Prep for Algebra Comprehensive Exam #1

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BSMSMSTMSPHD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Exam
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the preparation for an Algebra comprehensive exam, specifically focusing on properties of ring homomorphisms and ideals. Participants share their solutions to exam problems and seek feedback on their accuracy, while also discussing definitions and theorems relevant to the topic.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster (OP) presents a solution regarding the inverse image of an ideal under a ring homomorphism and discusses conditions under which the image of an ideal is also an ideal.
  • Some participants suggest using a more common definition of an ideal, indicating that closure under multiplication does not need to be shown if the ideal absorbs products from the ring.
  • One participant points out that proving closure under multiplication is redundant if the ideal absorbs products, and also corrects the spelling of "kernel."
  • A later reply provides a hint regarding the proof for part (b) and references a theorem about ideals under ring homomorphisms.
  • Another participant questions whether rings in the OP's class are required to have a unit, leading to a discussion about differing definitions in various textbooks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the redundancy of proving closure under multiplication if absorption is established. However, there is no consensus on the definitions of rings and ideals, as some participants note variations in definitions across different textbooks.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific textbooks and definitions that may not align universally, indicating potential limitations in the discussion's scope based on differing educational contexts.

Who May Find This Useful

Students preparing for algebra exams, particularly those studying ring theory and properties of ideals in the context of ring homomorphisms.

BSMSMSTMSPHD
Messages
131
Reaction score
0
I am currently studying for my Algebra comprehensive exam which will be given at the end of August. As part of my materials, I have several old exams, minus the answers. I would like to post my solutions here to see if they are accurate.

I am posting here rather than in the homework section, because this is not homework, and I don't want to take attention away from those people asking real homework questions. That being said, if you do see a mistake in my work, please do not give me the solution. All constructive comments are welcome. Thanks!

1. Let [tex]f:R \rightarrow S[/tex] be a ring homomorphism, let [tex]I[/tex] be an ideal in [tex]R[/tex], and [tex]J[/tex] be an ideal in [tex]S[/tex].

a. Show that the inverse image [tex]f^{-1}(J)[/tex] is an ideal of [tex]R[/tex] that contains the kernal of [tex]f[/tex].

b. Prove that if [tex]f[/tex] is surjective, then [tex]f(I)[/tex] is an ideal in S. Give an example showing that if [tex]f[/tex] is not surjective then [tex]f(I)[/tex] need not be an ideal in [tex]S[/tex].


SOLUTION

a. I will show that [tex]f^{-1}(J)[/tex] is nonempty, closed under subtraction and multiplication (making it a subring of [tex]R[/tex]), and absorbs products from [tex]R[/tex].

Since [tex]0 \in J[/tex] and [tex]f(0) = 0[/tex], (since [tex]f[/tex] is a ring homomorphism), [tex]f^{-1}(J)[/tex] is nonempty.

Suppose [tex]x,y \in f^{-1}(J)[/tex]. Then [tex]f(x) \in J[/tex] and [tex]f(y) \in J[/tex]. Then, [tex]f(x - y) = f(x) - f(y)[/tex] (since [tex]f[/tex] is a ring homomorphism). And, [tex]f(x) - f(y) \in J[/tex] (since [tex]J[/tex] is an ideal, and therefore closed under subtraction).

Likewise, [tex]f(xy) = f(x)f(y) \in J[/tex].

Finally, for any [tex]r \in R[/tex], [tex]f(rx) = f(r)f(x) \in J[/tex] (since [tex]J[/tex] is an ideal, [tex]f(r) \in S[/tex], [tex]f(x) \in J[/tex]).

Thus, we have established that [tex]f^{-1}(J)[/tex] is an ideal of [tex]R[/tex]. To see that it contains the kernal of [tex]f[/tex], let [tex]k \in ker(f)[/tex]. Then [tex]f(k) = 0 \in J[/tex]. So, [tex]ker(f) \subseteq f^{-1}(J)[/tex].


b. Similarly to part a, I will show that [tex]f(I)[/tex] is nonempty, closed under subtraction and multiplication, and absorbs products from [tex]S[/tex].

Since [tex]I[/tex] is an ideal, [tex]0 \in I[/tex]. Since [tex]f[/tex] is a ring homomorphism, [tex]f(0) = 0 \in S[/tex]. So, [tex]f(I)[/tex] is nonempty.

Suppose [tex]x,y \in f(I)[/tex]. Then there exist [tex]a,b \in I[/tex] such that [tex]f(a) = x[/tex] and [tex]f(b) = y[/tex]. Then, [tex]x - y = f(a) - f(b) = f(a - b)[/tex] (since [tex]f[/tex] is a ring homomorphism). And, [tex]f(a - b) \in f(I)[/tex] (since [tex]I[/tex] is an ideal, and therefore closed under subtraction).

Likewise, [tex]xy = f(ab) = f(a)f(b) \in f(I)[/tex].

Finally, suppose [tex]s \in S[/tex]. Since [tex]f[/tex] is surjective, there exists [tex]r \in R[/tex] such that [tex]f(r) = s[/tex]. Then, [tex]sx = f(r)f(a) = f(ra) \in f(I)[/tex] (since [tex]I[/tex] is an ideal, [tex]r \in R[/tex], [tex]a \in I[/tex]).

Thus, we have established that [tex]f(I)[/tex] is an ideal of [tex]S[/tex]. To show that the surjectivity of [tex]f[/tex] is required, consider the identity map [tex]f: \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}[/tex], which is clearly not surjective. [tex]n \mathbb{Z}[/tex] is an ideal of [tex]\mathbb{Z}[/tex] for any [tex]n \in \mathbb{Z}[/tex], but [tex]f(n \mathbb{Z}) = n \mathbb{Z}[/tex] is not an ideal of [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex] (being a field, [tex]\mathbb{Q}[/tex] has no properly contained ideals).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you should use this definition of ideal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_(ring_theory)since it's more common. This also means you don't have to show closure under multiplication. Everything else looks fine, I didn't notice anything off. Goodluck.
 
Last edited:
If it absorbs products from the ring, then it's automatically closed under multiplication, so even using the OP's definition, proving explicitly that the sets are closed under multiplication is redundant.

Also, the word is kernel. :wink:
 
Thanks you both for your responses. I agree that I was redundant, and I will look for this in later proofs. As for the misspelling of kernel - well, I have no excuse for that!

I will post new questions/solutions under different headings (#2, #3, etc.)
 
Here is a major hint on (b).

Theorem: Given [tex]f:R\to S[/tex] be a ring homomorphism. And [tex]I\triangleleft R[/tex] then [tex]f<i>\triangleleft f</i>[/tex]. Now if [tex]f[/tex] is surjective then [tex]f<s>=S</s>[/tex]. Complete this proof.
 
In your class, rings are not required to have a unit?
 
No they aren't. But I've seen books with both defenitions. We're using Dummit & Foote (3rd Edition).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K