Triangular Matrix RIngs .... Another Question

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix Rings
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the First Isomorphism Theorem for Rings as it pertains to Example 1.14 from T. Y. Lam's "A First Course in Noncommutative Rings." Participants seek to establish the isomorphisms between certain quotient structures involving ideals in a ring.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Peter requests assistance in rigorously demonstrating that ##A / (R \oplus M) \cong S## and ##A / (M \oplus S) \cong R##, suggesting that the First Isomorphism Theorem for Rings may be relevant.
  • Micromass suggests defining a surjection from ##A## to ##S## as part of the proof using the First Isomorphism Theorem.
  • Peter outlines a proposed surjection and its kernel, concluding that this leads to the desired isomorphism, while also noting that a similar argument could apply to the second isomorphism.
  • A later reply affirms Peter's analysis as correct but advises verifying that the homomorphisms are indeed ring homomorphisms and emphasizes the necessity of ideals in the context of the theorem.
  • There is a mention that the group isomorphism theorem would not suffice, highlighting the importance of ring homomorphisms and the nature of the ideals involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the approach using the First Isomorphism Theorem, but there is no consensus on the correctness of the homomorphisms or the characterization of the ideals without further verification.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need to check that the proposed homomorphisms are ring homomorphisms and that the ideals ##M \oplus S## and ##R \oplus M## are indeed ideals in ##A##, which remains unresolved.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading T. Y. Lam's book, "A First Course in Noncommutative Rings" (Second Edition) and am currently focussed on Section 1:Basic Terminology and Examples ...

I need help with yet another aspect of Example 1.14 ... ...

Example 1.14 reads as follows:
?temp_hash=be8a623e9154ee8ca2b39fa65a5078a6.png

?temp_hash=be8a623e9154ee8ca2b39fa65a5078a6.png
Near the end of the above text from T. Y. Lam we read the following:

" ... ... Moreover ##R \oplus M## and ##M \oplus S## are both ideals of ##A##, with ##A / (R \oplus M ) \cong S## and ##A / ( M \oplus S ) \cong R## ... ... "Can someone please help me to show, formally and rigorously that ##A / (R \oplus M ) \cong S## and ##A / ( M \oplus S ) \cong R## ... ...My only thought so far is that the First Isomorphism Theorem for Rings may be useful ...

Hope someone can help ... ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Lam - 1 -  Example 1.14 - PART 1.png
    Lam - 1 - Example 1.14 - PART 1.png
    57.7 KB · Views: 633
  • Lam - 2 -  Example 1.14 - PART 2      .png
    Lam - 2 - Example 1.14 - PART 2 .png
    81.2 KB · Views: 745
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
First isomorphism theorem. Try it. What would an obvious surjection ##A\rightarrow S## be?
 
Thanks for the help, micromass ... ...

Use of the First Isomorphism Theorem for Rings in order to show that R/ ( R \oplus M ) \cong S would proceed as follows:

Define a surjection ##\phi \ : \ A \longrightarrow S## ... ...

... where ##\phi## is defined as the map ##\begin{pmatrix} r & m \\ 0 & s \end{pmatrix} \ \mapsto \ \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & s \end{pmatrix}####\phi## is clearly an epimorphism with kernel ... :

##\text{ ker } \phi = \begin{pmatrix} r & m \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \ \cong \ R \oplus M## So by the First Isomorphism Theorem for Rings we have the following

##A / \text{ ker } \phi \ \cong \ S## ...

... that is ...

##A / ( R \oplus M ) \ \cong \ S## ...Is the above analysis correct?

If it is correct ... then ##A / ( M \oplus S ) \ \cong \ R## ... follows similarly ...

[Note: I think we could have proved the above by only invoking the First Isomorphism Theorem for Groups ... ]

Any comments critiquing the above analysis are welcome ...

Peter
 
Looks correct, although I think you should check (as an exercise) that your homomorhisms are actually ring homomorphims.
And this is the reason, why the group isomorphism theorem would not be enough. You need ring homomorphisms and ideals ##M \oplus S## and ##R \oplus M##. It should be easy to check whether they are really ideals in ##A##.

Ideals and kernels of ring homomorphisms correspond 1:1.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K