Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeNov 26th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI added to [[field]] a mention of some other constructive variants of the definition, with a couple more references.

   I added to field a mention of some other constructive variants of the definition, with a couple more references.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeNov 26th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexI fixed up the DOI link for Johnstone's paper (at [[field]] and at [[local ring]]), since the geniuses at Elsevier use parentheses in their DOIs, which break markdown syntax. For reference, one needs to replace `(nn)` in the DOI url by `%28nn%29`.

   I fixed up the DOI link for Johnstone’s paper (at field and at local ring), since the geniuses at Elsevier use parentheses in their DOIs, which break markdown syntax.

   For reference, one needs to replace (nn) in the DOI url by %28nn%29.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeNov 26th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks! I've noticed that before, but always forget about it.

   Thanks! I’ve noticed that before, but always forget about it.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
   • CommentTimeAug 14th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: nLab edit announcer
   Format: MarkdownItexClarify a sentence to say that the discrete field condition implies that $0\neq 1$. Egbert Rijke <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/field/49">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/field/49">v49</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/field">current</a>

   Clarify a sentence to say that the discrete field condition implies that $0\neq 1$.

   Egbert Rijke

   diff, v49, current

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUlrik
   • CommentTimeJan 8th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ulrik
   Format: MarkdownItexChange definition of denial field to actually match MRR87 <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/field/50">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/field/50">v50</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/field">current</a>

   Change definition of denial field to actually match MRR87

   diff, v50, current

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 10th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexcross-linked the discussion of weakly initial sets in the category of fields with the corresponding example at _[[multi-adjoint]]_ <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/field/53">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/field/53">v53</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/field">current</a>

   cross-linked the discussion of weakly initial sets in the category of fields with the corresponding example at multi-adjoint

   diff, v53, current

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
   • CommentTimeMay 26th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: nLab edit announcer
   Format: MarkdownItexone pair of authors defined fields to be possibly trivial. Anonymous <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/field/57">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/field/57">v57</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/field">current</a>

   one pair of authors defined fields to be possibly trivial.

   Anonymous

   diff, v57, current

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 26th 2022
   • (edited May 26th 2022)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have taken the liberty of turning this comment from a sub-section into a remark ([here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/field#TrivialRingAsAField)). Also tried to adjust the wording a little, for readability. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/field/58">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/field/58">v58</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/field">current</a>

   I have taken the liberty of turning this comment from a sub-section into a remark (here). Also tried to adjust the wording a little, for readability.

   diff, v58, current

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 25th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexadded pointer to: * [[Marc Bezem]], [[Ulrik Buchholtz]], [[Pierre Cagne]], [[Bjørn Ian Dundas]], [[Daniel R. Grayson]]: Chapter 8 of: *[[Symmetry]]* (2021) $[$[pdf](https://unimath.github.io/SymmetryBook/book.pdf)$]$ <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/field/60">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/field/60">v60</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/field">current</a>

   added pointer to:

   • Marc Bezem, Ulrik Buchholtz, Pierre Cagne, Bjørn Ian Dundas, Daniel R. Grayson: Chapter 8 of: Symmetry (2021) $[$pdf$]$

