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:

$$1_{R}\neq 0_{R}=f(0_{T})=f(1_{T})=1_{R}$$
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top