Ideals and commutative rings with unity

In summary, Homework Equations state that a subring A of a ring R is called a (two-sided) ideal of R if for every r in R and every a in A both ra and ar are in A. This is useful for proving things about a ring.
  • #1
STEMucator
Homework Helper
2,076
140

Homework Statement



From contemporary abstract algebra :

http://gyazo.com/08def13b62b0512a23505811bcc1e37e

Homework Equations



"A subring A of a ring R is called a (two-sided) ideal of R if for every r in R and every a in A both ra and ar are in A."

So I know that since A and B are ideals of a ring R, [itex]ar, ra \in A[/itex] and [itex]br, rb \in B[/itex] for all [itex]a \in A, \space b \in B, \space r \in R[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



So my guess is to argue the double inclusion for this.

Case : [itex]A \cap B \subseteq AB[/itex]

Suppose [itex]k \in A \cap B[/itex], then [itex]k \in A[/itex] and [itex]k \in B[/itex]. We want to show [itex]k \in AB[/itex]

I'm having trouble seeing how the given facts are supposed to steer the argument from here. Help would be much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hmm I thought about this for an hour or so... and I THINK I may be on to something. I'll continue my flow below :

Case : [itex]A \cap B \subseteq AB[/itex]

Suppose [itex]k \in A \cap B[/itex], then [itex]k \in A[/itex] and [itex]k \in B[/itex]. We want to show [itex]k \in AB[/itex].

Since we know R is a commutative ring with unity, let e denote the unity in R.

Now since [itex]R = A + B[/itex], we know that [itex]e = a + b[/itex] for some [itex]a \in A[/itex] and [itex]b \in B[/itex]. Now :

e = a + b
ke = k(a + b)
k = ka + kb

Hence [itex]ka \in A[/itex] and [itex]kb \in B[/itex] hence [itex]k \in A + B[/itex]

We can take [itex]a \in A[/itex] and we can take [itex]k \in B[/itex]. We can also take [itex]b \in B[/itex] and we can take [itex]k \in A[/itex]. Putting these together we have [itex]ka \in AB[/itex] and [itex]kb \in AB[/itex] so that [itex]k \in AB[/itex] since [itex]a \in A[/itex] and [itex]b \in B[/itex] as desired.

[itex]∴ A \cap B \subseteq AB[/itex]Case : [itex]A \cap B \supseteq AB[/itex]

Let [itex]ab \in AB[/itex]

Now, [itex]ab \in A[/itex] since [itex]a \in A[/itex], [itex]b \in R[/itex] and A is an ideal of R. Also, [itex]ab \in B[/itex] since [itex]b \in B[/itex], [itex]a \in R[/itex] and B is an ideal of R. Hence [itex]ab \in A \cap B[/itex].

[itex]∴ A \cap B \supseteq AB[/itex]

[itex]∴ A \cap B = AB[/itex]

I think that's it... If someone could look over it for me and tell me maybe if I missed something or if it's completely wrong that would be great :).
 
  • #3
Zondrina said:
Hmm I thought about this for an hour or so... and I THINK I may be on to something. I'll continue my flow below :

Case : [itex]A \cap B \subseteq AB[/itex]

Suppose [itex]k \in A \cap B[/itex], then [itex]k \in A[/itex] and [itex]k \in B[/itex]. We want to show [itex]k \in AB[/itex].

Since we know R is a commutative ring with unity, let e denote the unity in R.

Now since [itex]R = A + B[/itex], we know that [itex]e = a + b[/itex] for some [itex]a \in A[/itex] and [itex]b \in B[/itex]. Now :

e = a + b
ke = k(a + b)
k = ka + kb

Hence [itex]ka \in A[/itex] and [itex]kb \in B[/itex] hence [itex]k \in A + B[/itex]

We can take [itex]a \in A[/itex] and we can take [itex]k \in B[/itex]. We can also take [itex]b \in B[/itex] and we can take [itex]k \in A[/itex]. Putting these together we have [itex]ka \in AB[/itex] and [itex]kb \in AB[/itex] so that [itex]k \in AB[/itex] since [itex]a \in A[/itex] and [itex]b \in B[/itex] as desired.

[itex]∴ A \cap B \subseteq AB[/itex]


Case : [itex]A \cap B \supseteq AB[/itex]

Let [itex]ab \in AB[/itex]

Now, [itex]ab \in A[/itex] since [itex]a \in A[/itex], [itex]b \in R[/itex] and A is an ideal of R. Also, [itex]ab \in B[/itex] since [itex]b \in B[/itex], [itex]a \in R[/itex] and B is an ideal of R. Hence [itex]ab \in A \cap B[/itex].

[itex]∴ A \cap B \supseteq AB[/itex]

[itex]∴ A \cap B = AB[/itex]

I think that's it... If someone could look over it for me and tell me maybe if I missed something or if it's completely wrong that would be great :).

Writing e=a+b is a great idea. I think you could write it read a little better. Like did you really need to say "Hence [itex]ka \in A[/itex] and [itex]kb \in B[/itex] hence [itex]k \in A + B[/itex]"? Did you ever use that k is in A+B?
 
  • #4
Dick said:
Writing e=a+b is a great idea. I think you could write it read a little better. Like did you really need to say "Hence [itex]ka \in A[/itex] and [itex]kb \in B[/itex] hence [itex]k \in A + B[/itex]"? Did you ever use that k is in A+B?

Yes good point. I never used it at all so I don't need it there. I wrote it down just to have it around incase I MAY have needed it yknow?

Does anything else not make sense or has early morning thinking saved me again?
 
  • #5
Zondrina said:
Yes good point. I never used it at all so I don't need it there. I wrote it down just to have it around incase I MAY have needed it yknow?

Does anything else not make sense or has early morning thinking saved me again?

No, it all looks good to me.
 

FAQ: Ideals and commutative rings with unity

1. What is the definition of an ideal in a commutative ring with unity?

An ideal in a commutative ring with unity is a subset of the ring that is closed under addition, subtraction, and multiplication by any element of the ring. It is also required to contain the additive identity element and to be closed under multiplication by any element of the ring.

2. How are ideals related to the concept of a ring homomorphism?

Ideals are closely related to ring homomorphisms, as they can be defined as the kernels (or preimages) of ring homomorphisms. This means that ideals are sets of elements that are mapped to the additive identity element by a ring homomorphism. Conversely, any ideal in a ring can be used to define a ring homomorphism by mapping the elements of the ring to their cosets in the quotient ring by the ideal.

3. Can a commutative ring with unity have more than one ideal?

Yes, a commutative ring with unity can have multiple ideals. In fact, every commutative ring with unity has at least two ideals - the zero ideal, which contains only the additive identity element, and the entire ring itself. Other examples of ideals in a ring could be proper subsets of the ring that form a group under addition.

4. How do ideals relate to the concept of a quotient ring?

Ideals are used to define quotient rings. Given a commutative ring with unity R and an ideal I in R, the quotient ring R/I is a new ring that consists of the cosets of I in R. These cosets can be thought of as "collapsed" elements, where all elements in the coset are considered equivalent to each other. The quotient ring R/I inherits the operations of addition and multiplication from R, but the cosets serve as the new elements of the ring.

5. Are all commutative rings with unity also integral domains?

No, not all commutative rings with unity are integral domains. An integral domain is a commutative ring with unity where the product of any two nonzero elements is also nonzero. While all integral domains are commutative rings with unity, the converse is not true. For example, the ring Z/6Z is a commutative ring with unity, but it is not an integral domain since 2*3 = 0 in this ring.

Back
Top