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

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Fantini
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field quotient Ring
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the properties of the quotient ring of a field, specifically whether it is trivial or isomorphic to the field itself. The key argument presented is that if \( N \) is a non-trivial ideal of a field \( F \), then \( N \) must equal \( F \), leading to the conclusion that the quotient ring \( F/N \) is trivial. The homomorphism \( \phi: F \to F/N \) is shown to be surjective, and injectivity is established by demonstrating that if \( N \neq \{0\} \), then \( \phi \) cannot be injective, confirming that the only ideal that allows for a non-trivial quotient is the zero ideal.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of field theory and properties of fields
  • Familiarity with ideals in ring theory
  • Knowledge of homomorphisms and their properties
  • Basic concepts of quotient rings in abstract algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of ideals in fields and their implications
  • Learn about homomorphisms in ring theory, focusing on injectivity and surjectivity
  • Explore the concept of quotient rings and their applications in algebra
  • Investigate examples of fields and their ideals to solidify understanding
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students and educators in abstract algebra, particularly those studying field theory and ring theory. It is also useful for mathematicians interested in the structural properties of algebraic systems.

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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
970
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K