# Subset of elements of finite order of a group

Consider a group $$G$$ and have a look at the question: is the subset $$S$$ of elements of finite order a subgroup of $$G$$?

The answer is positive when any two elements of $$S$$ commute. For the proof, consider $$x,y \in S$$ of order $$m,n$$ respectively. Then $\left(xy\right)^{mn} = x^{mn} y^{mn} = (x^m)^n (y^n)^m = e$ where $$e$$ is the identity element. Hence $$xy$$ is of finite order (less or equal to $$mn$$) and belong to $$S$$.

### Example of a non abelian group

In that cas, $$S$$ might not be subgroup of $$G$$. Let’s take for $$G$$ the general linear group over $$\mathbb Q$$ (the set of rational numbers) of $$2 \times 2$$ invertible matrices named $$\text{GL}_2(\mathbb Q)$$. The matrices $A = \begin{pmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{pmatrix},\ B=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 2\\\frac{1}{2}& 0\end{pmatrix}$ are of order $$2$$. They don’t commute as $AB = \begin{pmatrix}\frac{1}{2}&0\\0&2\end{pmatrix} \neq \begin{pmatrix}2&0\\0&\frac{1}{2}\end{pmatrix}=BA.$ Finally, $$AB$$ is of infinite order and therefore doesn’t belong to $$S$$ proving that $$S$$ is not a subgroup of $$G$$.

# Field not algebraic over an intersection but algebraic over each initial field

Let’s describe an example of a field $$K$$ which is of degree $$2$$ over two distinct subfields $$M$$ and $$N$$ respectively, but not algebraic over $$M \cap N$$.

Let $$K=F(x)$$ be the rational function field over a field $$F$$ of characteristic $$0$$, $$M=F(x^2)$$ and $$N=F(x^2+x)$$. I claim that those fields provide the example we’re looking for.

### $$K$$ is of degree $$2$$ over $$M$$ and $$N$$

The polynomial $$\mu_M(t)=t^2-x^2$$ belongs to $$M[t]$$ and $$x \in K$$ is a root of $$\mu_M$$. Also, $$\mu_M$$ is irreducible over $$M=F(x^2)$$. If that wasn’t the case, $$\mu_M$$ would have a root in $$F(x^2)$$ and there would exist two polynomials $$p,q \in F[t]$$ such that $p^2(x^2) = x^2 q^2(x^2)$ which cannot be, as can be seen considering the degrees of the polynomials of left and right hand sides. This proves that $$[K:M]=2$$. Considering the polynomial $$\mu_N(t)=t^2-t-(x^2+x)$$, one can prove that we also have $$[K:N]=2$$.

### We have $$M \cap N=F$$

The mapping $$\sigma_M : x \mapsto -x$$ extends uniquely to an $$F$$-automorphism of $$K$$ and the elements of $$M$$ are fixed under $$\sigma_M$$. Similarly, the mapping $$\sigma_N : x \mapsto -x-1$$ extends uniquely to an $$F$$-automorphism of $$K$$ and the elements of $$N$$ are fixed under $$\sigma_N$$. Also $(\sigma_N\circ\sigma_M)(x)=\sigma_N(\sigma_M(x))=\sigma_N(-x)=-(-x-1)=x+1.$ An element $$z=p(x)/q(x) \in M \cap N$$ where $$p(x),q(x)$$ are coprime polynomials of $$K=F(x)$$ is fixed under $$\sigma_M \circ \sigma_N$$. Therefore following equality holds $\frac{p(x)}{q(x)}=z=(\sigma_2\circ\sigma_1)(z)=\frac{p(x+1)}{q(x+1)},$ which is equivalent to $p(x)q(x+1)=p(x+1)q(x).$ By induction, we get for $$n \in \mathbb Z$$ $p(x)q(x+n)=p(x+n)q(x).$ Assume $$p(x)$$ is not a constant polynomial. Then it has a root $$\alpha$$ in some finite extension $$E$$ of $$F$$. As $$p(x),q(x)$$ are coprime polynomials, $$q(\alpha) \neq 0$$. Consequently $$p(\alpha+n)=0$$ for all $$n \in \mathbb Z$$ and the elements $$\alpha +n$$ are all distinct as the characteristic of $$F$$ is supposed to be non zero. This implies that $$p(x)$$ is the zero polynomial, in contradiction with our assumption. Therefore $$p(x)$$ is a constant polynomial and $$q(x)$$ also according to a similar proof. Hence $$z$$ is constant as was supposed to be proven.

