Sum of Ideals with Empty Intersection

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that if a ring R contains two ideals B and C such that B+C=R and B∩C=0, then both B and C are rings and R is isomorphic to the direct product B x C. The participant explores the implications of the unit of R being in either ideal and the challenge of demonstrating the existence of units in B and C. They conclude that the uniqueness of the representation r=b+c leads to the identification of units in the respective ideals. The conversation emphasizes the importance of recognizing uniqueness in algebraic expressions to facilitate understanding of ring structures.
wnorman27
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If a ring R contains two ideals B and C with B+C=R and B\capC=0, prove that B and C are rings and R\congB x C.


Homework Equations


B+C={all b+c|b\inB and c\inC}


The Attempt at a Solution


So far I've discovered that if the unit of R is in one of the ideals then that ideal is all of R, while the other is just {0}. Unfortunately this doesn't help much because I can't guarantee the unit of R is in either ideal. In fact I'm having trouble showing that anything is in B or C. I've been trying to find units for B and C (distinct from the unit of R since while B and C are ring,s they are not necessarily subrings). Is this a faulty approach? I can't think of any other approach...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, what do you mean with ring?? Is a ring with you always unital? Commutative?
What is an ideal? Is it always a two-sided ideal?
 
My text defines a ring to be unital but not necessarily commutative, and an ideal to be a two-sided ideal unless otherwise stated.
 
OK, so we wish to find units in B and C. Well, we can certainly write

1=b+c

for unique b and c. I claim that the b and c are units of B and C respectively. Can you show this?
 
Well for b'\inB and c'\inC,

b'1=b'(b+c)=b'b+b'c=b'b (since b'c is an element of B\capC, and is thus 0)

so b'=b'b, and similar arguments show
b'=bb'
c'=c'c
c'=cc'

so that b is the unit in B and c is the unit in C.

Given that we can write r=b+c for unique b and c, this and the rest of the problem is clear, and fairly straightforward (\phi(r)=(b,c) where b and c are the unique elements of B and C respectively s.t. r=b+c, and then injectivity and surjectivity are both pretty quick).

I hadn't thought originally that r=b+c gave unique b and c. However, I can show this:

Suppose r=b+c=b'+c'. Then (b-b')=(c'-c)\in(B\capC), so that (b-b')=(c'-c)=0 and b=b' and c=c'.

Is there something that I should have picked up on that would have allowed me to see this immediately? Should I generally check uniqueness whenever I hear "___ can be expressed as ___"? Thanks!
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K