What is the contradiction in the proof for M/I\subseteqJ/I and M\subseteqJ?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the statement that if M/I ⊆ J/I for ideals M, J, and I in a commutative ring R, then it follows that M ⊆ J. The proof by contradiction assumes M/I ⊆ J/I and that M is not contained in J, leading to the conclusion that there exists an element m in M that is not in J, which contradicts the initial assumption. The participants highlight the need for clarity regarding the coset representation, suggesting that assuming m+I = j+I for some j in J could lead to further contradictions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ideals in commutative rings
  • Familiarity with cosets and quotient structures
  • Knowledge of proof techniques, particularly proof by contradiction
  • Basic concepts of set theory and equivalence relations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of ideals in commutative rings
  • Learn about quotient rings and their applications
  • Explore advanced proof techniques in abstract algebra
  • Investigate examples of ideals and their relationships in specific rings
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying abstract algebra, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of ideal theory and proof strategies in ring theory.

EV33
Messages
192
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am curious,
if I,J, and M are ideals of the commutative ring R, and M/I[itex]\subseteq[/itex]J/I, then M[itex]\subseteq[/itex]J

Homework Equations



M/I = { m+I : m is in M}

J/I = { j+I : j is in J}

I[itex]\subseteq[/itex]R is an ideal if
1.) if a and b are in I then a+b is in I
2.) if r is in R and a is in I then a*r is in I

The Attempt at a Solution



Proof by contradiction:

Assume M/I[itex]\subseteq[/itex]J/I,
and M is not contained in J.

Since M is not contained in J then there exists a m in M that is not in J.
Then m+I is in M/I but not in J/I.

This is a contradiction to the hypothesis that M/I[itex]\subseteq[/itex]J/I. Thus M is contained in J. (QED)

Any flaws?

Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
EV33 said:
Since M is not contained in J then there exists a m in M that is not in J.
Then m+I is in M/I but not in J/I.

This step isn't necessarily obvious. The coset m+I can go by many different names. How do you know it isn't the same set as j+I for some j in J?

I suggest assuming that m+I = j+I for some j in J, and deriving a contradiction.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
8K