MHB Why Does y ∈ xR Imply xR = yR in Theorem 3.2.19?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Theorem
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading The Basics of Abstract Algebra by Paul E. Bland ...

I am focused on Section 3.2 Subrings, Ideals and Factor Rings ... ...

I need help with the proof of Theorem 3.2.19 ... ... Theorem 3.2.19 and its proof reads as follows:
View attachment 8269In the above proof by Bland we read the following:"... ... If $$y \in xR$$ it immediately follows that $$xR = yR$$ ... ... Can someone please explain exactly why $$y \in xR$$ implies that $$xR = yR$$ ... ... Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading The Basics of Abstract Algebra by Paul E. Bland ...

I am focused on Section 3.2 Subrings, Ideals and Factor Rings ... ...

I need help with the proof of Theorem 3.2.19 ... ... Theorem 3.2.19 and its proof reads as follows:
In the above proof by Bland we read the following:"... ... If $$y \in xR$$ it immediately follows that $$xR = yR$$ ... ... Can someone please explain exactly why $$y \in xR$$ implies that $$xR = yR$$ ... ... Peter

I've been thinking about my question ... and think i have an answer ... as follows ...... to show $$y \in xR \Longrightarrow xR = yR$$ ...Assume $$y \in xR$$ ...

But then we also have $$y \in yR$$ ...

$$\Longrightarrow xR \subseteq yR$$ ... ... ... ... (1)Now ... let $$a \in yR$$ ... in addition to our assumption that $$y \in xR$$ ...

then $$ a = yb$$ for some $$b \in R$$ ... ... ... ... (2)

But $$y \in xR$$ so $$y = xc$$ for some $$c \in R$$ ... ... ... ... (3)

Now ... (2) (3) $$\Longrightarrow a = xcb = xd$$ where $$d \in R$$

So ... $$a = xd \in xR$$ ...

$$\Longrightarrow yR \subseteq xR$$ ... ... ... ... (4)Therefore (1) (4) $$\Longrightarrow xR = yR$$ ...
Is the above proof correct?Peter
 
(4) is correct, but I am afraid that (1) is not correct.

In the proof it is supposed that $yR$ is an ideal such that $xR \subseteq yR \subseteq R$.

Furthermore, $xR$ is a nonzero ideal and $y \in xR$.

$xR$ is an ideal, so for for all $r \in R$ we have $yr \in xR$, thus $yR \subseteq xR$.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K