Ring Epimorphism and Nil Radical

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sudharaka
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radical Ring
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of ring epimorphisms, specifically focusing on the relationship between the nil radical of a ring and its image under a ring epimorphism. Participants explore the implications of the epimorphism on nil ideals and the nil radical, seeking to understand the necessary conditions for certain inclusions to hold.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if $\theta:\, R\rightarrow S$ is a ring epimorphism, then \(\theta(\mbox{Nil }( R))\subseteq\mbox{Nil }(S)\) holds, based on the properties of nil ideals and the definition of ring homomorphisms.
  • Others argue that the surjectivity of $\theta$ is crucial for ensuring that the image of a nil ideal under $\theta$ remains a nil ideal in $S$, highlighting the potential failure of the multiplicative property if $\theta$ is not surjective.
  • A later reply questions the necessity of the epimorphism condition in the context of the problem, suggesting that it may be more relevant in related parts of the problem concerning the Jacobson radical.
  • Some participants clarify that while ring epimorphisms need not be surjective in a strict sense, in this context, they are treated as such, which affects the conclusions drawn about the nil radical.
  • There is a discussion about the distinction between nilpotent elements and nil radicals, with some noting that showing $\theta(r)$ is nilpotent is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion in the nil radical of $S$.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of surjectivity in the context of ring epimorphisms. While some agree on its importance for the properties of nil ideals, others highlight the ambiguity in definitions and the implications for the problem at hand. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity of the epimorphism condition.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the definitions and properties of ring epimorphisms may vary across texts, leading to potential confusion about the implications of surjectivity in this context. Additionally, there is an acknowledgment that the nilradical may not encompass all nilpotent elements, complicating the analysis of the problem.

Sudharaka
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone, :)

Here's a question that I failed to do correctly in an exam. I want to find the answer to this and understand it fully. Any comments, hints would be greatly appreciated.

Question:

If $\theta:\, R\rightarrow S$ is a ring epimorphism, prove that \(\theta(\mbox{Nil }( R))\subseteq\mbox{Nil }(S)\) where $\mbox{Nil}( R)$ is the nil radical (sum of all nil two sided ideals of $R$).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sudharaka said:
Hi everyone, :)

Here's a question that I failed to do correctly in an exam. I want to find the answer to this and understand it fully. Any comments, hints would be greatly appreciated.

Question:

If $\theta:\, R\rightarrow S$ is a ring epimorphism, prove that \(\theta(\mbox{Nil }( R))\subseteq\mbox{Nil }(S)\) where $\mbox{Nil}( R)$ is the nil radical (sum of all nil two sided ideals of $R$).

I think I got the answer to this one. Take any element, $\theta(x)\in \theta(\mbox{Nil }( R))$. Then $x\in\mbox{Nil }( R)$ and therefore $x^n=0$ for some $n$. Since $\theta$ is a ring homomorphism, $[\theta(x)]^n=\theta(x^n)=\theta(0)=0$ and therefore $\theta(x)\in\mbox{Nil }( S)\Rightarrow \theta(\mbox{Nil }( R))\subseteq\mbox{Nil }(S)$. The thing I don't understand is where I have to use the fact that $\theta$ is an epimorphism ? :confused:

Edit: I think I know what is happening here. In the book this problem was taken there is another part that asks to show that $\theta(\mbox{Rad }( R)) \subseteq\mbox{Rad }(S)$ where $\mbox{Rad }(R )$ denotes the Jacobson radical of $R$. Perhaps this is where the fact that $\theta$ is an epimorphism is used. :)
 
Suppose $I$ is a nil ideal of $R$. Then $\theta(I)$ is a nil ideal of $S$ (here it is vital that $\theta$ be surjective, or else the multiplicative property of an ideal may fail).

It follows that any sum of nil ideals in $R$ is mapped by $\theta$ to a nil ideal in $S$.

(Note: strictly speaking, ring epimorphisms need not be surjective maps, although some texts use the term in this sense. For example, the inclusion map: $\Bbb Z \to \Bbb Q$ is an epimorphism in the strict sense, but is not surjective, since any map: $\Bbb Q \to R$ is uniquely determined by its values on the integers).
 
Deveno said:
Suppose $I$ is a nil ideal of $R$. Then $\theta(I)$ is a nil ideal of $S$ (here it is vital that $\theta$ be surjective, or else the multiplicative property of an ideal may fail).

Ohhhh….. (Nod) So I should show that $\theta(\mbox{Nil }(R ))$ is an ideal before showing that it's included in $\mbox{Nil }(S)$. And for this I need the surjective (epimorphism) property. Is this what you meant?

Deveno said:
It follows that any sum of nil ideals in $R$ is mapped by $\theta$ to a nil ideal in $S$.

(Note: strictly speaking, ring epimorphisms need not be surjective maps, although some texts use the term in this sense. For example, the inclusion map: $\Bbb Z \to \Bbb Q$ is an epimorphism in the strict sense, but is not surjective, since any map: $\Bbb Q \to R$ is uniquely determined by its values on the integers).

I know that there's this difference between epimorphisms and surjective maps, but in our case I am pretty sure that the term epimorphism is used to mean a surjective ring homomorphism. :)
 
Yes! The nilradical of $S$ may be somewhat smaller than the set of all nilpotent elements (since this set may not even be closed under addition). So showing that $\theta(r)$ is nilpotent when $r$ is, is necessary, but not sufficient.

If, however, you show $\theta(r)$ lies in some nil ideal, it necessarily must lie in the nilradical of $S$.

Here is how the surjectivity comes into play:

Clearly, for any ideal $I,\ \theta(I)$ is an additive subgroup of $S$ (since $\theta$ is an abelian group homomorphism, as all ring homomorphisms are).

Now if we pick any $s \in S, y \in \theta(I)$, since $\theta$ is surjective:

$s = \theta(r)$ for some $r \in R$.

Thus:

$sy = \theta(r)\theta(x) = \theta(rx)$ for some $x \in I$.

Since $I$ is an ideal, $rx \in I$, thus $sy \in \theta(I)$.
 
Deveno said:
Yes! The nilradical of $S$ may be somewhat smaller than the set of all nilpotent elements (since this set may not even be closed under addition). So showing that $\theta(r)$ is nilpotent when $r$ is, is necessary, but not sufficient.

If, however, you show $\theta(r)$ lies in some nil ideal, it necessarily must lie in the nilradical of $S$.

Here is how the surjectivity comes into play:

Clearly, for any ideal $I,\ \theta(I)$ is an additive subgroup of $S$ (since $\theta$ is an abelian group homomorphism, as all ring homomorphisms are).

Now if we pick any $s \in S, y \in \theta(I)$, since $\theta$ is surjective:

$s = \theta(r)$ for some $r \in R$.

Thus:

$sy = \theta(r)\theta(x) = \theta(rx)$ for some $x \in I$.

Since $I$ is an ideal, $rx \in I$, thus $sy \in \theta(I)$.

Thank you so much, you are a lifesaver. Now that I have understood the gist of the problem, I will read the additional details you gave me. Thanks again. :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K