Division algebras that generalize Dickson semifields
Daniel Thompson
Abstract.
We generalize Knuth’s construction of Case I semifields quadratic over a weak nucleus, also known as generalized Dickson semifields, by doubling of central simple algebras. We thus obtain division algebras of dimension 2s2 by doubling central division algebras of degree s. Results on isomorphisms and automorphisms of these algebras are obtained in certain cases.
Introduction
The commutative division algebras constructed by Dickson [Dic06] yield proper semifields of even dimension over finite fields. They have been subsequently studied in many papers, for example in [Bur62], [Bur64], [HTW15], [Tho19]. Knuth recognised that Dickson’s commutative division algebras also appear as a special case of another family of semifields [Knu63]: A subalgebra L of a division algebra S is called a weak nucleus if x(yz)−(xy)z=0, whenever two of x,y,z lie in L. Semifields which are quadratic over a weak nucleus are split into two cases; Case I semifields contain Dickson’s construction as the only commutative semifields of this type. Due to this, Case I semifields are also called generalized Dickson semifields. Their construction is as follows: given a finite field K=GF(pn) for some odd prime p, define a multiplication on K⊕K by
[TABLE]
for some automorphisms α, β, σ of K not all the identity automorphism and c∈K∖K2. This construction produces a proper semifield containing p2n elements. Further work on semifields quadratic over a weak nucleus was done in [Gan81] and [CG82].
In this paper, we define a doubling process which generalizes Knuth’s construction in [Knu63]: for a central simple associative algebra D/F or finite field extension K/F, we define a multiplication on the F-vector space D⊕D (resp. K⊕K) as
[TABLE]
for some c∈D× and σi∈AutF(D) for i=1,2,3,4 (resp. c∈K× and σi∈AutF(K)). This yields an algebra of dimension 2dimF(D) or 2[K:F] over F.
Over finite fields, our construction yields examples of some Hughes-Kleinfeld, Knuth and Sandler semifields (for example, see [CW99]) and all generalized Dickson and commutative Dickson semifields [Knu63][Dic06]. Hughes-Kleinfeld, Knuth and Sandler semifield constructions were studied over arbitrary base fields in [BPS18]. Dickson’s commutative semifield construction was introduced over finite fields in [Dic06] and considered over any base field of characteristic not 2 when K is a finite cyclic extension in [Bur62]. This was generalized to a doubling of any finite field extension and central simple algebras in [Tho19].
After preliminary results and definitions, we define a doubling process for both a central simple algebra D/F and a finite field extension K/F; we recover the multiplication used in Knuth’s construction of generalized Dickson semifields when σ4=id. We find criteria for them to be division algebras. We then determine the nucleus and commutator of these algebras and examine both isomorphisms and automorphisms. The results of this paper are part of the author’s PhD thesis written under the supervision of Dr S. Pumplün.
1. Definitions and preliminary results
In this paper, let F be a field. We define an F-algebra A as a finite dimensional F-vector space equipped with a (not necessarily associative) bilinear map A×A→A which is the multiplication of the algebra. A is a division algebra if for all nonzero a∈A the maps La:A→A, x↦ax, and Ra:A→A, x↦xa, are bijective maps. As A is finite dimensional, A is a division algebra if and only if there are no zero divisors [Sch95].
The associator of x,y,z∈A is defined to be [x,y,z]:=(xy)z−x(yz). Define the left, middle and right nuclei of A as Nucl(A):={x∈A∣[x,A,A]=0}, Nucm(A):={x∈A∣[A,x,A]=0}, and Nucr(A):={x∈A∣[A,A,x]=0}. The left, middle and right nuclei are associative subalgebras of A. Their intersection Nuc(A):={x∈A∣[x,A,A]=[A,x,A]=[A,A,x]=0} is the nucleus of A. The commutator of A is the set of elements which commute with every other element, Comm(A):={x∈A∣xy=yx∀y∈A}. The center of A is given by the intersection of Nuc(A) and Comm(A), Z(A):={x∈Nuc(A)∣xy=yx∀y∈A}. For two algebras A and B, any isomorphism f:A→B maps Nucl(A) isomorphically onto Nucl(B) (similarly for the middle and right nuclei).