Finally, $$K=F(x)$$ is not algebraic over $$F=M \cap N$$ as $$(1,x, x^2, \dots, x^n, \dots)$$ is independent over the field $$F$$ which concludes our claims on $$K, M$$ and $$N$$.

# Complex matrix without a square root

Consider for $$n \ge 2$$ the linear space $$\mathcal M_n(\mathbb C)$$ of complex matrices of dimension $$n \times n$$. Is a matrix $$T \in \mathcal M_n(\mathbb C)$$ always having a square root $$S \in \mathcal M_n(\mathbb C)$$, i.e. a matrix such that $$S^2=T$$? is the question we deal with.

First, one can note that if $$T$$ is similar to $$V$$ with $$T = P^{-1} V P$$ and $$V$$ has a square root $$U$$ then $$T$$ also has a square root as $$V=U^2$$ implies $$T=\left(P^{-1} U P\right)^2$$.

### Diagonalizable matrices

Suppose that $$T$$ is similar to a diagonal matrix $D=\begin{bmatrix} d_1 & 0 & \dots & 0 \\ 0 & d_2 & \dots & 0 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \dots & d_n \end{bmatrix}$ Any complex number has two square roots, except $$0$$ which has only one. Therefore, each $$d_i$$ has at least one square root $$d_i^\prime$$ and the matrix $D^\prime=\begin{bmatrix} d_1^\prime & 0 & \dots & 0 \\ 0 & d_2^\prime & \dots & 0 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \dots & d_n^\prime \end{bmatrix}$ is a square root of $$D$$. Continue reading Complex matrix without a square root

# Additive subgroups of vector spaces

Consider a vector space $$V$$ over a field $$F$$. A subspace $$W \subseteq V$$ is an additive subgroup of $$(V,+)$$. The converse might not be true.

If the characteristic of the field is zero, then a subgroup $$W$$ of $$V$$ might not be an additive subgroup. For example $$\mathbb R$$ is a vector space over $$\mathbb R$$ itself. $$\mathbb Q$$ is an additive subgroup of $$\mathbb R$$. However $$\sqrt{2}= \sqrt{2}.1 \notin \mathbb Q$$ proving that $$\mathbb Q$$ is not a subspace of $$\mathbb R$$.

Another example is $$\mathbb Q$$ which is a vector space over itself. $$\mathbb Z$$ is an additive subgroup of $$\mathbb Q$$, which is not a subspace as $$\frac{1}{2} \notin \mathbb Z$$.

Yet, an additive subgroup of a vector space over a prime field $$\mathbb F_p$$ with $$p$$ prime is a subspace. To prove it, consider an additive subgroup $$W$$ of $$(V,+)$$ and $$x \in W$$. For $$\lambda \in F$$, we can write $$\lambda = \underbrace{1 + \dots + 1}_{\lambda \text{ times}}$$. Consequently $\lambda \cdot x = (1 + \dots + 1) \cdot x= \underbrace{x + \dots + x}_{\lambda \text{ times}} \in W.$

Finally an additive subgroup of a vector space over any finite field is not always a subspace. For a counterexample, take the non-prime finite field $$\mathbb F_{p^2}$$ (also named $$\text{GF}(p^2)$$). $$\mathbb F_{p^2}$$ is also a vector space over itself. The prime finite field $$\mathbb F_p \subset \mathbb F_{p^2}$$ is an additive subgroup that is not a subspace of $$\mathbb F_{p^2}$$.

