Definition
Let R be a commutative ring with prime characteristic p (an integral domain of positive characteristic always has prime characteristic, for example). The Frobenius endomorphism F is defined by
- F(r) = rp
for all r in R. Clearly this respects the multiplication of R:
- F(rs) = (rs)p = rpsp = F(r)F(s),
and F(1) is clearly 1 also. What is interesting, however, is that it also respects the addition of R. The expression (r + s)p can be expanded using the binomial theorem. Because p is prime, it divides p! but not any q! for q < p; it therefore will divide the numerator, but not the denominator, of the explicit formula of the binomial coefficients
for 1 ≤ k ≤ p − 1. Therefore the coefficients of all the terms except rp and sp are divisible by p, the characteristic, and hence they vanish. Thus
- F(r + s) = (r + s)p = rp + sp = F(r) + F(s).
This shows that F is a ring homomorphism.
In general, F is not an automorphism. For example, let K be the field Fp(t), that is, the finite field with p elements together with a single transcendental element. We claim that the image of F does not contain t. We will prove this by contradiction: Suppose that there is an element of K whose image under F is t. This element is a rational function q(t)/r(t) whose p'th power (q(t)/r(t))p equals t. This makes, which is impossible. So F is not surjective and hence not an automorphism. It is also possible for F to be non-injective. This occurs if and only if R has a nilpotent element ≠0. (An example is Fp/Tp, where F(T)=0, but T≠0.)
Read more about this topic: Frobenius Endomorphism
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“It is very hard to give a just definition of love. The most we can say of it is this: that in the soul, it is a desire to rule; in the spirit, it is a sympathy; and in the body, it is but a hidden and subtle desire to possessafter many mysterieswhat one loves.”
—François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (16131680)
“... if, as women, we accept a philosophy of history that asserts that women are by definition assimilated into the male universal, that we can understand our past through a male lensif we are unaware that women even have a historywe live our lives similarly unanchored, drifting in response to a veering wind of myth and bias.”
—Adrienne Rich (b. 1929)
“Was man made stupid to see his own stupidity?
Is God by definition indifferent, beyond us all?
Is the eternal truth mans fighting soul
Wherein the Beast ravens in its own avidity?”
—Richard Eberhart (b. 1904)