An algebra A is unital if there exists an element 1A∈A such that x1A=1Ax=x for all x∈A.
A form N:A→F is called multiplicative if N(xy)=N(x)N(y) for all x,y∈A and nondegenerate if we have N(x)=0 if and only if x=0. Note that if N:A→F is a nondegenerate multiplicative form and A is a unital algebra, it follows that N(1A)=1F. Every central simple algebra admits a uniquely determined nondegenerate multiplicative form, called the norm of the algebra.
2. A doubling process which generalizes Knuth’s construction
Let D be a central simple associative division algebra over F with nondegenerate multiplicative norm form ND/F:D→F. Given σi∈AutF(D) for i=1,2,3,4 and c∈D×, define a multiplication on the F-vector space D⊕D by
[TABLE]
We denote the F-vector space endowed with this multiplication by Cay(D,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4). We can also define an analogous multiplication on K⊕K for a finite field extension K/F for some c∈K× and σi∈AutF(K). We similarly denote these algebras by Cay(K,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4). This yields unital F-algebras of dimension 2dimF(D) and 2[K:F] respectively. When σ4=id, our multiplication is identical to the one used in the construction of generalized Dickson semifields. For every subalgebra E⊂D such that c∈E× and σi∣E=ϕi∈AutF(E) for i=1,2,3,4, it is clear that Cay(E,c,ϕ1,ϕ2,ϕ3,ϕ4) is a subalgebra of Cay(D,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4).
Theorem 2.1**.**
- (i)
If ND/F(c)∈ND/F(D×)2, Cay(D,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4) is a division algebra.
2. (ii)
If K is separable over F and NK/F(c)∈NK/F(K×)2, then Cay(K,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4) is a division algebra.
Proof.
(i) Suppose (0,0)=(u,v)(x,y) for some u,v,x,y∈D such that (u,v)=(0,0)=(x,y). This is equivalent to
[TABLE]
Assume y=0. Then by (1), ux=0, so u=0 or x=0 as D is a division algebra. As (x,y)=(0,0), we must have x=0 so u=0. Then by (2), vσ4(x)=0 which implies v=0\mboxorx=0. This is a contradiction, thus it follows that y=0. By (2), vσ4(x)=−σ3(u)y. Let N=ND/F:D→F. Taking norms of both sides, we have
[TABLE]
since y=0. Substituting this result into (1) implies
[TABLE]
If N(v)=0, then v=0 so by (1) ux=0 implies x=0 (else (u,v)=(0,0)). Thus (3) implies N(c)=0∈F×, which cannot happen as c=0.
Thus we must have N(v)=0 and (N(x)N(y)−1)2=N(c). Thus we conclude N(c)∈N(D×)2.
(ii) The proof follows analogously as in (i); we require K to be separable over F so that NK/F(σ(x))=NK/F(x) for all σ∈AutF(K) and x∈K.
∎
Remark 2.2**.**
If F=Fps and K=Fpr is a finite extension of F, then AutF(K) is cyclic of order r/s and is generated by ϕs, where ϕ is defined by the Frobenius automorphism ϕ(x)=xp for all x∈K. Then A=Cay(K,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4) is a division algebra if and only if c is not a square in K. The proof of this is analogous to the one given in [Knu63, p. 53].
2.1. Commutator and nuclei
Unless otherwise stated, we will write AD=Cay(D,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4) and AK=Cay(K,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4).
Proposition 2.3**.**
If σ1=σ2 and σ3=σ4, Comm(AD)=F⊕F and AK is commutative. Otherwise, Comm(AD)=F and Comm(AK)={(u,0)∣σ3(u)=σ4(u)}⊆K.
Proof.
We compute this only for AD as the computations for AK follow analogously. By definition, (u,v)∈Comm(AD) if and only if for all x,y∈D, (u,v)(x,y)=(x,y)(u,v). This is equivalent to
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈D. The first equation implies u∈F and either σ1=σ2 or v=0 . Additionally, the second equation implies v∈F and σ3=σ4 or v=0. The result follows immediately.
∎
Proposition 2.4**.**
- (i)
Suppose that at least one of the following holds:
σ2∘σ4=id,
σ1∘σ4=σ2∘σ3,
σ4∘σ1=σ3∘σ2.
