Can't understand this statement about factor rings

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Silversonic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the isomorphism between the factor ring R[X]/I and the polynomial ring (R/

)[X], where p is an irreducible and non-zero element in R. The proof establishes that the map φ defined by φ((a_n x^n + ... + a_0) + I) = (a_n + ⟨p⟩)x^n + ... + (a_0 + ⟨p⟩) is a well-defined bijection and homomorphism, demonstrating the isomorphism between the two rings. The confusion arises from the interpretation of the elements in these rings, which are indeed isomorphic despite appearing different at first glance.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring theory, specifically factor rings and ideals.
  • Familiarity with irreducible and prime elements in ring theory.
  • Knowledge of polynomial rings and their properties.
  • Basic grasp of isomorphisms in algebra.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of isomorphisms in ring theory to solidify understanding of ring equivalences.
  • Learn about ideals and their role in constructing factor rings.
  • Explore the properties of irreducible and prime elements in various rings.
  • Investigate examples of factor rings and their applications in abstract algebra.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying abstract algebra, ring theory, and polynomial functions, will benefit from this discussion. It is also relevant for educators and researchers seeking to clarify concepts related to ring isomorphisms and polynomial structures.

Silversonic
Messages
121
Reaction score
1
Claim: If p \in R is irreducible and non-zero, then p is irreducible and prime in R[X]

Proof: Let I be the ideal generated by p in R[X]. Clearly I consists of polynomials where all the coefficients are divisible by p. Therefore the factor ring R[X]/I is the same as (R/<p>)[X].

The proof goes on and I'm able to understand the rest. But I cannot make physical sense of how these last two rings could be the same or how I would even go about understanding why.

R[X]/I is just a factor ring, whose elements of the cosets of I in R[X].

(R/<p>)[X] is the ring of polynomials whose coefficients are cosets of <p> in I.

So even in the definition I'm confused, R[X]/I is a set of sets of polynomials with coefficients in R. (R/<p>)[X] is just a set of polynomials with coefficients in (R/<p>). How could the two possibly be the same if this last statement is the case?

My lecturer has put "Sketch of proof" to begin with (instead of just "proof") and, since I'm completely able to understand the rest, this leads me to believe the bolded statement is actually much more in depth than he's gone in to. There's no justifaction for "these are the same". Is there an isomorphism between the rings and thus they are classified as the same up to isomorphism?

Any help appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct that the rings are not the same. However, they are isomorphic via the map ##\phi : R[x]/I \rightarrow (R/\langle p\rangle)[x]## defined by
$$\phi((a_n x^n + \ldots + a_0) + I) = (a_n + \langle p\rangle)x^n + \ldots + (a_0 + \langle p\rangle)$$
Of course you have to show that this is well defined, a bijection, and a homomorphism. To show that it is well defined, suppose that
$$(a_n x^n + \ldots + a_0) + I = (b_n x^n + \ldots + b_0) + I$$
Therefore,
$$(a_n x^n + \ldots + a_0) - (b_n x^n + \ldots + b_0) = (a_n - b_n)x^n + \ldots + (a_0 - b_0) \in I$$
which means that ##a_n - b_n, \ldots, a_0 - b_0## are all divisible by ##p##. So ##a_i - b_i \in \langle p \rangle## for each ##i##, whence ##a_i + \langle p \rangle = b_i + \langle p \rangle##.

I will leave the proof that ##\phi## is a bijection and a homomorphism to you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
991
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K