Image of ring hom is ideal, kernel is subring.

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
3 replies · 3K views
Kreizhn
Messages
714
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Let [itex]\phi: R \to S[/itex] be a ring homomorphism from R to S. What can you say about [itex]\phi[/itex] if its image [itex]\text{im}\phi[/itex] is an ideal of S? What can you say about [itex]\phi[/itex] if its kernel [itex]\ker \phi[/itex] is a subring (w unity) of R?


The Attempt at a Solution



I think the second one is easy. Since [itex]\ker \phi[/itex] is a subring with unity, we have that [itex]\phi(1_R) = 0_S[/itex]. But it is necessary that [itex]\phi(1_R) = 1_S[/itex] since [itex]\phi[/itex] is a homomorphism. Thus [itex]\phi \equiv 0[/itex] the trivial homomorphism. I think this is all I can say about this.

The second one is a bit trickier. I want to say that [itex]\phi[/itex] is surjective, and here is my reasoning. If [itex]\text{im}\phi[/itex] is an ideal, then for all [itex]s \in S, t \in \text{im}\phi[/itex] we get that [itex]st \in \text{im}\phi[/itex]. Let [itex]u, v \in R[/itex] be such that [itex]\phi(u) = s, \phi(v) = st[/itex], then
[tex]\phi(v) = st = s \phi(u)[/tex]
So now I want to be able to say that there is necessarily a [itex]w \in R[/itex] such that [itex]\phi(w) = s[/itex], but I can't quite see how to get there.
 
on Phys.org
Kreizhn said:

Homework Statement



Let [itex]\phi: R \to S[/itex] be a ring homomorphism from R to S. What can you say about [itex]\phi[/itex] if its image [itex]\text{im}\phi[/itex] is an ideal of S? What can you say about [itex]\phi[/itex] if its kernel [itex]\ker \phi[/itex] is a subring (w unity) of R?

The Attempt at a Solution



I think the second one is easy. Since [itex]\ker \phi[/itex] is a subring with unity, we have that [itex]\phi(1_R) = 0_S[/itex]. But it is necessary that [itex]\phi(1_R) = 1_S[/itex] since [itex]\phi[/itex] is a homomorphism. Thus [itex]\phi \equiv 0[/itex] the trivial homomorphism. I think this is all I can say about this.

That's not all you can say about this. How can [itex]\phi[/itex] ever be the trivial homomorphism 0 if [itex]\phi(1_R)=1_S[/itex]. The only way phi can ever be trivial is if [itex]\phi(1_R)=0[/itex]. Thus...

The second one is a bit trickier. I want to say that [itex]\phi[/itex] is surjective, and here is my reasoning. If [itex]\text{im}\phi[/itex] is an ideal, then for all [itex]s \in S, t \in \text{im}\phi[/itex] we get that [itex]st \in \text{im}\phi[/itex]. Let [itex]u, v \in R[/itex] be such that [itex]\phi(u) = s, \phi(v) = st[/itex], then
[tex]\phi(v) = st = s \phi(u)[/tex]
So now I want to be able to say that there is necessarily a [itex]w \in R[/itex] such that [itex]\phi(w) = s[/itex], but I can't quite see how to get there.

Can you do something with the information that [itex]1_S\in im(\phi)[/itex]?
 
I had thought that first part was a bit fishy. My first inclination was to declare that S had to be the zero-ring, though the question asks what we can say about the homomorphism not what we can say about the codomain. Is this what you were going for?

Haha, I just figured out what you meant about 1 in the image. Obviously, if unity is in the ideal, the ideal is the whole ring, so the function is surjective.

Thanks.
 
Kreizhn said:
I had thought that first part was a bit fishy. My first inclination was to declare that S had to be the zero-ring, though the question asks what we can say about the homomorphism not what we can say about the codomain. Is this what you were going for?

Yes, this was what I meant. S has to be the zero ring, and phi has to be trivial!

Haha, I just figured out what you meant about 1 in the image. Obviously, if unity is in the ideal, the ideal is the whole ring, so the function is surjective.

Indeed!