Surjective Homomorphisms of Coordinate Rings

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating the surjectivity of a homomorphism from the coordinate ring of two points in affine space to a direct product of fields. The original poster seeks to establish that for any pair of values in the codomain, there exists a polynomial mapping to those values at specified points.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the nature of the homomorphism and its injectivity, with some suggesting specific polynomial constructions to achieve the desired mappings. Questions arise regarding the implications of distinct versus identical sums of the points involved.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants examining the assumptions about the coordinate ring and the nature of the points in question. Some guidance has been offered regarding polynomial roots and the relationship between coordinate rings and varieties, but no consensus has been reached on the surjectivity argument.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted ambiguity regarding the definition of the subvariety and the implications for the surjectivity of the homomorphism. Participants are encouraged to clarify their assumptions and the context of their arguments.

ZioX
Messages
370
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I want to show that the homomorphism phi:A(X)->k+k given by taking f(x_1,...,x_n)-> (f(P_1),f(P_2)) is surjective. That is, given any (a,b) in k^2 (with addition and multiplication componentwise) I want to find a polynomial that has the property that f(P_1)=a and f(P_2)=b.

The actual question is to show that if we take the coordinate ring of two points in k^n then the coordinate ring is isomorphic to k+k (direct product).

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I have everything but surjectivity. phi is obviously an injective homomorphism (ker phi = {0 polynomial}).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm, if the sum of the elements of P_1 and P_2 are distinct we can just define

[tex]f(x_1,...,x_n)=a\left(\frac{x_1+...+x_n-P_2}{P_1-P_2}\right)+b\left(\frac{x_1+...+x_n-P_1}{P_2-P_1}\right)[/tex]

where P_i means the sum of all the elements in P_i.

I'm at a loss if the sum of the elements are the same.
 
I'm assuming:

k -- a field
X -- this is [itex]\mathbb{A}^n_k[/itex]; affine n-space over the field k.
A(X) -- coordinate ring of X
x_1, ..., x_n -- a set of generators for A(X)
P_1, P_2 -- points in k^n (i.e. in [itex]\mathbb{A}^n(k)[/itex])

And I'm assuming the codomain of phi is meant to be k^2.

The basic idea is easy; you simply show that there exists two functions satisfying
[tex]f(P_1) = 0[/tex]
[tex]f(P_2) \neq 0[/tex]
[tex]g(P_1) \neq 0[/tex]
[tex]g(P_2) = 0[/tex]



Now, I should point out that in the category of k-algebras, the direct sum is given by a tensor product: [itex]R \oplus S \cong R \otimes_k S[/itex]. In particular, [itex]k \oplus k \cong k[/itex]. And rings are dual to spaces; a direct sum of rings should correspond to a product of varieties. Conversely, the coordinate ring of a disjoint sum of varieties (e.g. a pair of points) should correspond to the direct product of the individual coordinate rings.

So, if you really did mean to talk about k + k, then in what category are you talking about sums?


I have everything but surjectivity. phi is obviously an injective homomorphism (ker phi = {0 polynomial}).
That's cleraly wrong. I bet you can find a nonzero polynomial that has both P_1 and P_2 as a root! Try n=1 to make it easier.
 
Last edited:
We're working in the coordinate ring, so all polynomials that have P_1 and P_2 as roots will be the zero polynomial (in A(X)).

I did mean direct product, I'm sorry.
 
Last edited:
ZioX said:
We're working in the coordinate ring, so all polynomials that have P_1 and P_2 as roots will be the zero polynomial (in A(X)).

I did mean direct product, I'm sorry.
Er...

You meant X to be the subvariety of [itex]\mathbb{A}^n_k[/itex] consisting only of the two points P_1 and P_2? You really should say these things. :-p
 
I guess I didn't want to elaborate much because I just wanted an argument for surjectiveness.
 
But one can't make the argument if one doesn't know the pieces involved!


Exercise: find a subvariety X of [itex]\mathbb{A}^n_k[/itex] (where k is algebraically closed) such that there does not exist a surjection [itex]\mathcal{O}(X) \to k^2[/itex].

(I prefer [itex]\mathcal{O}(X)[/itex] to denote the ring of regular functions on X, rather than the notation A(X))


(Hint: restate the problem either in terms of commutative algebra or in terms of geometry)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K