MHB Does R/N Form a Ring with Unity if N is a Proper Ideal of R?

Click For Summary
If R is a ring with unity and N is a proper ideal of R, then R/N forms a ring with unity. The argument presented involves a homomorphism from R to R/N, demonstrating that 1+N serves as the multiplicative identity in the factor ring. However, it is noted that a simpler approach would be to directly show that (1+N)(r+N) = r+N for all r in R. The discussion emphasizes that if 1 is in N, then R/N becomes the trivial ring {0}, reinforcing the necessity of N being a proper ideal. Thus, the conclusion is that R/N indeed has a unity under the given conditions.
Fantini
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Good afternoon. Here is the problem:

Show that if $R$ is a ring with unity and $N$ is an ideal of $R$ such that $N \neq R$, then $R/N$ is a ring with unity.

My answer: Consider the homomorphism $\phi: R \to R/N$. Given $r \in R$ we have that $\phi(r) = r + N = \phi(1 \cdot r) = \phi(r \cdot 1) = (1+N)(r+N) = (r+N)(1+N)$, therefore $1+N$ is the unity of $R/N$.

I appreciate the help. Cheers! (Yes)

P.S.: I am assuming the usual operations concerning factor rings:

$(a+N) + (b+N) = (a+b) + N$ and $(a+N)(b+N) = (ab) + N$.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fantini said:
Good afternoon. Here is the problem:

Show that if $R$ is a ring with unity and $N$ is an ideal of $R$ such that $N \neq R$, then $R/N$ is a ring with unity.

My answer: Consider the homomorphism $\phi: R \to R/N$. Given $r \in R$ we have that $\phi(r) = r + N = \phi(1 \cdot r) = \phi(r \cdot 1) = (1+N)(r+N) = (r+N)(1+N)$, therefore $1+N$ is the unity of $R/N$.

I appreciate the help. Cheers! (Yes)

P.S.: I am assuming the usual operations concerning factor rings:

$(a+N) + (b+N) = (a+b) + N$ and $(a+N)(b+N) = (ab) + N$.
Looks right to me. Only thing, there wasn't any need to invoke a homomorphism here. You could just simply show that $(1+N)(r+N)=(r+N)(1+N)=r+N$ for all r in R. Well, there ain't much to show though.
 
the only tricky part is that 1+N might actually = N, but this means that 1 is in N,

in which case we still have a multiplicative identity, but:

R/N = R/R = {0}, which is a "silly" ring. this is why we insist N ≠ R at the outset.
 
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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
843
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
742
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K