Subrings of a Ring: Intersection as Subring

  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intersection Ring
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of subrings within the context of ring theory, specifically focusing on the intersection of two subrings and whether this intersection itself forms a subring.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the requirements for a set to be considered a subring, referencing the subring test theorem and questioning the original poster's reasoning regarding the inclusion of elements in the intersection.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the necessary conditions for the intersection to be a subring, with some participants suggesting that the original argument lacks clarity. Others provide insights into the definitions and properties of rings and subrings, indicating a productive dialogue without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of including zero in any ring and discuss the multiplicative identity's role in subrings, highlighting differing assumptions about definitions in ring theory.

pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Show that the intersection of any two subrings of a ring is a subring.


The Attempt at a Solution


It seems abstract.

suppose a+b=c and a*b=d

Then if c is in A and B (where A and B are subrings) then the intersection of A and B denoted by C contains c and if C contains more the one element then it must contain a and b.

My argument may not be general enough.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The argument doesn't seem to get to the point - you probably should use a "subring test theorem", here is one description on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subring_test

So take subrings A, B, and show the intersection satisfies the subring test.
 
pivoxa15 said:

Homework Statement


Show that the intersection of any two subrings of a ring is a subring.


The Attempt at a Solution


It seems abstract.

suppose a+b=c and a*b=d

Then if c is in A and B (where A and B are subrings) then the intersection of A and B denoted by C contains c and [/b]if C contains more the one element then it must contain a and b.[/b]
How does this follow? the way you have said it, c is just a member of C and has nothing to do with a and b. (There may be many different a and b such that a+ b= c for a given c.)
You need to show "if a and b are in C, then -a is in C, a+ b is in C, and a*b is in C. Since 0 and 1 must be in any ring, they must be in A and B and so in C.
 
0 has to be in any ring, but a subring doesn't doesn't have to contain the multiplicative identity (assuming the original ring even has one). A good example is 2Z in Z.

Of course, that's entirely beside the point, but the question has already been answered, and I like being persnickety.
 
Mystic998 said:
0 has to be in any ring, but a subring doesn't doesn't have to contain the multiplicative identity (assuming the original ring even has one). A good example is 2Z in Z.

Of course, that's entirely beside the point, but the question has already been answered, and I like being persnickety.
I think the definition that rings have '1' is sufficiently pervasive that it should be assumed when not otherwise specified... honestly, the magma algebra system is the only context I've ever seen where a "ring" is not used to mean a unital associative algebra.
 
HallsofIvy said:
How does this follow? the way you have said it, c is just a member of C and has nothing to do with a and b. (There may be many different a and b such that a+ b= c for a given c.)
You need to show "if a and b are in C, then -a is in C, a+ b is in C, and a*b is in C. Since 0 and 1 must be in any ring, they must be in A and B and so in C.

So the answer is quite simple?
 
Yes, it is quite simple.

Let a and b be in the intersection of A and B, then a+ b is in A because ______
 
I still think the joke that goes 'I pronounce 'RNG' as wrong' is uproariously funny.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K