MHB Ring Theory: Proving Subrings and Ring Generation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poirot1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ring Theory
Click For Summary
The discussion addresses two main questions related to ring theory. First, it explores the intersection of all subrings containing a subset A of a ring R, demonstrating that this intersection is itself a subring of R. Second, it examines the generation of rings by the sets ∅, {0}, and {1} under the condition that 1 is not equal to 0 in R, proving they all generate the same ring. The conversation emphasizes the importance of verifying specific conditions for subrings, such as the inclusion of 0 and the closure under subtraction and multiplication. Overall, the thread provides insights into the foundational aspects of ring generation and subring properties.
Poirot1
Messages
243
Reaction score
0
Two questions

(1)For R a ring and A a subset of R, let s(A) denote the set of all subrings of R that contain A (including R itself). Show that the intersection of all these subrings is itself a subring of R.

(2)Suppose that 1 is not equal to 0 in R. Show that the sets , {0} and {1} all generate the same ring in R.


Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Poirot said:
Two questions

(1)For R a ring and A a subset of R, let s(A) denote the set of all subrings of R that contain A (including R itself). Show that the intersection of all these subrings is itself a subring of R.

(2)Suppose that 1 is not equal to 0 in R. Show that the sets , {0} and {1} all generate the same ring in R.



Thanks

1) Check whether the following conditions are met:
a) 0 is in s(A)
b) a - b is in s(A) whenever a and b are in s(A)
c) ab is in s(A) whenever a and b is are in s(A)
 
Thread 'How to define a 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
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K