of fields via the forgetful functorWhy is $text{Aut}(F)$ of the forgetful functor $F$ on $G$-sets...

How did Arya manage the sneak attack?

How to reply this mail from potential PhD professor?

What happened to Ghost?

You look catfish vs You look like a catfish?

Transfer over $10k

Copy line and insert it in a new position with sed or awk

Method and way to highlight the validation message in the web page by using Selenium IDE

Is lying to get "gardening leave" fraud?

Different output when alias

How to avoid grep command finding commented out strings in the source file?

Declining lunch invitation from new work because I will be fasting

What is the most remote airport from the center of the city it supposedly serves?

Pigeonhole Principle Problem

Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics

How to implement float hashing with approximate equality

Game of Life meets Chaos Theory

LT Spice Voltage Output

Why is Arya visibly scared in the library in S8E3?

Printing a string when grep does not get a match

How could a planet have most of its water in the atmosphere?

Binary Numbers Magic Trick

CRT Oscilloscope - part of the plot is missing

Write to EXCEL from SQL DB using VBA script

Has any spacecraft ever had the ability to directly communicate with civilian air traffic control?



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)}













2












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    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







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      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







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      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






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 4 hours ago









      Tushant MittalTushant Mittal

      752412




      752412






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7












          $begingroup$

          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 $1$).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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
            3 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
            3 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
            3 hours ago














          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%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









          7












          $begingroup$

          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 $1$).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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
            3 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
            3 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
            3 hours ago


















          7












          $begingroup$

          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 $1$).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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
            3 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
            3 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
            3 hours ago
















          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          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 $1$).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          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 $1$).







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 3 hours ago

























          answered 4 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
            3 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
            3 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
            3 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
            3 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
            3 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
            3 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
          3 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
          3 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
          3 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
          3 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
          3 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
          3 hours ago




















          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%2f3207070%2fisomorphism-of-fields-via-the-forgetful-functor%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







          -