May 16th, 2018, 03:19 PM  #21 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,101 Thanks: 605  No, modules are different than rings. Two different mathematical objects. Groups are not rings. Zylo you're just throwing around words you don't understand. Pick up a pdf of a book on abstract algebra and start studying. 
May 16th, 2018, 03:31 PM  #22  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2017 From: United Kingdom Posts: 284 Thanks: 86 Math Focus: Algebraic Number Theory, Arithmetic Geometry  Quote:
Basically the same idea works with modules over a commutative ring (note: while R/I and R/J are rings in their own right, we're treating them as Rmodules here. This is why there's a subscript "R" in the Hom notation). Last edited by cjem; May 16th, 2018 at 03:33 PM.  
May 17th, 2018, 07:38 AM  #23  
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,603 Thanks: 115  Quote:
Show that a set of things H with an operation is isomorphic to a set of things U with an operation: Set of things H ($\displaystyle Hom_{R}(R/I,R/J)$): Set of homeomorphisms (mappings) from R/I to R/J with a + operation. Set of things U, (J:I)/J with a + operation Isomorphic mapping from H to U. To establish the isomorphism you need to know the mapping from H to U  If h1 and h2 are elements of H, which map to elements u1 and u2 of U, then h1+h2 maps to u1+u2 and u1+u2 maps to h1+h2.  Technically, it looks like all you need to know is what an element of H maps to in U. Is that what $\displaystyle \phi$ is all about? WHAT is $\displaystyle \phi$? Literally, $\displaystyle \phi \mapsto \phi (1+I)$ says map an element $\displaystyle \phi$ of H to the element $\displaystyle \phi$(I+1) of U. EDIT: I+1 is not an element. It may mean i+1 where i is an element of I. Last edited by zylo; May 17th, 2018 at 08:09 AM.  
May 17th, 2018, 09:45 AM  #24  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,101 Thanks: 605  Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coset  
May 17th, 2018, 11:32 AM  #25 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,603 Thanks: 115 
I found coset (wiki), and its use to define quotient ring in http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/de/AG...ra/pp2251.pdf But I still don't understand how $\displaystyle \phi$ works in OP. What member of the set of homeomorphisms is associated with a member of {J:I)/I Excerpts from ggogling are below. $\displaystyle \cong$ isomorphic $\displaystyle \triangleleft$ ideal of $\displaystyle \mapsto$ maps to Definition Let R be a commutative ring. A subset I of R is an ideal if • If a, b ∈ I, then a + b ∈ I. • If a ∈ I and b ∈ R, then ab ∈ I. A quotient ring (also called a residueclass ring) is a ring that is the quotient of a ring A and one of its ideals a, denoted A/a. In general, a quotient ring is a set of equivalence classes where [x]=[y] iff xy in a A module over a ring (R module) is a generalization of the notion of vector space over a field, wherein the corresponding scalars are the elements of an arbitrary given ring (with identity) and a multiplication (on the left and/or on the right) is defined between elements of the ring and elements of the module. In algebra, given a module and a submodule, one can construct their quotient module. This construction, described below, is analogous to how one obtains the ring of integers modulo an integer n, see modular arithmetic. It is the same construction used for quotient groups and quotient rings. Given a module A over a ring R, and a submodule B of A, the quotient space A/B is defined by the equivalence relation a ~ b if and only if b − a is in B, for any a and b in A. The elements of A/B are the equivalence classes [a] = { a + b : b in B }. The addition operation on A/B is defined for two equivalence classes as the equivalence class of the sum of two representatives from these classes; and in the same way for multiplication by elements of R. In this way A/B becomes itself a module over R, called the quotient module. In symbols, [a] + [b] = [a+b], and r·[a] = [r·a], for all a,b in A and r in R. In algebra, a module homomorphism is a function between modules that preserves module structures. Explicitly, if M and N are left modules over a ring R, then a function {\displaystyle f:M\to N} f:M\to N is called a module homomorphism or an Rlinear map if for any x, y in M and r in R, f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y), f(rx)=rf(x).} f(rx)=rf(x). If M, N are right modules, then the second condition is replaced with f(xr)=f(x)r. The preimage of the zero element under f is called the kernel of f. The set of all module homomorphisms from M to N is denoted by Hom_{R}(M, N). It is an abelian group (under pointwise addition) but is not necessarily a module unless R is commutative.  So at this point I don't even know if the OP is about quotient rings or modules. I have stepped into a morass of ambiguous definitions. I can see why those asian students who have to memorize a unique symbol for every word in their language do well at this. I note congruence, congruence classes, and congruence algebra are pretty straight forward until defined into oblivion. Reminds me of an organ concert I once went to. The organist performed a modern piece that was all over the organ almost at once. His manual dexterity was phenominal. After that, I imagine any organ students in the audience walked out and became day laborers. 
