Homomorphism between commutative rings

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

The discussion focuses on proving that the kernel of a surjective ring homomorphism \( f: R \to S \) is a maximal ideal of \( R \) under the conditions that both \( R \) and \( S \) are commutative rings, and \( S \) is a field. The user outlines their proof in three steps: demonstrating that the kernel is a subring of \( R \), establishing that the kernel is an ideal, and using the properties of surjective functions and fields to conclude that the kernel is maximal. The proof relies on the first isomorphism theorem, which states that \( R/\ker(f) \) is a field, confirming that no proper ideal exists larger than \( \ker(f) \).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring homomorphisms and their properties.
  • Knowledge of commutative rings and fields.
  • Familiarity with ideals and maximal ideals in ring theory.
  • Concept of the first isomorphism theorem in abstract algebra.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of ring homomorphisms in detail.
  • Learn about the structure and characteristics of maximal ideals in commutative rings.
  • Explore the first isomorphism theorem and its implications in ring theory.
  • Investigate examples of surjective ring homomorphisms and their kernels.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in abstract algebra, students studying ring theory, and anyone interested in the properties of commutative rings and homomorphisms.

infinityQ
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
When I read a ring homomophism of wiki, I found a sentence in the properties section.

Let f:R->S be a ring homomorphism (Assuming R and S have a mulitplicative identity).
"If R and S are commutative, S is a field, and f is surgective, then ker(f) is a maximal ideal of R".

I was trying to prove the above sentence, but I could not finish proving it.

My proof so far is

Step 1: showing ker(f) is a subring of R.
f(0) = 0, f(1) = 1.
Let r belongs to ker(f), called I, which is a subset of R.
Then f(r)=0. f(r + (-r))=0. Thus r has an additive inverse.
f(x+(y+z))=f(x)+f(y+z)=f(x)+f(y)+f(z)=f(x+y)+f(z)=f((x+y)+z)=0 for x,y,z in I, which shows the associative of addition.
f(a(bc)) = f(a)f(bc)=f(a)f(b)f(c)=f(ab)f(c)=f((ab)c)=0, for a,b,c in I.
f(a(b+c)) = f(a)f(b+c)=f(a)(f(b)+f(c))=f(ab)+f(ac)=f(ab+ac)=0

Step 2:showing I(=ker(f)) is an ideal of R.
Let x belongs to R and r belongs to I.
We claim that xr belongs to I. Suppose on the contrary that xr does not belong to I.
Then f(xr)=f(x)f(r) \neq0, which means both f(x) and f(r) should not be zero, contradicting that r belongs to ker(f). Thus xr belongs to I.

Step 3:Using f is surgective to S which is a field, show that ker(f) is a maximal ideal of R.

Please correct me if something is wrong in step 1&2, and give me some hints for step 3.
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
By the first isomorphism theorem R/kerf is a field. So there won't be a proper ideal in R larger than kerf, because field don't have proper ideals.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K