MHB Quotient Ring of a Field: Is it Trivial or Isomorphic to the Field?

Fantini
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Good afternoon! Along the same lines as the other, here is the question:

Show that the quotient ring of a field is either the trivial one or is isomorphic to the field.

My answer: Let $N$ be an ideal of the field $F$. Assume that $N \neq \{ 0 \}$. Consider the homomorphism $\phi: F \to F / N$ defined by $\phi(a) = a + N$. If we show that it is one-to-one and onto we are done. It is clearly surjective, thus all that is left is to show injectivity. If $a \neq b$ then we will have $a + N \neq b + N$, but this is none other than $\phi(a) \neq \phi(b)$.

Thanks for all help! (Yes)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a+N ≠ b+N does not follow from a ≠ b. all we can say from a+N ≠ b+N is that:

a-b is not in N.

what you need here is that if N ≠ {0}, then N = F, so that $\phi$ is the 0-map.

suppose N is a non-trivial ideal of F. since N is non-trivial there exists a ≠ 0 in N.

since a is non-zero, and F is a FIELD, we have 1/a in F.

since N is an IDEAL, we have 1 = (1/a)a in N.

thus, for any x in F, we have x = x(1) is in N, since N is an ideal.

since N contains all of F, N = F, as desired.

you have your conditions backwards, as well, you need to show that $\phi$ is bijective iff N = {0}.
 
That's quite a few arguments missing (not to mention mine is wrong). I need to stop and pay more attention whenever I feel uneasy, because at all times it has been proved the uneasiness is justified.

Thanks Deveno!
 
Thread 'How to define vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
789
Replies
5
Views
932
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
727
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
942
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K