There are no ring homomorphisms from Z5 to Z7

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaysFan31
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Homomorphisms Ring
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of ring homomorphisms from Z5 to Z7, as posed in a problem from an algebra class. Participants are exploring the definitions and properties of ring homomorphisms to understand the implications of the problem statement.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are examining the definition of ring homomorphisms and questioning the validity of certain mappings, particularly the mapping f(x)=0. They are discussing the implications of the identity requirement and the behavior of elements under addition in Z5.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants actively questioning and clarifying the conditions under which a function can be considered a ring homomorphism. Some guidance has been offered regarding the identity mapping and the consequences of element behavior in Z5 and Z7.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the definitions and properties of ring homomorphisms, particularly in relation to the specific structures of Z5 and Z7. There is a focus on understanding how the elements of these rings interact under the proposed mappings.

JaysFan31
I just need confirmation.

I have a problem in my algebra class that says:
Prove that there are no ring homomorphisms from Z5 to Z7.
I have the following definition of ring homomorphism:
Let R and S be rings. A function R to S is a ring homomorphism if the following holds:
f(1R)=1S.
f(r1+r2)=f(r1)+f(r2) for all r1 and r2 in R.
f(r1r2)=f(r1)f(r2) for all r1 and r2 in R.

I've been thinking and wouldn't f(x)=0 work?
This is a problem in a published textbook so it doesn't make sense to me. Could anyone clue me into where there might be a contradiction in the definition?

Thanks in anticipation. Mike.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Then the first condition, that 1 maps to 1, isn't satisfied.
 
Could you just explain why it isn't satisfied? I think I'm missing something.
 
You're saying f(1)=0, and 0 is not 1 in Z7
 
Why does f(1)=0?
 
Because you said it did. You asked: why is the map f(x)=0 for all x not a homomorphism. Ans: because f(1) is not 1, contradicting the definition of ring homomorphism.
 
Well the f(x)=0 wasn't part of the problem. It was just my own thinking. Does this still work? Somehow I'm still not getting where there is a contradiction in the definition.
 
What I'm basically asking is, is there a ring homomorphism from Z5 to Z7. My book says no. Why is this?
 
If f(1)=1, then what is f(1+1), f(1+1+1), etc.? Eventually there will be a problem.
 
  • #10
JaysFan31 said:
Well the f(x)=0 wasn't part of the problem. It was just my own thinking. Does this still work?


Does what still work?
 
  • #11
Yeah what's the problem?
The identity requirement seems to hold. I'm really missing something. Could you spell it out for me?
 
  • #12
So what are the elements 1, 1+1, 1+1+1, ... in Z5? Are any of them the same? If so, do they map to the same element in Z7, as they must?
 
  • #13
Are you saying that this function is injective and therefore not a ring homomorphism?
Because I don't see how 3 in Z5 not being the same as 3 in Z7 is a reason for it not being a homomorphism.
 
  • #14
Can someone just update me on this?
 
  • #15
Keep going. What is 5 in Z5? In Z7?
 
  • #16
OK. I think I got it. Thanks for the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K