MHB Communitative ring, map R / ( I /\ J) -> R/I x R/J

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fernando Revilla
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Map Ring
Fernando Revilla
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
631
Reaction score
0
Commutative ring, map R / ( I /\ J) -> ( R/I ) x ( R/J )

I quote an unsolved question posted in MHF (November 25th, 2012) by user needhelp2.

Say that R is a commutative ring and the I and J are ideals. Show that
the map : R=(I intersection J) maps to R/I R/J given by (r + (I intersection J)) maps to (r + I; r + J) is
well defined and is an injection. Show further more that is a surjection if and
only if I + J = R.

P.S. Communicative note: Of course I meant in the title, commutative instead of communitative.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I suppose you mean \phi:R\;/\;(I\cap J) \to (R\;/\;I)\times (R\;/\;J),\;\phi(r+I\cap J)=(r+I,r+J)

(a) \phi is well defined. Suppose r+I\cap J=r'+I\cap J, this implies r-r'\in I\cap J, that is r-r'\in I and r-r'\in J. As a consequence r+I=r'+I and r+J=r'+J or equivalently, (r+I,r+J)=(r'+I,r'+J): the image does not depend on the representants.

(b) \phi is injective. Suppose \phi(r_1+I\cap J)=\phi(r_2+I\cap J) then, (r_1+I,r_1+J)=(r_2+I,r_2+J), hence r_1-r_2\in I, r_1-r_2\in J or equivalently r_1-r_2\in I\cap J which implies r_1+I\cap J=r_2+I\cap J: \phi is injective.

(c) \phi is a surjection \Leftrightarrow\; R=I+J.

\Rightarrow) Let s\in R, as \phi is a surjection there exists r\in R such that \phi(r+I\cap J)=(0+I,s+J), that is r+I=0+I and r+J=s+J. This implies r\in I and s-r\in J, so s=r+j with r\in I and j\in J. As a consequence I+J\subset R\subset I+J, or equivalently R=I+J.

\Leftarrow) (Left as an exercise for the reader). :)
 
suppose $R = I+J$. then for any $r \in R$ we have $r = x+y$. for some $x \in I, y \in J$.

let $(r + I,r'+J)$ be any element of $R/I \times R/J$.

writing $r = x + y, r' = x' + y'$ we have:

$r+I = (x+y)+I = (y+x)+I = y+I + x+I = y+ I + I = y + I$ and:

$r'+J = (x'+y')+J = x'+J + y'+J = x'+J + J = x' + J$

let $s = x'+y$. then

$\phi(s+(I\cap J)) = \phi((x'+y)+(I\cap J)) = ((x'+y)+I,(x'+y)+J)$

$= ((x'+I)+(y+I),(x'+J)+(y+J)) = (I+(y+I),(x'+J)+J)= (y+I,x'+J) = (r+I,r'+I)$

so $\phi$ is surjective.

oh snap! this is the chinese remainder theorem in disguise, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Deveno said:
oh snap! this is the chinese remainder theorem in disguise, isn't it?

A very interesting question. :)
 
If $R = \Bbb Z$ then the condition $I + J = R$ is equivalent to:

$(a) + (b) = (1)$ that is, a and b are co-prime: gcd(a,b) = 1 (using tacitly the fact that $\Bbb Z$ is a principal ideal domain, which follows from the fact that it is euclidean).

In this case, $I\cap J = (a) \cap (b) = (\text{lcm}(a,b)) = \left(\frac{ab}{\gcd(a,b)}\right) = (ab)$

We can thus conclude that if gcd(a,b) = 1:

$\Bbb Z/(ab) \cong \Bbb Z/(a) \times \Bbb Z/(b)$ a more familiar form of the CRT.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
730
Replies
5
Views
936
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K