Compatible ring structure on ring-valued set functions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on defining a ring structure on the set of set-functions \( R^S \) where \( R \) is a ring and \( S \) is any set. The proposed operations for addition and multiplication are \( (\alpha + \beta)(s) = \alpha(s) + \beta(s) \) and \( (\alpha \cdot \beta)(s) = \alpha(s)\beta(s) \). The mapping \( \phi: R \to R^S \) defined by \( \phi(r)(s) = r \) is established as an isomorphism when \( S \) is a singleton, demonstrating that \( R^S \cong R \). The key challenge addressed is proving the surjectivity of \( \phi \), which is confirmed by showing that any function in \( R^S \) can be represented as a constant function.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring theory and ring structures
  • Familiarity with set functions and mappings
  • Knowledge of isomorphisms in algebra
  • Basic concepts of injectivity and surjectivity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of ring homomorphisms and isomorphisms
  • Explore the concept of function spaces in algebra
  • Learn about the implications of cardinality in set theory
  • Investigate examples of ring-valued functions and their applications
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebraists, and students studying abstract algebra, particularly those interested in ring theory and functional analysis.

Kreizhn
Messages
714
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Let R be a ring and S be any set. Let [itex]R^S[/itex] be the set of set-functions [itex]S \to R[/itex]. Endow [itex]R^S[/itex] with a ring structure such that if S is a singleton, then [itex]R^S[/itex] is just a copy of R.

The Attempt at a Solution



It seems to me that the obvious (and perhaps only?) way to endow [itex]R^S[/itex] with a ring structure that is compatible with R is to define for [itex]\alpha, \beta \in R^s[/itex]
[tex](\alpha + \beta)(s) = \alpha(s) + \beta(s), \quad (\alpha \cdot \beta)(s) = \alpha(s)\beta(s)[/tex]
And I have checked that this makes [itex]R^S[/itex] a ring with additive and multiplicative identities given by the constant functions
[tex]0(s) = 0_R, \quad 1(s) = 1_R, \forall s \in S[/tex]

So all that remains to show is that when S is a singleton, then [itex]R^S \cong R[/itex]. Intuitively, I think I know how to do this, but I'm having trouble formalizing. It seems to me that the easiest way to do this is to give the mapping [itex]\phi: R \to R^S[/itex] where [itex]\phi(r)[/itex] is the constant function taking all elements of S to r. Namely,
[tex][\phi(r)](s) = r, \forall s \in S.[/tex]
Now I want to show that this is an isomorphism. The preservation of the ring structure is simple and follows from definition of the ring structure on [itex]R^S[/itex] so all that remains is to show that [itex]\phi[/itex] is bijective. It is easily injective, since if [itex]r_1 \neq r_2[/itex] in R then certainly [itex]\phi(r_1) \neq \phi(r_2)[/itex]. My problem is showing surjectivity.

I know that I can use set-magic to show that [itex]|R^S | = |R|[/itex] when [itex]|S| = 1[/itex]. I also know that if I can show that phi has a right-inverse, it will be surjective. I'm just stuck here and not sure how to proceed. Is this just vacuously true? That is, since the domain of the function [itex]\alpha: S \to R[/itex] is a singleton, do all functions just look like constant functions and I can claim I'm done? This just seems a little shaky, so I want to make it more sound.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wait, I might have figured it out. Let [itex]\alpha \in R^S[/itex] with S = {s}. Then [itex]\phi[/itex] is surjective since [itex]\phi(\alpha(s)) = \alpha[/itex], yes?
 
Kreizhn said:
Wait, I might have figured it out. Let [itex]\alpha \in R^S[/itex] with S = {s}. Then [itex]\phi[/itex] is surjective since [itex]\phi(\alpha(s)) = \alpha[/itex], yes?

Yes, that is correct!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K