My Math Forum Understanding ring homomorphisms

 Abstract Algebra Abstract Algebra Math Forum

 November 24th, 2017, 05:03 AM #1 Newbie   Joined: Oct 2017 From: sweden Posts: 24 Thanks: 0 Understanding ring homomorphisms So trying to study chapters on ring homomophisms and integral domains, and there is this one problem in the book where I just don't get how to show the kind of problems yet (as I'm not yet used to it); the problem is: Show that the matrices $R=\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ 0 & a \\ \end{pmatrix}$ for $a,b \in \mathbb{R}$ is a subring of the ring of matrices $M_2(\mathbb{R})$, also find a ring homomorphism such that $\Phi:R \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that is onto. I will appreciate the help as I am very new to ring homomoprhisms. Last edited by skipjack; November 24th, 2017 at 11:41 AM.
 November 24th, 2017, 09:54 AM #2 Math Team   Joined: Jan 2015 From: Alabama Posts: 3,264 Thanks: 902 You know what a ring is don't you? To show that the set of all matrices of the form $\displaystyle \begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ 0 & a\end{pmatrix}$ is a ring, you need to show 1) It is closed under matrix addition $\displaystyle \begin{pmatrix}p & q\\ 0 & p \end{pmatrix}+ \begin{pmatrix}r & s \\ 0 & t\end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}p+ r & q+ s \\ 0 & p+ r\end{pmatrix}$ is of that same form. 2) It contains the additive identity: $\displaystyle \begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}$ is of this form with $\displaystyle a= b= 0$. 3) Addition is associative. $\displaystyle \left(\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ 0 & a \end{pmatrix}+ \begin{pmatrix}c & d \\ 0 & c\end{pmatrix}\right)+ \begin{pmatrix}e & f \\ 0 & e \end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}a+ c & b+ d \\ 0 & a+ c\end{pmatrix}+ \begin{pmatrix}e & f \\ 0 & e\end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix} (a+ c)+ e & (b+ d)+ f \\ 0 & (a+ c)+ e\end{pmatrix}$ $\displaystyle \begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ 0 & a \end{pmatrix}+ \left(\begin{pmatrix}c & d \\ 0 & c\end{pmatrix}+ \begin{pmatrix}e & f \\ 0 & e \end{pmatrix}\right)= \begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ 0 & a\end{pmatrix}+ \begin{pmatrix}c+e & d+f \\ 0 & c+e\end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix} a+ (c+ e) & b+ (d+ f) \\ 0 & a+ (c+ e)\end{pmatrix}$ Essentially, that follows from the fact that matrix addition is "element wise" and addition of numbers is "associative". For multiplication, you only have to prove that 4) It is closed under matrix multiplication. $\displaystyle \begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ 0 & a \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}c & d \\ 0 & c \end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}ac & ad+ bc \\ 0 & ac\end{pmatrix}$ In a ring, there is not necessarily a multiplicative identity nor multiplicative inverses, so we don't need to show that. (Actually, this is a "ring with identity: $\displaystyle \begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$ with $\displaystyle a= 1,\ b= 0$ is the multiplicative identity. The matrix $\displaystyle \begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ is of this form, but does not have an inverse.) 5) Multiplication is associative: $\displaystyle \left(\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ 0 & a \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}c & d \\ 0 & c\end{pmatrix}\right)\begin{pmatrix}e & f \\ 0 & e\end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}ac & ad+ bc \\ 0 & ac\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}e & f \\ 0 & e\end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix} ace & acf+ ade+ bce \\ 0 & ace\end{pmatrix}$ A ring homomorphism that is "onto" (but not one-to-one) maps $\displaystyle \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ 0 & a\end{pmatrix}$ is simply "a". Last edited by skipjack; November 24th, 2017 at 10:26 PM.
 November 24th, 2017, 03:05 PM #3 Math Team   Joined: Jan 2015 From: Alabama Posts: 3,264 Thanks: 902 Above I neglected the second part of "multiplication is associative". $\displaystyle \begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ 0 & a\end{pmatrix}\left(\begin{pmatrix}c & d \\ 0 & c\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}e & f \\ 0 & e\end{pmatrix}\right)$$\displaystyle = \begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ 0 & a\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}ce & cf+ de \\ 0 & ce\end{pmatrix}$$\displaystyle = \begin{pmatrix}ace & acf+ ade+ bce \\ 0 & ace\end{pmatrix}$.
November 24th, 2017, 03:23 PM   #4
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2017
From: United Kingdom

Posts: 313
Thanks: 112

Math Focus: Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Country Boy ...
You still need to show
2') $R$ contains additive inverses
7) multiplication and addition distribute over each other

Note that 2') and 1) immediately imply 2). Also, the fact that $R$ is a subset of the ring $M_2(\mathbb{R})$ and has the same addition/multiplication (except restricted to $R$) gives 3), 5), 6) and 7) for free.

