Sum of Ideals with Empty Intersection

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of ideals in a ring, specifically focusing on two ideals B and C within a ring R, where it is given that B + C = R and B ∩ C = 0. The original poster seeks to prove that B and C are rings and that R is isomorphic to the direct sum of B and C.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to explore the implications of having the unit of R in one of the ideals and questions the validity of their approach regarding the existence of units in B and C. Some participants question the definitions of rings and ideals, seeking clarification on whether they are unital and two-sided, respectively. Others suggest examining the uniqueness of representations of elements in R as sums of elements from B and C.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some providing insights into the properties of units in the ideals and discussing the uniqueness of representations. There is a productive exploration of definitions and implications, though no consensus has been reached on the overall proof structure.

Contextual Notes

The original poster notes difficulty in showing that elements belong to B or C and expresses uncertainty about their approach. Additionally, there is a discussion about the assumptions regarding the nature of rings and ideals as defined in the text.

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!
 

Similar threads

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