Then Nucl(AD)={x∈D∣σ1∘σ3(x)=c−1xc}⊂D and Nucl(AK)=Fix(σ1∘σ3)⊂K.
2. (ii)
Suppose that at least one of the following holds:
there exists some x∈D (resp. K) such that σ1∘σ3(x)=c−1xc,
σ2∘σ4=id,
for all v∈D, there exists some x∈D (resp. K) such that σ3(c)σ3∘σ1(x)σ3∘σ2(v)=xσ4(c)σ4∘σ1(v).
Then Nucm(A)=Fix(σ3−1∘σ2−1∘σ1∘σ4) for both A=AD and A=AK.
3. (iii)
Suppose that at least one of the following holds:
there exists some x∈D (resp. K) such that σ1∘σ3(x)=c−1xc,
σ1∘σ4=σ2∘σ3,
there exists some x∈D (resp. K) such that σ3(c)σ3∘σ1(x)=xσ4(c).
Then Nucr(A)=Fix(σ2∘σ4) for both A=AD and A=AK.
Proof.
We show the proof for (i) since (ii) and (iii) follow analagously. First consider all elements of the form (k,0) for k∈D. Then (k,0)∈Nucl(AD) if and only if we have ((k,0)(u,v))(x,y)=(k,0)((u,v)(x,y)) for all u,v,x,y∈D. Computing this directly, we obtain the equations
[TABLE]
These hold for all u,v,x,y∈D if and only if cσ1∘σ3(k)=kc, i.e. we have σ1∘σ3(k)=c−1kc. The same calculations yield that this holds for all u,v,x,y∈D if and only if σ1∘σ3(k)=k.
To show that there are no other elements in the left nucleus, it suffices to check that there are no elements of the form (0,m), m∈D, in Nucl(AD). This is because the associator is linear in the first component:
[(k,m),(u,v),(x,y)]=[(k,0),(u,v),(x,y)]+[(0,m),(u,v),(x,y)]. If (0,m)∈Nucl(AD), then for all u,v,x,y∈D we have ((0,m)(u,v))(x,y)=(0,m)((u,v)(x,y)). This holds for all u,v,x,y∈D if and only if
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
In order for this to be satisfied for all u,v,x,y∈D, we have either m=0 or all the following must hold:
σ2∘σ4=id,
σ1∘σ4=σ2∘σ3,
σ4∘σ1=σ3∘σ2.
If m=0, this contradicts the assumptions we made, so this yields m=0. The same argument also gives m=0 in the field case.
∎
Corollary 2.5**.**
AK* is associative if and only if AK=Cay(K,c,σ,τ,σ−1,τ−1) for some τ,σ∈AutF(K) such that (σ∘τ)2=id and c∈Fix(σ∘τ).*
As the center of A is defined as Z(A)=Comm(A)∩Nucl(A)∩Nucm(A)∩Nucr(A), we see that Z(AK)⊂K unless σ1=σ2=σ and σ3=σ4=σ−1. If AK=Cay(K,c,σ,σ,σ−1,σ−1) for some σ∈AutF(K), then AK is a commutative, associative algebra.
2.2. Isomorphisms
Theorem 2.6**.**
Let D and D′ be two central simple F-algebras (respectively, K and L finite field extensions of F) and g,h:D→D′ be two F-algebra isomorphisms. Let AD=Cay(D,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4) and BD′=Cay(D′,g(c)b2,ϕ1,ϕ2,ϕ3,ϕ4) for some b∈F× (resp. AK=Cay(K,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4) and BL=Cay(L,g(c)ϕ1(b)ϕ2(b),ϕ1,ϕ2,ϕ3,ϕ4) for some b∈K×). If
[TABLE]
then the map G:A→B, G(u,v)=(g(u),h(v)b−1) defines an F-algebra isomorphism.
Proof.
We show the proof in the central simple algebra case. It follows analogously when we take field extensions K and L. Clearly G is F-linear, additive and bijective. It only remains to show that G is multiplicative; that is, G((u,v)(x,y))=G(u,v)G(x,y) for all u,v,x,y∈D. First we have
[TABLE]
It similarly follows that
[TABLE]
By (4) and (5), we obtain equality and thus G is an F-algebra isomorphism.
