Questions about Proving R/I is not the Zero Ring

  • Level: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Artusartos
  • Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ring Zero
1 reply · 2K views · last reply
Artusartos
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
I have a question about the proof that I attached...

1) Since R/I is not the zero ring, we know that [tex]1 \not= 0[/tex]. What is the reason to say [tex]1 + I \not= 0 + I[/tex] instead of [tex]1 \not= 0[/tex]?2) Also, how do we compute something like (a+I)(b+I)? Isn't this correct [tex](a+I)(b+I) = ab+aI+bI+I^2[/tex]?

3) Finally, if we have something like R/I, how do we know if the elements in R/I are of the form a+I or aI? Or is it both (since it's a ring)?

Thank you in advance
 
Attachments
  • Photo of a printed textbook page showing Proposition 5.4: an ideal I in R is prime if and only if R/I is a domain, followed by its proof in two paragraphs using cosets a + I and b + I.
    20130107_144311.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 495
Also, how do we compute something like (a+I)(b+I)? Isn't this correct [tex](a+I)(b+I) = ab+aI+bI+I^2[/tex]?

Strictly, yes; but you didn't finish. How can you simplify it further, using what you know about ideals and multiplication?

Finally, if we have something like R/I, how do we know if the elements in R/I are of the form a+I or aI? Or is it both (since it's a ring)?

R/I is the quotient of R by the normal subgroup I of (R,+) satisfying the additional constraint that RI = I. The cosets are of the form a + I.

What is the reason to say [tex]1 + I \not= 0 + I[/tex]

We know that [itex]0 \in I[/itex] by definition, so [itex]0 + I = I[/itex]. We also know that [itex]I[/itex] is a proper ideal, so it can't contain 1 (what happens if an ideal contains a unit?). It follows that [itex]1 + I \neq I[/itex].