May 17th, 2018, 12:46 PM  #26 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,101 Thanks: 605  You have refuted your own original point. You claimed that everything in math is obvious because it's one definition built on another, therefore an intelligent person should be able to untangle any complicated problem by drilling down to the definitions. This is in fact true in principle. But in practice, one acquires experience and context as one learns. You learn what a quotient is in beginning abstract algebra; and by the time you get to a more advanced class in ring theory, you have become so familiar with the concept of quotients that you no longer remember that there was a time you struggled with the concept. You have discovered for yourself that context and experience, gained over months and years of studying and doing problems, are how you learn math. The fact that in theory you could drill it all down to a mechanical unwinding of definitions is true but irrelevant to how we understand things. And your ethnic slur is most definitely not appreciated here. Not by me, anyway. 
May 17th, 2018, 01:57 PM  #27 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,603 Thanks: 115 
In certain cultures you grow up having to do a lot of memorization. That's not an ethnic slur. Calling it an ethnic slur is defamation. I'm sure the organist spent years developing his technigue. But enough politics. You quote wiki: gH = { gh : h an element of H } is the left coset of H in G with respect to g Given that, how do you conclude that (1+I) is a coset? (1+I)=1I , and NumberGroup is a unique designation that tips off a coset? So back to OP b): What does $\displaystyle \phi \mapsto \phi$(1+I) mean? Presumably $\displaystyle \phi$ is a member of HomR(), ie, a Homeomorphism. Why is $\displaystyle \phi$(1+I) a member of (J:I)/I 
May 17th, 2018, 02:25 PM  #28  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,101 Thanks: 605  Are you playing with your organ again? Quote:
Quote:
How would anyone know that convention? By studying basic abstract algebra instead of frustratingly trying to work backwards from Wikipedia. Better to start with the ring of integers mod 5 and the corresponding $\mathbb Z$module. Once you grok that the rest will be much more straightforward. You have to learn to walk before you can run, contrary to your earlier claim that simply powering through a tower of definitions is sufficient. By the way a module is like a vector space except that the scalars live in a ring instead of a field. A ring is an algebraic system in which you can add, subtract, and multiply, like the integers. A field is a ring in which you can also divide, like the rationals or the reals. Last edited by Maschke; May 17th, 2018 at 02:31 PM.  
May 17th, 2018, 03:59 PM  #29 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,603 Thanks: 115  Both wrong gH is simply a symbol which stands for coset, according to wiki: "gH = { gh : h an element of H } is the left coset of H in G with respect to g" where gh is not multiplication but a generic relation g*h, which could be std addition, multiplication, or some other relation between elements. There is no such thing as sum of 1 plus a group. If it's a coset, it means iI, as defined above. Still no explanation of $\displaystyle \phi$. 
May 17th, 2018, 04:03 PM  #30  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,101 Thanks: 605  Quote:
 

Tags 
isomorphism 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Isomorphism  mathbalarka  Abstract Algebra  2  November 4th, 2012 11:53 PM 
isomorphism  tiger4  Abstract Algebra  2  July 2nd, 2012 03:17 AM 
Isomorphism  jpav  Abstract Algebra  6  July 11th, 2011 07:00 AM 
Isomorphism  mia6  Linear Algebra  1  November 10th, 2010 09:31 AM 
Isomorphism  just17b  Abstract Algebra  4  December 18th, 2007 08:57 AM 