∎
Corollary 2.7**.**
Let g,h∈AutF(D) (resp. AutF(K)) and b∈F× (resp. b∈K×). Let BD=Cay(D,g(c)b2,ϕ1,ϕ2,ϕ3,ϕ4) (resp. BK=Cay(K,g(c)ϕ1(b)ϕ2(b),ϕ1,ϕ2,ϕ3,ϕ4) for some b∈K×). If
[TABLE]
then the map G:A→B,G(u,v)=(g(u),h(v)b−1) defines an F-algebra isomorphism.
Corollary 2.8**.**
Every generalised Dickson algebra AD=Cay(D,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4) is isomorphic to an algebra of the form Cay(D,c,σ1′,σ2′,σ3′,id) (analogously for the algebras AK).
Proof.
Consider the map G:D⊕D→D⊕D defined by G(u,v)=(u,σ4−1(v)). By Theorem 2.6, this yields the isomorphism Cay(D,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4)≅Cay(D,c,σ1∘σ4,σ2∘σ4,σ4−1∘σ3,id).
∎
Remark 2.9**.**
If Comm(AD)=F or Comm(AK)⊂K, then σ1=σ2 and σ3=σ4 by Lemma 2.3. Via the map G(u,v)=(u,σ3−1(v)), Corollary 2.7 yields that every such algebra is isomorphic to the generalisation of commutative Dickson algebras as defined in [Tho19].
In certain cases, the maps defined in Theorem 2.6 and Corollary 2.7 are the only possible isomorphisms between two algebras constructed via our generalised Cayley-Dickson doubling:
Theorem 2.10**.**
Let AK=Cay(K,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4) and BL=Cay(L,c′,ϕ1,ϕ2,ϕ3,ϕ4). Suppose that G:AK→BL is an isomorphism that restricts to an isomorphism g:K→L. Then G is of the form G(x,y)=(g(x),h(y)b) for some isomorphism h:K→L such that ϕi∘h=g∘σi for i=1,2 and ϕi∘g=h∘σi for i=3,4 and some b∈L× such that g(c)=c′ϕ1(b)ϕ2(b).
Proof.
Suppose G is an isomorphism from AK to BL such that G∣K=g:K→L is an isomorphism. Then for all x∈K, we have G(x,0)=(g(x),0). Let G(0,1)=(a,b) for some a,b∈L. As G is multiplicative, this yields
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
It follows that either ϕ3∘g∘σ3−1=ϕ4∘g∘σ4−1 or b=0. However, if b=0 this would imply that G was not surjective, which is a contradiction to the assumption that G is an isomorphism. Thus it follows that ϕ3∘g∘σ3−1=ϕ4∘g∘σ4−1. Additionally, we have either g∘σ3−1=g∘σ4−1 or a=0.
Consider G((0,1)2)=G(0,1)2. This gives (a2+c′ϕ1(b)ϕ2(b),ϕ3(a)b+bϕ4(a))=(g(c),0). As we have established that b=0, this implies that ϕ3(a)=−ϕ4(a). If a=0, we obtain g∘σ3−1=g∘σ4−1. Substituting this into the condition ϕ3∘g∘σ3−1=ϕ4∘g∘σ4−1, we conclude that ϕ3=ϕ4. This contradicts ϕ3(a)=−ϕ4(a). Thus we must in fact have a=0 and G(x,y)=(g(x),h(y)b) where h=ϕ3∘g∘σ3−1 and g(c)=c′ϕ1(b)ϕ2(b). Computing G(u,v)G(x,y)=G((u,v)(x,y)) gives the remaining conditions.
∎
This proof does not hold when we consider the algebras AD, as we rely heavily on the commutativity of K.
Corollary 2.11**.**
Suppose that G:AK→BK is an isomorphism that restricts to an automorphism g of K. Then G is of the form G(x,y)=(g(x),h(y)b) for g,h∈AutF(K) such that ϕi∘h=g∘σi for i=1,2 and ϕi∘g=h∘σi for i=3,4 and some b∈K× such that g(c)=c′ϕ1(b)ϕ2(b).
