Proving f(1) = 1 for a Surjective Ring Function

  • Thread starter Thread starter mattmns
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ring
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a property of a surjective function defined between two rings, specifically showing that f(1) = 1 under certain conditions. The context involves properties of ring functions and their behavior under addition and multiplication.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to demonstrate that f(1) must equal 1 by leveraging the surjectivity of the function and the properties of rings. Some participants question the validity of the reasoning presented, particularly regarding the steps taken to conclude that f(1) = 1.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaged in clarifying the reasoning behind the original poster's argument. There is a focus on the correctness of the steps taken, with some guidance provided on simplifying the argument without unnecessary elaboration.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the properties of commutative rings and the identities involved, as well as the implications of surjectivity in the context of the function f.

mattmns
Messages
1,129
Reaction score
5
I have this question, just curious if what I did is correct.
----
Let A and R be rings, and let f:A->R be a function satisfying:

f(a+b) = f(a)+f(b) and f(ab) = f(a)f(b).

Prove that if f is surjective, then f(1) = 1.
-----

Note: I will use * for multiplication for clarity where things would have just otherwise been next to each other.
Also, note that A and R are commutative rings, both of which have a multiplicative identity 1.

First, R is a ring, so 1 is in R. Also, because this function is surjective, there must be some a in A, that satisfies f(a) = 1. So, we can rewrite f(a) = 1 as: 1 = f(a*1) = f(a)f(1) = 1*f(1) [because f(a) = 1] = f(1) = 1.

That looks sufficient to me, but I don't like it when I don't use something I could have (ie, the + part of the function). Does this look correct? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, but you have 1 = ... = f(1) = 1. You shouldn't have that underlined part.
 
AKG said:
Yes, but you have 1 = ... = f(1) = 1. You shouldn't have that underlined part.
Thanks. You are right, I cannot say that f(1) = 1 in that sense.
 
Yes, but of course you don't need to. You have 1 = ... = f(1), and that's all you needed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K