MHB Simple Problem - Establishing an Isomorphism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isomorphism
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
In Example 7 in Dummit and Foote, Section 10.4. pages 369-370 (see attachment) D&F are seeking to establish an isomorphism:

$$ S \otimes_R R \cong S $$

They establish the existence of two S-module homomorphisms:

$$ \Phi \ : \ S \otimes_R R \to S $$

defined by $$ \Phi (s \otimes r ) = sr $$

and

$$ {\Phi}' \ : \ S \to S \otimes_R R $$

defined by $$ {\Phi}' (s) = s \otimes 1 $$D&F then show that $$ \Phi {\Phi}' = I $$ where I is the identity function on simple tensors ...

How does this establish that $$ S \otimes_R R \cong S $$ ... presumably this establishes $$ \Phi $$ as a bijective homomorphism ... but how exactly ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A bijective homomorphism is also called an isomorphism...

To be a bit more clear, let us suppose we have two $R$-module homomorphisms:

$f:M \to N$
$g: N \to M$

such that $g \circ f = 1_M$, the identity map on $M$.

Claim 1: $g$ is surjective.

Let $m \in M$. Then $m = g(f(m))$ so that $m$ has the pre-image under $g$ of $f(m)$.

Claim 2: $f$ is injective.

Suppose $f(m) = f(m')$. Then $m - m' = g(f(m)) - g(f(m')) = g(f(m) - f(m')) = g(0) = 0$, so $m = m'$.

Now, if we already know $f$ is surjective, this means $f$ is bijective, hence an isomorphism (and $g$ is also likewise an isomorphism).

Since any $s \in S$ has the pre-image (under $\Phi$) $s \otimes 1$, $\Phi$ is clearly surjective.

By showing $\Phi'\Phi$ is the identity on simple tensors, it follows from the bilinearity of $\otimes$ that it is the identity on any SUM of simple tensors, that is, on any tensor.

(it should be clear that the identity map $I$ on $S\otimes_R R$ is indeed an $S$-linear map).

(EDIT: you have the composition order of $\Phi$ and $\Phi'$ reversed)

(EDIT #2: D&F also show that $\Phi\Phi' = 1_S$ which means these morphisms are two-sided inverses of each other, hence each is a bijection).
 
Last edited:
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top