Ideals and commutative rings with unity

  • Thread starter Thread starter STEMucator
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings Unity
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 2K views
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
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
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 :).
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.