# Non commutative rings

Let’s recall that a set $$R$$ equipped with two operations $$(R,+,\cdot)$$ is a ring if and only if $$(R,+)$$ is an abelian group, multiplication $$\cdot$$ is associative and has a multiplicative identity $$1$$ and multiplication is left and right distributive with respect to addition.

$$(\mathbb Z, +, \cdot)$$ is a well known infinite ring which is commutative. The rational, real and complex numbers are other infinite commutative rings. Those are in fact fields as every non-zero element have a multiplicative inverse.

For a field $$F$$ (finite or infinite), the polynomial ring $$F[X]$$ is another example of infinite commutative ring.

Also for $$n$$ integer, the integers modulo n is a finite ring that is commutative. Finally, according to Wedderburn theorem every finite division ring is commutative.

So what are examples of non commutative rings? Let’s provide a couple. Continue reading Non commutative rings

# A linear map without any minimal polynomial

Given an endomorphism $$T$$ on a finite-dimensional vector space $$V$$ over a field $$\mathbb F$$, the minimal polynomial $$\mu_T$$ of $$T$$ is well defined as the generator (unique up to units in $$\mathbb F$$) of the ideal:$I_T= \{p \in \mathbb F[t]\ ; \ p(T)=0\}.$

For infinite-dimensional vector spaces, the minimal polynomial might not be defined. Let’s provide an example.

We take the real polynomials $$V = \mathbb R [t]$$ as a real vector space and consider the derivative map $$D : P \mapsto P^\prime$$. Let’s prove that $$D$$ doesn’t have any minimal polynomial. By contradiction, suppose that $\mu_D(t) = a_0 + a_1 t + \dots + a_n t^n \text{ with } a_n \neq 0$ is the minimal polynomial of $$D$$, which means that for all $$P \in \mathbb R[t]$$ we have $a_0 + a_1 P^\prime + \dots + a_n P^{(n)} = 0.$ Taking for $$P$$ the polynomial $$t^n$$ we get $a_0 t^n + n a_1 t^{n-1} + \dots + n! a_n = 0,$ which doesn’t make sense as $$n! a_n \neq 0$$, hence $$a_0 t^n + n a_1 t^{n-1} + \dots + n! a_n$$ cannot be the zero polynomial.

We conclude that $$D$$ doesn’t have any minimal polynomial.

# Non linear map preserving Euclidean norm

Let $$V$$ be a real vector space endowed with an Euclidean norm $$\Vert \cdot \Vert$$.

A bijective map $$T : V \to V$$ that preserves inner product $$\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$$ is linear. Also, Mazur-Ulam theorem states that an onto map $$T : V \to V$$ which is an isometry ($$\Vert T(x)-T(y) \Vert = \Vert x-y \Vert$$ for all $$x,y \in V$$) and fixes the origin ($$T(0) = 0$$) is linear.

What about an application that preserves the norm ($$\Vert T(x) \Vert = \Vert x \Vert$$ for all $$x \in V$$)? $$T$$ might not be linear as we show with following example:$\begin{array}{l|rcll} T : & V & \longrightarrow & V \\ & x & \longmapsto & x & \text{if } \Vert x \Vert \neq 1\\ & x & \longmapsto & -x & \text{if } \Vert x \Vert = 1\end{array}$

It is clear that $$T$$ preserves the norm. However $$T$$ is not linear as soon as $$V$$ is not the zero vector space. In that case, consider $$x_0$$ such that $$\Vert x_0 \Vert = 1$$. We have:$\begin{cases} T(2 x_0) &= 2 x_0 \text{ as } \Vert 2 x_0 \Vert = 2\\ \text{while}\\ T(x_0) + T(x_0) = -x_0 + (-x_0) &= – 2 x_0 \end{cases}$

# Non linear map preserving orthogonality

Let $$V$$ be a real vector space endowed with an inner product $$\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$$.

