MHB Is Every Homomorphism of a Field to a Ring One-to-One or Null?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fantini
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Ring
Click For Summary
Every homomorphism from a field to a ring is either one-to-one or the zero map. If a homomorphism $\phi: F \to R$ is not the zero map, then its kernel must be {0_F}, as fields have only two ideals. This implies that if $\phi(a) = \phi(b)$, then $a = b$, confirming the one-to-one nature of the homomorphism. The discussion emphasizes the importance of the kernel in proving this property. Understanding the relationship between homomorphisms and ideals is crucial for grasping this concept in abstract algebra.
Fantini
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Good afternoon! I wasn't able to get the necessary grade in abstract algebra and now I'm redoing many exercises and I would like some correction. All help is appreciated! (Smile)

Here is the question:

Show that every homomorphism of a field to a ring is one-to-one or null.

Let $\phi: F \to R$ be a homomorphism from a field $F$ to a ring $R$. Assume that $\phi \neq 0$. We have that $\phi(0_F) = 0_R$. Suppose that $\phi (a) = \phi(b)$. Since $F$ is a field, we will have $\phi(a-b) = 0_R$ if and only if $a-b=0$ and therefore $a=b$.

Cheers! (Yes)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
you're "just" missing it. what you want to PROVE is:

$\phi(x) = 0_R \iff x = 0_F$ if $\phi$ is not the 0-map.

you can't use this in the proof itself (the "if" part is easy).

now if $\phi(a) = \phi(b)$ then $\phi(a) - \phi(b) = 0_R$, and since $\phi$ is a ring-hmomorphism:

$\phi(a-b) = 0_R$ up to here, you're good. now we need to prove what i stated above.

well the set $\{x \in F: \phi(x) = 0_R\}$ is the kernel of $\phi$ and kernels are ideals (in rings).

but a field F only has two ideals, F and {0F}. if the kernel is F, $\phi$ is the 0-map. since we are assuming $\phi$ is not the 0-map, the kernel is {0F}. NOW we know that:

$a-b = 0_F$ so that $a = b$.
 
I was close! Thanks Deveno! I will pay more attention next time. The kernel is a neat way to conclude the argument (don't know if it's the only one, but I definitely liked the idea).
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
923
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
855
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K