Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Composition of Functions - in the context of morphisms in algebraic ge

  1. Nov 1, 2013 #1
    I am reading Dummit and Foote (D&F) Section 15.1 on Affine Algebraic Sets.

    On page 662 (see attached) D&F define a morphism or polynomial map of algebraic sets as follows:

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Definition. A map [itex] \phi \ : V \rightarrow W [/itex] is called a morphism (or polynomial map or regular map) of algebraic sets if

    there are polynomials [itex] {\phi}_1, {\phi}_2, .......... , {\phi}_m \in k[x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n] [/itex] such that

    [itex] \phi(( a_1, a_2, ... a_n)) = ( {\phi}_1 ( a_1, a_2, ... a_n) , {\phi}_2 ( a_1, a_2, ... a_n), ... ... ... , {\phi}_m ( a_1, a_2, ... a_n)) [/itex]

    for all [itex] ( a_1, a_2, ... a_n) \in V [/itex]

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    D&F then go on to define a map between the quotient rings k[W] and k[V] as follows: (see attachment page 662)


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Suppose F is a polynomial in [itex] k[x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n] [/itex].

    Then [itex] F \circ \phi = F({\phi}_1, {\phi}_2, .......... , {\phi}_m) [/itex] is a polynomial in [itex] k[x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n] [/itex]

    since [itex] {\phi}_1, {\phi}_2, .......... , {\phi}_m [/itex] are polynomials in [itex] x_1, x_2, ... ... , x_n [/itex].

    ... ... etc etc

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am concerned that I do not fully understand exactly how/why [itex] F \circ \phi = F({\phi}_1, {\phi}_2, .......... , {\phi}_m) [/itex].

    I may be obsessively over-thinking the validity of this matter (that may be just a notational matter) ... but anyway my understanding is as follows:

    [itex] F \circ \phi (( a_1, a_2, ... a_n)) [/itex]

    [itex] = F( \phi (( a_1, a_2, ... a_n)) [/itex]

    [itex] = F( {\phi}_1 ( a_1, a_2, ... a_n) , {\phi}_2 ( a_1, a_2, ... , a_n), ... ... ... , {\phi}_m ( a_1, a_2, ... a_n) ) [/itex]

    [itex] = F ( {\phi}_1, {\phi}_2, ... ... ... , {\phi}_m ) ( a_1, a_2, ... , a_n) [/itex]

    so then we have that ...

    [itex] F \circ \phi = F({\phi}_1, {\phi}_2, .......... , {\phi}_m) [/itex].

    Can someone please confirm that the above reasoning and text is logically and notationally correct?

    Peter
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 2, 2013 #2
    Your reasoning is correct.

    The reasoning you're confused is because the notation ##F(\varphi_1,...,\varphi_n)## is really bad. I would never use it that way.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Composition of Functions - in the context of morphisms in algebraic ge
Loading...