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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of rings of fractions as presented in Stephen Lovett's book, specifically focusing on the implications of Definition 6.2.4 and the isomorphism between certain structures. Participants are exploring the theoretical aspects of this definition and its applications in abstract algebra.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter seeks clarification on the isomorphism between the positive integers and the rational numbers as suggested in Lovett's text, specifically how a one-to-one and onto homomorphism can be established.
  • Another participant argues that there is no direct isomorphism between the set D and Q, but rather an isomorphism exists between equivalence classes of pairs (r,d), where r is in R and d is in D, mapping to Q.
  • Peter acknowledges a misunderstanding and expresses gratitude for the clarification provided by the other participant.
  • A later post humorously suggests a correction regarding the authorship of the text, indicating a potential mix-up between Lovett and another author, Leavitt.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of the isomorphism discussed. There are competing views regarding the relationship between D and Q, with some asserting the existence of an isomorphism through equivalence classes while others question the initial claim.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential misunderstandings regarding the definitions and relationships in the context of rings of fractions, particularly the nature of isomorphisms and equivalence classes. There may be limitations in the assumptions made about the mappings discussed.

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:
?temp_hash=fb73158f1e161ee8cd97c4fd29851acd.png


In 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:
?temp_hash=fb73158f1e161ee8cd97c4fd29851acd.png

?temp_hash=fb73158f1e161ee8cd97c4fd29851acd.png

?temp_hash=fb73158f1e161ee8cd97c4fd29851acd.png
 

Attachments

  • Lovett - Remarks on Rings of Fractions ... ....png
    Lovett - Remarks on Rings of Fractions ... ....png
    56.3 KB · Views: 765
  • Lovett - 1 - Rings of Fractions - Section 6.2.2 - Part 1.png
    Lovett - 1 - Rings of Fractions - Section 6.2.2 - Part 1.png
    28.9 KB · Views: 732
  • Lovett - 2 - Rings of Fractions - Section 6.2.2 - Part 2 ... ... .png
    Lovett - 2 - Rings of Fractions - Section 6.2.2 - Part 2 ... ... .png
    33 KB · Views: 667
  • Lovett - 3 - Rings of Fractions - Section 6.2.2 - Part 3 ... ... .png
    Lovett - 3 - Rings of Fractions - Section 6.2.2 - Part 3 ... ... .png
    45.2 KB · Views: 666
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no isomorphism between D and Q, but an isomorphism between a set of equivalence classes of pairs (r,d) (where r is in R and d is in D ) and Q.
The equivalence class containing all pairs (-n,2n) will map to -1/2, for example.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Hi willem2

Thanks for the help ...

Obviously I should have read the text more carefully ...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 
Should be Lovett and Leavitt or Lovett and Leavitt ;).
 

Similar threads

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