MHB Rings of Fractions .... Lovett, Section 6.2 ....

Click For Summary
In Stephen Lovett's "Abstract Algebra: Structures and Applications," Section 6.2 discusses the construction of rings of fractions, specifically addressing the isomorphism between the ring of fractions formed with positive integers and the rational numbers. The discussion clarifies that any rational number can be expressed as a fraction with a positive denominator, allowing for a straightforward mapping. This mapping, referred to as the "identity" map, establishes a one-to-one and onto homomorphism from the ring of fractions with positive denominators to the rational numbers. The participants emphasize that multiplying both the numerator and denominator by -1 can adjust negative denominators to positive ones. Understanding this isomorphism is crucial for grasping the properties of rings of fractions in abstract algebra.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
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 some remarks following Definition 6.2.4 ... ... ...

The remarks following Definition 6.2.4 reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6461In the above text from Lovett we read the following:

" ... ... it is not hard to show that if we had taken $$D = { \mathbb{Z} }^{ \gt 0 }$$ we would get a ring of fractions that is that is isomorphic to $$\mathbb{Q}$$. ... ... "Can someone please help me to understand this statement ... how is such an isomorphism possible ... in particular, how does one achieve a one-to-one and onto homomorphism from the positive integers to the negative elements of $$\mathbb{Q}$$ as well as the positive elements ...

Hope someone can help ... ...

Peter=================================================

To enable readers to understand Lovett's approach to the rings of fraction construction, I am providing Lovett Section 6.2 up to an including the remarks following Definition 6.2.4 ... as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6462
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6463
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6464
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The simple reason is that any element $q\in Q$ can be realized as $q={a\over b}$ with $b>0$. If a denominator is negative, just multiply numerator and denominator by -1.

Formally, let $Q_1$ be the ring constructed with denominators positive. It's then easy to verify that the "identity" map from $Q_1$ to $Q$ is an isomorphism.
 
johng said:
The simple reason is that any element $q\in Q$ can be realized as $q={a\over b}$ with $b>0$. If a denominator is negative, just multiply numerator and denominator by -1.

Formally, let $Q_1$ be the ring constructed with denominators positive. It's then easy to verify that the "identity" map from $Q_1$ to $Q$ is an isomorphism.
Thanks johng ... appreciate the help ...

Peter
 
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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K