MHB Basic Question on Ring Homomorphisms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Homomorphisms Ring
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading An Introduction to Rings and Modules With K-Theory in View by A.J. Berrick and M.E. Keating (B&K).

I need help to clarify a remark of B&K regarding ring homomorphisms from the zero or trivial ring ...

The relevant text from B&K reads as follows:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6078
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6079In the above text from B&K's book we read ...

"... ... This follows from the observation that the obvious map from the zero ring to $$R$$ is not a ring homomorphism (unless $$R$$ itself happens to be $$0$$). ... ... "
I do not understand the above statement that the obvious map from the zero ring to $$R$$ is not a ring homomorphism (unless $$R$$ itself happens to be $$0$$) ... ... What, indeed do B&K mean by the obvious map from the zero ring to $$R$$ ... ... ?It seems to me that the obvious map is a homomorphism ... ..Consider the rings $$T, R$$ where $$T$$ is the zero ring and $$R$$ is any arbitrary ring ... so $$T = \{ 0 \}$$ where $$0 = 1$$ ...

Then to me it seems that the "obvious" map is $$f( 0_T) = 0_R$$ ... ... which seems to me to be a ring homomorphism ...

... BUT ... this must be wrong ... but why ... ?

Can someone please clarify the above for me ...

Some help will be very much appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,
Peter said:
Consider the rings $$T, R$$ where $$T$$ is the zero ring and $$R$$ is any arbitrary ring ... so $$T = \{ 0 \}$$ where $$0 = 1$$ ...

The above analysis is correct.

Peter said:
Then to me it seems that the "obvious" map is $$f( 0_T) = 0_R$$ ... ... which seems to me to be a ring homomorphism ...

... BUT ... this must be wrong ... but why ... ?

The "obvious" map isn't a ring homomorphism because if $R$ is not the trivial ring, then $0_{R}\neq 1_{R}$ and so the "obvious" homomorphism necessarily leads to a contradiction:

$$1_{R}\neq 0_{R}=f(0_{T})=f(1_{T})=1_{R}$$
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
Back
Top