   diff, v60, current

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMarkSaving
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: MarkSaving
    Format: MarkdownItexThere appears to be an error in the section on construction notions of a field. Specifically, the claim is that a residue field is discrete iff equality is decidable. But this seems not to be true. In fact, the statement "A residue field with decidable equality is a Heyting field" is equivalent to excluded middle. To see this, consider a proposition $p$. Consider the set $R_p = \mathbb{Z} \cup \{x \in \mathbb{Q} \mid p\}$, which is a subring of $\mathbb{Q}$. Since $R_p$ is a subset of $\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ has decidable equality, $R_p$ also has decidable equality. And of course $0 \neq 1$ in $R_p$. I claim that $R_p$ is a residue field iff $\neg \neg p$. For suppose $\neg \neg p$, and consider some $x \in R_p$. Suppose $x$ does not have a multiplicative inverse. Now suppose $x \neq 0$. Then we see that $x^{-1} \notin R_p$. If $p$ held, we would have $x^{-1} \in R_p$. So we know $\neg p$ holds. But this is a contradiction. Therefore, $x$ must be zero (using decidable equality). Conversely, suppose $R$ is a residue field. Then $2 \neq 0$, so 2 does not fail to have an inverse. That is, $2^{-1}$ is not not in $R_p$. Then $\neg \neg p$. I claim that $R_p$ is a Heyting field iff $p$ iff $R_p$ is a discrete field. For suppose $R$ is a Heyting field. Then either 2 or 3 has a multiplicative inverse, so either $2^{-1}$ or $3^{-1} \in R_p$. In either case, we see that $p$ holds. If $p$ holds, then $R_p = \mathbb{Q}$, which is a discrete field. And if $R_p$ is a discrete field, it is clearly a Heyting field. With these facts in hand, we see that if every residue field with decidable equality is a Heyting field, then $p \iff \neg \neg p$ holds for all $p$. So we have full excluded middle. Of course, assuming excluded middle, it is clear that all residue fields with decidable equality are discrete fields. $\square$ I have not yet determined whether all Heyting fields with decidable equality are discrete, but it seems very likely that this also cannot be proven. If no one objects, I will change the page to say that a residue field is discrete if and only if unithood is decidable.

    There appears to be an error in the section on construction notions of a field. Specifically, the claim is that a residue field is discrete iff equality is decidable. But this seems not to be true.

    In fact, the statement “A residue field with decidable equality is a Heyting field” is equivalent to excluded middle.

    To see this, consider a proposition $p$. Consider the set $R_p = \mathbb{Z} \cup \{x \in \mathbb{Q} \mid p\}$, which is a subring of $\mathbb{Q}$. Since $R_p$ is a subset of $\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ has decidable equality, $R_p$ also has decidable equality. And of course $0 \neq 1$ in $R_p$.

    I claim that $R_p$ is a residue field iff $\neg \neg p$. For suppose $\neg \neg p$, and consider some $x \in R_p$. Suppose $x$ does not have a multiplicative inverse. Now suppose $x \neq 0$. Then we see that $x^{-1} \notin R_p$. If $p$ held, we would have $x^{-1} \in R_p$. So we know $\neg p$ holds. But this is a contradiction. Therefore, $x$ must be zero (using decidable equality).

    Conversely, suppose $R$ is a residue field. Then $2 \neq 0$, so 2 does not fail to have an inverse. That is, $2^{-1}$ is not not in $R_p$. Then $\neg \neg p$.

    I claim that $R_p$ is a Heyting field iff $p$ iff $R_p$ is a discrete field. For suppose $R$ is a Heyting field. Then either 2 or 3 has a multiplicative inverse, so either $2^{-1}$ or $3^{-1} \in R_p$. In either case, we see that $p$ holds. If $p$ holds, then $R_p = \mathbb{Q}$, which is a discrete field. And if $R_p$ is a discrete field, it is clearly a Heyting field.

    With these facts in hand, we see that if every residue field with decidable equality is a Heyting field, then $p \iff \neg \neg p$ holds for all $p$. So we have full excluded middle.

    Of course, assuming excluded middle, it is clear that all residue fields with decidable equality are discrete fields. $\square$

    I have not yet determined whether all Heyting fields with decidable equality are discrete, but it seems very likely that this also cannot be proven.

    If no one objects, I will change the page to say that a residue field is discrete if and only if unithood is decidable.

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: nLab edit announcer
    Format: MarkdownItexadded Mark Saying's proof that not every residue field with decidable equality is Heyting. Anonymous <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/field/61">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/field/61">v61</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/field">current</a>

    added Mark Saying’s proof that not every residue field with decidable equality is Heyting.

    Anonymous

    diff, v61, current