If Nucl(A)=Nucl(B)=K, all isomorphisms from A→B must restrict to an automorphism of K; similar considerations are true for restrictions to the middle and right nuclei. It follows that we can determine precisely when two such algebras are isomorphic by Corollary 2.11.
Corollary 2.12**.**
Suppose that G:AK→BK is an isomorphism that restricts to an automorphism g of K. If σi=ϕi=id for any i=1,2,3,4, G must be of the form
[TABLE]
for g∈AutF(K) such that ϕi∘g=g∘σi for i=1,2 and σi∘g=g∘ϕi for i=3,4 and some b∈K× such that g(c)=c′ϕ1(b)ϕ2(b).
Proof.
From Theorem 2.11, we see that ϕi∘h=g∘σi. If ϕi=σi=id for some i=1,2,3,4, we conclude that g=h and the result follows.
∎
Corollary 2.13**.**
Suppose that G:AK→BK is an isomorphism that restricts to an automorphism of K. If K is a separable extension of F, we must have NK/F(cc′−1)=NK/F(b2) for some b∈K×.
Proof.
Suppose G:AK→BK is an isomorphism that restricts to an automorphism of K. By Theorem 2.11, we have g(c)=c′ϕ1(b)ϕ2(b). Applying norms to both side, we obtain
[TABLE]
As K is a separable extension of F, it follows that NK/F(g(x))=NK/F(x) for all x∈K, g∈AutF(K). This yields NK/F(c)=NK/F(c′b2). As c′∈K× and NK/F is multiplicative, we conclude that NK/F(cc′−1)=NK/F(b2).
∎
Example 2.14**.**
Let F=Qp (p=2) and K be a separable extension of Qp. It is well known that (Qp×)2/Qp={[1],[u],[p],[up]} for some u∈Zp∖Zp2. If NK/F(c) and NK/F(c′) do not lie in the same coset of (Qp×)2/Qp, there does not exist an isomorphism that restricts to K such that Cay(K,c,σ1,σ2,σ3,σ4)≅Cay(K,c′,ϕ1,ϕ2,ϕ3,ϕ4) by Corollary 2.13.
2.3. Automorphisms
Theorem 2.15**.**
Let g,h∈AutF(D) (resp. AutF(K)) such that g∘f=f∘h for f=σ1,σ2,σ3−1,σ4−1 and let b∈F× (resp. b∈K×) such that g(c)=b2c (resp. g(c)=σ1(b)σ2(b)c). Then the map G:A→A defined by G(u,v)=(g(u),h(v)b) is an automorphism of AD (resp. AK).
This is easily checked via some long calculations.
Theorem 2.16**.**
Suppose that at least one of Nucl(AK), Nucm(AK), Nucr(AK) is equal to K. Then G:AK→AK is an automorphism of AK if and only if G has the form stated in Theorem 2.15.
Proof.
Let A=AK. Suppose G∈AutF(A) and Nucl(A)=K. As automorphisms preserve the nuclei of an algebra, G restricted to Nucl(A) must be an automorphism of K; that is, G∣K=g∈AutF(K) and so we have G(x,0)=(g(x),0) for all x∈K.
If Nucl(A)=K, by our assumptions one of Nucm(A) or Nucr(A) are equal to K. In either case, we can use an identical argument by restricting G to Nucm(A) or Nucr(A) respectively. As automorphisms preserve the nuclei of an algebra, G restricted to Nucm(A) (respectively Nucr(A)) must be an automorphism of K. Let G(0,1)=(a,b) for some a,b∈K. Then
[TABLE]
and also
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈K. Hence we must have gσ3−1(y)a=gσ4−1(y)a for all y∈K, which implies either σ3=σ4 or a=0. Additionally we have σ3gσ3−1(y)b=σ4gσ4−1(y)b. If b=0, this would imply G(x,y)=(g(x)+gσ4−1(y)a,0), which is a contradiction as it implies G is not surjective. Thus we must in fact have σ3gσ3−1(y)=σ4gσ4−1(y) for all y∈K.