December 31st, 2017, 07:51 AM   #5
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 850
Thanks: 327

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cjem 6) addition is commutative
This is actually never needed for unital rings:
$$a+b+a+b = (a+b)(1+1) = a(1+1) + b(1+1) = a+a+b+b$$
hence by eliminating a and b from both sides, we have $b+a=a+b$.

December 31st, 2017, 09:03 AM   #6
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2017
From: United Kingdom

Posts: 313
Thanks: 112

Math Focus: Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Micrm@ss This is actually never needed for unital rings: $$a+b+a+b = (a+b)(1+1) = a(1+1) + b(1+1) = a+a+b+b$$ hence by eliminating a and b from both sides, we have $b+a=a+b$.
Thanks for the reply - I hadn't considered that you get commutativity of + from the other conditions of a unital ring. However, in this case, as Country Boy's convention is that a ring needn't be unital, we do need to specify it in the definition. But of course, when we do happen to have a multiplicative identity, your argument means we don't need to bother checking if addition is commutative.

I've noticed a mistake in my post, though - conditions 2)' and 1) only give 2) (existence of additive identity) if we know the set is nonempty. And to show the set is nonempty, often the best way to go is to show 2) directly!

January 2nd, 2018, 07:25 AM   #7
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 850
Thanks: 327

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cjem Thanks for the reply - I hadn't considered that you get commutativity of + from the other conditions of a unital ring. However, in this case, as Country Boy's convention is that a ring needn't be unital, we do need to specify it in the definition. But of course, when we do happen to have a multiplicative identity, your argument means we don't need to bother checking if addition is commutative. I've noticed a mistake in my post, though - conditions 2)' and 1) only give 2) (existence of additive identity) if we know the set is nonempty. And to show the set is nonempty, often the best way to go is to show 2) directly!
Totally irrelevant, but it is very curious how many axioms for vector spaces are actually superfluous. The most common axiomatization has 10 axioms, but you can heavily reduce it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3615171...n_tab_contents

January 2nd, 2018, 04:49 PM   #8
Member

Joined: Aug 2011
From: Nouakchott, Mauritania

Posts: 85
Thanks: 14

Math Focus: Algebra, Cryptography
Salam !

Quote:
 Originally Posted by heinsbergrelatz ... also find a ring homomorphism such that $\Phi:R \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that is onto. ...
Any matrix $\displaystyle M$ of $\displaystyle R$ is written as : $\displaystyle M=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\0&a\end{pmatrix}$ where $\displaystyle a,b\in\mathbb R$. So we can define this application :

$\displaystyle \begin{array}{cccc} \Phi:&R &\rightarrow&\mathbb{R}\\ &M=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\0&a\end{pmatrix}&\mapsto & \Phi(M)=a\end{array}$.

Now you can try to check if :
- $\displaystyle \Phi(M+N)=\Phi(M)+\Phi(N)$
- $\displaystyle \Phi(MN)=\Phi(M)\Phi(N)$
- $\displaystyle \Phi(1_R)=1$ ( Some references don't require this condition )
for $\displaystyle M,N\in R$.
In this case, $\displaystyle \Phi$ will be a ring homomorphism.

Finally, $\displaystyle \Phi$ is a surjective (onto) application because :
$\displaystyle \forall a\in\mathbb{R}, \exists M=aI_2\in R,\quad\phi(M)=a.$

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post tiger4 Abstract Algebra 0 April 20th, 2012 09:21 PM norway9k Abstract Algebra 2 November 16th, 2010 11:28 PM jkong05 Abstract Algebra 1 May 5th, 2009 02:41 AM fermatprime371 Abstract Algebra 0 December 8th, 2008 06:44 PM mathstresser Abstract Algebra 0 November 18th, 2007 01:00 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top