Frobenius Endomorphism - Definition

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 ≤ kp − 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:

    Perhaps the best definition of progress would be the continuing efforts of men and women to narrow the gap between the convenience of the powers that be and the unwritten charter.
    Nadine Gordimer (b. 1923)

    The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.
    William James (1842–1910)

    The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!—But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.
    Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)