MHB Prime Ideal in a Commutative Ring - Rotman Proposition 7.5

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Ring
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Joseph J. Rotman's book: A First Course in Abstract Algebra with Applications (Third Edition) ...

I am currently studying Section 7.1 Prime Ideals and Maximal Ideals ... ...

I need help with understanding an aspect of the proof of Proposition 7.5

Proposition 7.5 and its proof reads as follows:View attachment 4727In the first part of the proof of the proposition above we read the following:

"Let $$I$$ be a prime ideal. Since $$I$$ is a proper idea, we have $$1 \notin I$$ and so $$1 + I \neq 0 + I$$ in $$R/I$$ ... ... ... "

My question is ... ... why is Rotman taking trouble to show that $$1 + I \neq 0 + I$$ in $$R/I$$?

What is the point Rotman is making ... ... ?

Hope someone can clarify this matter ... ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

He is just avoiding the case when $I$ is not proper and then $R/I\cong \{0\}$.
 
Fallen Angel has answered the question already, but I will elaborate a bit more on this in case it's not clear :

A proper ideal of a ring $R$ is an ideal which is not the whole ring $R$. By definition, prime ideals are proper. If a prime ideal $I \subset R$ contained the identity $1$, then it has to contain every element of $R$ by definition of an ideal, hence forcing it to be not proper - contradiction.

Thus, $1 \notin I$, which in turn implies $0 \mod I \neq 1 \mod I$ (note : I use $a \mod I$ to denote an element of $R/I$ instead of $a + I$).
 
mathbalarka said:
Fallen Angel has answered the question already, but I will elaborate a bit more on this in case it's not clear :

A proper ideal of a ring $R$ is an ideal which is not the whole ring $R$. By definition, prime ideals are proper. If a prime ideal $I \subset R$ contained the identity $1$, then it has to contain every element of $R$ by definition of an ideal, hence forcing it to be not proper - contradiction.

Thus, $1 \notin I$, which in turn implies $0 \mod I \neq 1 \mod I$ (note : I use $a \mod I$ to denote an element of $R/I$ instead of $a + I$).
Fallen Angel, Mathbalarka

Thanks for your help ... appreciate you assistance ...

Peter
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
Back
Top