Proving Injectivity of a Ring Homomorphism over a Field

  • Thread starter Thread starter annoymage
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Homework Ring
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the injectivity of a ring homomorphism from a field to itself. The original poster presents a problem statement regarding the conditions under which a ring homomorphism is injective or maps all elements to zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the kernel of the homomorphism being either the entire field or just the zero element. There are attempts to connect properties of fields, such as units and zero divisors, to the problem. Some participants question the validity of their reasoning and seek clarification on specific steps.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing their thoughts and reasoning. Some have offered hints and suggestions for approaching the proof, while others are working through their arguments and seeking validation of their logic. There is no explicit consensus yet, but productive lines of inquiry are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of connecting the properties of fields to the problem at hand. There are also questions about the necessity of specifying the type of field involved in the discussion.

annoymage
Messages
360
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let R be a field and f : R->R be a ring homomorphism

prove that f(r)=0, for all r in R, or f is injective

Homework Equations



n/a

The Attempt at a Solution



or alternative ways i have to prove (Kernel of f)=R or (kernel of f)={0}

i've tried but stuck somewhere, hmm and also seems i can't make any connection with "field" like unit or zero divisor or something like that T_T, help clue pls
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Suppose for some a,b,c where a and b are distinct in R f(a) =c = f(b). I.e. f is not injective.

With this assumption, can you show that f(1) = 0? (which is equivlent to f(r)=0, for all r in R)

hint: f(ab^-1 - ba^-1) = 0 and ab^-1 - ba^-1 is non zero (you will have to argue this).
 
Last edited:


annoymage said:
(Kernel of f)=R or (kernel of f)={0}
This is actually way easier than my other idea.

Suppose any non zero element r satisfies f(r) = 0 what would f(r*r^-1) look like.
 


sorry a bit late, i think i get the point,

check me please,

Suppose it is not injective, so exist x in R\{0} such that f(x)=0,

then f(x)=f(xe)=f(x)f(e)=0, since R is field, inverse of f(x) exist, then imply, f(e)=0

so, for any y in R f(e)=f(yy^-1)=f(y)f(y^-1)=0, then inverse of f(y^-1) exist, so, f(y)=0 for any y in R,

is my argument correct? and also, is it ok if i not state which R belongs to?

and also this hint, "hint: f(ab^-1 - ba^-1) = 0 and ab^-1 - ba^-1 is non zero (you will have to argue this)."

hmmmm, i can show how f(ab^-1 - ba^-1) = 0, and to show f(e)=0

is this correct?

ab^-1 - ba^-1 non zero, so inverse exist, let D be it's inverse, so f(ab^-1 - ba^-1)f(D)=0,

f((ab^-1 - ba^-1)D)=f(e)=0, hmm it's correct right?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K