Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Rings of Fractions ... Lovett, Section 6.2, Proposition 6.2

  1. Mar 11, 2017 #1
    I am reading Stephen Lovett's book, "Abstract Algebra: Structures and Applications" and am currently focused on Section 6.2: Rings of Fractions ...

    I need some help with the proof of Proposition 6.2.6 ... ... ...

    Proposition 6.2.6 and its proof read as follows:



    ?temp_hash=956de8e8f0550191ac493c6ce82e5191.png
    ?temp_hash=956de8e8f0550191ac493c6ce82e5191.png




    In the above proof by Lovett we read the following:

    " ... ... By Lemma 6.2.5, the function ##\phi## is injective, so by the First Isomorphism Theorem, ##R## is isomorphic to ##\text{Im } \phi##. ... ... "


    *** NOTE *** The function ##\phi## is defined in Lemma 6.2.5 which I have provided below ... ..



    My questions are as follows:


    Question 1

    I am unsure of exactly how the First Isomorphism Theorem establishes that ##R## is isomorphic to ##\text{Im } \phi##.

    Can someone please show me, rigorously and formally, how the First Isomorphism Theorem applies in this case ...


    Question 2

    I am puzzled as to why the First Isomorphism Theorem is needed in the first place as ##\phi## is an injection by Lemma 6.2.5 ... and further ... obviously the map of ##R## to ##\text{Im } \phi## is onto, that is a surjection ... so ##R## is isomorphic to ##\text{Im } \phi## ... BUT ... why is Lovett referring to the First Isomorphism Theorem ... I must be missing something ... hope someone can clarify this issue ...


    Hoe that someone can help ... ...

    Peter


    ===================================================

    In the above, Lovett refers to Lemma 6.2.5 and the First Isomorphism Theorem ... so I am providing copies of both ...


    Lemma 6.2.5 reads as follows:



    ?temp_hash=956de8e8f0550191ac493c6ce82e5191.png



    The First Isomorphism Theorem reads as follows:



    ?temp_hash=956de8e8f0550191ac493c6ce82e5191.png
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 12, 2017 #2
    question1.
    since φ is injective, Ker φ only contains the identity of R, so R is isomorphic to φ(R) = Im φ according to the isomorphism theorem.
    question2.
    no Idea. You can easily see that φ i a bijection, so R must be isomorphic to Im φ.
     
  4. Mar 12, 2017 #3

    Hi willem2,

    Thanks for the help ...

    Yes, I can see the main thread of your argument ...

    ... basically ...

    ##\phi injective##

    ##\Longrightarrow \text{Ker } \phi = {0}## ... ... that is ##\text{Ker } \phi## contains only additive identity of R

    ##\Longrightarrow R/ \text{Ker } \phi = R/ {0} = R \cong \text{Im } \phi ##

    Is that correct?


    ... BUT ...

    Can you explain in simple terms, why ##R/ {0} = R## ... ...???

    Peter
     
  5. Mar 12, 2017 #4

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    ##R/\{0\} = \{r + \{0\}\,\vert \,r \in R\} = \{\{r\}\,\vert \,r \in R\} \cong \{r\,\vert \,r \in R\} = R##.
    Did you mean something like this? Remember that ##R/I## is the set of all cosets ##r+I##.
     
  6. Mar 12, 2017 #5

    Thanks fresh_42 ... yes, exactly what I meant ...

    Would the answer be the same for ##R/ \{a \}## where ##a## was a given particular element of ##R##? Indeed what would the various cosets be?

    Peter
     
  7. Mar 13, 2017 #6

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    You could formally build cosets ##r+\{a\}## but unless you take the ideal generated by ##a##, i.e. ##Ra##, you won't get a structure of interest on ##R/\{a\}##. E.g. if ##[x]_a## denotes the coset ##x+\{a\}##, then ##[0]_a \neq [a+a]_a## because ##a+a \notin \{a\}## and on the other hand ##[a]_a + [a]_a = [0]_a + [0]_a.## Thus ##[a+a]_a = [a]_a + [a]_a## cannot be concluded, which means you cannot add anymore unless ##a=0##.

    So better forget about this idea of cosets of single elements other than zero. At least we want to have a subring; ideal would be better.

    If you want to learn something about cosets, you could prove the following as an exercise:
    Given a subgroup ##U## of a finite group ##G##. Then ##G/U## is well defined and ##U## partitions ##G## into equally large subsets of ##G##, the cosets ##xU##.
    But ##G/U## carries a group structure again, if and only if ##U## is a normal subgroup of ##G##.

    This is the reason why we consider normal subgroups instead of only subgroups. I haven't done the math, but I assume it's similar with ideals and subrings. So factoring along a single point set only makes sense, if this point is the neutral element of the underlying group. And rings only build a group with addition, because multiplication isn't invertible.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2017
  8. Mar 29, 2017 #7

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wonder if in a sense we can consider this as an allowable case of division by 0.
     
  9. Mar 29, 2017 #8

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    You look like a quotient
    Walk like a quotient
    Talk like a quotient
    But I got wise
    You're an addition in disguise
    Oh, yes, you are
    Addition in disguise

    You fooled me with your slashes
    You cheated and you schemed
    Heaven knows how you lied to me
    You're not the way you seemed
    ...
     
  10. Apr 2, 2017 #9

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Still, you may mod out by a non-Abelian group, in which case it does not come down to addition.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Rings of Fractions ... Lovett, Section 6.2, Proposition 6.2
Loading...