March 31st, 2018, 07:07 AM  #1 
Member Joined: Sep 2011 Posts: 99 Thanks: 1  Congruence in F[x]
Hi all, I have completed this question as attached. Hope someone could help to check if my solutions are correct. However, I am not sure what theorem is used for part (d). May need some advice. Thanks. Note: Please click on the thumbnails to enlarge. 
March 31st, 2018, 09:25 AM  #2 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2017 From: United Kingdom Posts: 312 Thanks: 111 Math Focus: Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry  (a) Injectivity. You should justify the implication $[a + bx] = [c + dx] \implies a = c$ and $b = d$. Note that $[g(x)] = [h(x)]$ doesn't mean $g(x) = h(x)$, but that $g(x)$ and $h(x)$ differ by a multiple of $x^2  2$. Also, to prove a homomorphism $f$ of rings (or of groups/algebras/modules/etc.) is injective, it suffices to show its kernel is trivial (i.e. that $f(\alpha) = 0$ implies $\alpha = 0$). Surjectivity. I think you've got the right idea, but it looks like you've got a "typo". You've suggested $f(a + b \sqrt{2}) = A$ is an element of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ rather than of $R$. Homomorphism. Depending on your definition of a ring homomorphism, you might want to show $f(1) = [1]$. This seems fine other than that. (b) You're given that $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ is a commutative ring with unity, so showing closure under addition and multiplication is unnecessary. One small thing with showing nonzero elements are invertible: when you say "suppose $a, b \neq 0$, did you mean "suppose $a$ and $b$ are both nonzero" or "suppose $a$ or $b$ is nonzero? If you meant the latter, your argument is fine, but you should probably phrase it a bit more clearly. If you meant the former, then you haven't shown that the elements $a + 0 \sqrt{2}$ ($a$ nonzero, rational) nor $0 + b \sqrt{2}$ ($b$ nonzero, rational) are invertible. An alternative way to see that it's a field is to note that $(x^2 2)$ is a maximal ideal of $\mathbb{Q[x]}$ so $R$ is a field. (c) This looks fine. (d) You should be careful here. Just because the inverse of $1 + 2 \sqrt{2}$ has a certain form, you can't just assume that the inverse of $[1+2x]$ should have the same form. A way to prove it is to use the fact that, if $ \phi: S \to T$ is an isomorphism of rings and $u \in S$ is invertible, then $\phi(u)$ is invertible in $T$ and $\phi(u)^{1} = \phi(u^{1})$. Indeed, this gives $[1+2x]^{1} = f(1 + 2 \sqrt{2})^{1} = f((1+2 \sqrt{2})^{1}) = f \left( \frac{1}{7} + \frac{2}{7} \sqrt{2} \right) = \left[ \frac{1}{7} + \frac{2}{7} x \right]$ _________________ I hope this helps. If anything is unclear, please let me know and I'll try my best to clarify. 

Tags 
congruence 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
congruence  gerva  Number Theory  6  August 11th, 2016 11:26 PM 
Congruence  s.a.sajib  Number Theory  9  April 8th, 2013 06:28 AM 
congruence  justjones  Algebra  2  March 13th, 2013 02:38 PM 
Congruence  Fernando  Number Theory  3  May 15th, 2012 08:20 AM 
Congruence  Aizen  Number Theory  0  June 28th, 2008 12:05 PM 