It is known that a bijective map $$T : V \to V$$ that preserves the inner product $$\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$$ is linear.

That might not be the case if $$T$$ is supposed to only preserve orthogonality. Let’s consider for $$V$$ the real plane $$\mathbb R^2$$ and the map $\begin{array}{l|rcll} T : & \mathbb R^2 & \longrightarrow & \mathbb R^2 \\ & (x,y) & \longmapsto & (x,y) & \text{for } xy \neq 0\\ & (x,0) & \longmapsto & (0,x)\\ & (0,y) & \longmapsto & (y,0) \end{array}$

The restriction of $$T$$ to the plane less the x-axis and the y-axis is the identity and therefore is bijective on this set. Moreover $$T$$ is a bijection from the x-axis onto the y-axis, and a bijection from the y-axis onto the x-axis. This proves that $$T$$ is bijective on the real plane.

$$T$$ preserves the orthogonality on the plane less x-axis and y-axis as it is the identity there. As $$T$$ swaps the x-axis and the y-axis, it also preserves orthogonality of the coordinate axes. However, $$T$$ is not linear as for non zero $$x \neq y$$ we have: $\begin{cases} T[(x,0) + (0,y)] = T[(x,y)] &= (x,y)\\ \text{while}\\ T[(x,0)] + T[(0,y)] = (0,x) + (y,0) &= (y,x) \end{cases}$

# A simple ring which is not a division ring

Let’s recall that a simple ring is a non-zero ring that has no two-sided ideal besides the zero ideal and itself. A division ring is a simple ring. Is the converse true? The answer is negative and we provide here a counterexample of a simple ring which is not a division ring.

We prove that for $$n \ge 1$$ the matrix ring $$M_n(F)$$ of $$n \times n$$ matrices over a field $$F$$ is simple. $$M_n(F)$$ is obviously not a division ring as the matrix with $$1$$ at position $$(1,1)$$ and $$0$$ elsewhere is not invertible.

Let’s prove first following lemma. Continue reading A simple ring which is not a division ring

# Unique factorization domain that is not a Principal ideal domain

In this article, we provide an example of a unique factorization domain – UFD that is not a principal ideal domain – PID. However, it is known that a PID is a UFD.

We take a field $$F$$, for example $$\mathbb Q$$, $$\mathbb R$$, $$\mathbb F_p$$ (where $$p$$ is a prime) or whatever more exotic.

The polynomial ring $$F[X]$$ is a UFD. This follows from the fact that $$F[X]$$ is a Euclidean domain. It is also known that for a UFD $$R$$, $$R[X]$$ is also a UFD. Therefore the polynomial ring $$F[X_1,X_2]$$ in two variables is a UFD as $$F[X_1,X_2] = F[X_1][X_2]$$. However the ideal $$I=(X_1,X_2)$$ is not principal. Let’s prove it by contradiction.

Suppose that $$(X_1,X_2) = (P)$$ with $$P \in F[X_1,X_2]$$. Then there exist two polynomials $$Q_1,Q_2 \in F[X_1,X_2]$$ such that $$X_1=PQ_1$$ and $$X_2=PQ_2$$. As a polynomial in variable $$X_2$$, the polynomial $$X_1$$ is having degree $$0$$. Therefore, the degree of $$P$$ as a polynomial in variable $$X_2$$ is also equal to $$0$$. By symmetry, we get that the degree of $$P$$ as a polynomial in variable $$X_1$$ is equal to $$0$$ too. Which implies that $$P$$ is an element of the field $$F$$ and consequently that $$(X_1,X_2) = F[X_1,X_2]$$.

But the equality $$(X_1,X_2) = F[X_1,X_2]$$ is absurd. Indeed, the degree of a polynomial $$X_1 T_1 + X_2 T_2$$ cannot be equal to $$0$$ for any $$T_1,T_2 \in F[X_1,X_2]$$. And therefore $$1 \notin F[X_1,X_2]$$.