Now we consider G((0,1)2)=G(0,1)2. This gives (a,b)(a,b)=(g(c),0), which implies
[TABLE]
If σ3=σ4, we already know that a=0. On the other hand if σ3=σ4, we obtain 2σ3(a)b=0. As K has characteristic not 2 and b=0, this implies a=0. In either case, we obtain cσ1(b)σ2(b)=g(c) and G(u,v)=(g(u),h(v)b), where h=σ3∘g∘σ3−1=σ4∘g∘σ4−1. We note that this definition of h implies that h∘σ3=σ3∘g and h∘σ4=σ4∘g.
Finally we consider G(u,v)G(x,y)=G((u,v)(x,y)) for all u,v,x,y∈K. We obtain (g(u),h(v)b)(g(x),h(y)b)=(g(uv+cσ1(v)σ2(y)),h(σ3(u)y+vσ4(x))b) which gives the equations
[TABLE]
As h∘σ3=σ3∘g and h∘σ4=σ4∘g, the second equation holds for all u,v,x,y∈K. Substituting g(c)=cσ1(b)σ2(b) into the first equation, we obtain σ1(h(v))σ2(h(y))=g(σ1(v))g(σ2(y)) for all v,y∈K. This implies σ1∘h=g∘σ1 and σ2∘h=g∘σ2. Hence if G is an automorphism of A we must have G(u,v)=(g(u),h(v)b) for some g,h∈AutF(K), such that g∘f=f∘h for f=σ1,σ2,σ3−1,σ4−1 and some b∈K×, such that g(c)=σ1(b)σ2(b)c.
∎
Corollary 2.17**.**
Suppose that at least one of Nucl(AK), Nucm(AK), Nucr(AK) is equal to K and AutF(K)=⟨σ⟩. Then G:AK→AK is an automorphism of AK if and only if G(u,v)=(σi(u),σi(v)b) for some i∈Z and b∈K× satisfying σi(c)=cσα2(b)σβ2(b).
In the case when doubling a central simple algebra, we obtain a partial generalisation of Theorem 2.16:
Lemma 2.18**.**
Let G∈Aut(AD) be such that G∣D=g∈AutF(D). Then there must exist some a,b∈D, b=0, such that for all y∈D,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose G∣D=g∈AutF(D). Then for all x∈D, we obtain G(x,0)=(g(x),0). Let G(0,1)=(a,b) for some a,b∈D. It now follows that
[TABLE]
and also
[TABLE]
Setting these two equivalent expressions for G(x,y) equal to each other yields the result. Note that if b=0, G would no longer be surjective, which would contradict our assumption that G∈Aut(Ad).
∎
Theorem 2.19**.**
Let G∈Aut(AD) be such that G∣D=g∈AutF(D). If σ3=σ4, then G:AD→AD must have the form as stated in Theorem 2.15.
Proof.
Suppose G∣D=g∈AutF(D). Substituting σ3=σ4 into Lemma 2.18, we see that G(0,1)=(a,b) for some a,b∈D such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
This is satisfied for all y∈D if and only if a,b∈F and so G(x,y)=(g(x)+g∘σ3−1(y)a,σ3∘g∘σ3−1(y)b). The remainder of this proof follows almost exactly the same to Theorem 2.16:
Now we consider G((0,1)2)=G(0,1)2. This gives (a,b)(a,b)=(g(c),0), which implies
[TABLE]
As a,b∈F, the second equation is equivalent to 2ab=0. As F has characteristic not 2, this implies a=0 or b=0. If b=0, G would not be surjective, which contradicts our assumption that G is an isomorphism. Thus we must have a=0 and so we obtain g(c)=cb2 and G(u,v)=(g(u),h(v)b), where h=σ3∘g∘σ3−1. We note that this definition of h implies that h∘σ3=σ3∘g.
Finally we consider G(u,v)G(x,y)=G((u,v)(x,y)) for all u,v,x,y∈D. We obtain (g(u),h(v)b)(g(x),h(y)b)=(g(uv+cσ1(v)σ2(y)),h(σ3(u)y+vσ4(x))b), which gives the equations
[TABLE]
After substituting cb2=g(c), we conclude that this is satisfied for all x,y,u,v∈D if and only if we have σ1∘h=g∘σ1 and σ2∘h=g∘σ2.
∎