MHB Ideals and Ker(f) Solution for (a), (b), and (c)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe20
  • Start date Start date
Joe20
Messages
53
Reaction score
1
I have attached my solution for part (a), (b) and (c). I am not sure if part (a), (b) are correct. However for part (c), the question did not define the output of the function so I am not sure if I can do it as such as I do not know how to continue. Therefore need verification on all the 3 parts. Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • A4Q4.png
    A4Q4.png
    24.4 KB · Views: 129
  • A4ii.jpg
    A4ii.jpg
    84.5 KB · Views: 113
  • A4i.jpg
    A4i.jpg
    76.5 KB · Views: 111
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your proofs for parts (a) and (b) look good. Your solution to (c), however, does not make sense. To prove (c), define an explicit map $f : R \to \Bbb Z$, and show that it’s a surjective ring homomorphism with kernel $I$. The result then follows from the first isomorphism theorem for rings.

Consider $f : R\to \Bbb Z$ given by $f(A) = A_{12}$, where $A_{12}$ is the $(1,2)$-entry of $A$. Show that $f$ has the desired properties.
 
Euge said:
Your proofs for parts (a) and (b) look good. Your solution to (c), however, does not make sense. To prove (c), define an explicit map $f : R \to \Bbb Z$, and show that it’s a surjective ring homomorphism with kernel $I$. The result then follows from the first isomorphism theorem for rings.

Consider $f : R\to \Bbb Z$ given by $f(A) = A_{12}$, where $A_{12}$ is the $(1,2)$-entry of $A$. Show that $f$ has the desired properties.
Hi, what does the 1,2 entry means? Am I right to say it is incorrect to prove surjective and homomophism from what I have thus far?
 
Alexis87 said:
Hi, what does the 1,2 entry means? Am I right to say it is incorrect to prove surjective and homomophism from what I have thus far?
The $(1,2)$-entry of $A$ means the entry in the first row and second column of $A$.
 
Hi, I have included an e.g. of showing of f:R -> R (real no) being defined by the function to be a. In my question above, it was not being defined. So am I going to define it myself? How am I going to define it in order to prove for surjective homorphism? [it stated as f: R -> Z (integer)]
 

Attachments

  • e.g.png
    e.g.png
    4.9 KB · Views: 98
No, you want $f: R \to \Bbb Z$ given by $f\left[\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\0&a\end{pmatrix}\right] = a$. That's what I meant earlier, but had a typo (it was supposed to read $f(A) = A_{11}$, not $f(A) = A_{12}$).
 
Euge said:
No, you want $f: R \to \Bbb Z$ given by $f\left[\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\0&a\end{pmatrix}\right] = a$. That's what I meant earlier, but had a typo (it was supposed to read $f(A) = A_{11}$, not $f(A) = A_{12}$).
I have revised it to as attached. Is it correct now? [Note: I only show the proof till surjective homomorphism, I shall continue once this is correct].

I am still somehow confused with f:R→Z given by f((a b)¦(0 a ))=a.(why can't it be f((a b)¦(0 a ))=b)?
 

Attachments

  • Revised.jpg
    Revised.jpg
    62.4 KB · Views: 99
You have proven correctly that $f$ is a ring homomorphism, but you have not proved correctly that $f$ is surjective. Elements of $R$ are matrices of the form $\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\0&a\end{pmatrix}$, so matrices like $\begin{pmatrix}a&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}$ where $a\neq 0$ do not belong to $R$.

The reason you can't make $f : R\to \Bbb Z$ be $f\left[\begin{pmatrix}a&0\\0&a\end{pmatrix}\right] = a$ is because not all elements of $R$ are of the form $\begin{pmatrix}a&0\\0&a\end{pmatrix}$. The matrix $\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{pmatrix}$, for example, belongs to $R$. Look back at the definition of $R$.
 
Euge said:
You have proven correctly that $f$ is a ring homomorphism, but you have not proved correctly that $f$ is surjective. Elements of $R$ are matrices of the form $\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\0&a\end{pmatrix}$, so matrices like $\begin{pmatrix}a&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}$ where $a\neq 0$ do not belong to $R$.

The reason you can't make $f : R\to \Bbb Z$ be $f\left[\begin{pmatrix}a&0\\0&a\end{pmatrix}\right] = a$ is because not all elements of $R$ are of the form $\begin{pmatrix}a&0\\0&a\end{pmatrix}$. The matrix $\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{pmatrix}$, for example, belongs to $R$. Look back at the definition of $R$.
Thanks. Btw, I am not sure how to see if R/I is a field or not. May need help.
 
  • #10
Since $R/I$ is ring isomorphic to $\Bbb Z$, one can just say that since $\Bbb Z$ is not a field, $R/I$ is not a field. Of course, proving part (d) does not require use of the isomorphism. It is enough to show that the coset $\begin{pmatrix}2&0\\0&2\end{pmatrix} + I$ has no inverse.
 
  • #11
Euge said:
Since $R/I$ is ring isomorphic to $\Bbb Z$, one can just say that since $\Bbb Z$ is not a field, $R/I$ is not a field. Of course, proving part (d) does not require use of the isomorphism. It is enough to show that the coset $\begin{pmatrix}2&0\\0&2\end{pmatrix} + I$ has no inverse.
May I ask how do we know that the coset has no inverse?
 
  • #12
It follows from the fact that there is no integer solution to the equation $2a = 1$. By the way, just to be clear, by “inverse” I meant multiplicative inverse, not additive inverse.
 
  • #13
Euge said:
It follows from the fact that there is no integer solution to the equation $2a = 1$. By the way, just to be clear, by “inverse” I meant multiplicative inverse, not additive inverse.
Thank you so much! I got it now.
 
Back
Top