April 20th, 2018, 01:14 PM  #1 
Senior Member Joined: Jan 2015 From: usa Posts: 104 Thanks: 1  Isomorphism
Can you please help me with the question b) of the following problem? thanks in avance

April 20th, 2018, 03:29 PM  #2 
Senior Member Joined: Jan 2015 From: usa Posts: 104 Thanks: 1 
Please help me to prove that $$h: (J:I)\rightarrow \text{Hom}_R(R/I, R/J)$$ $$x\mapsto h_x$$ where $$h_x:R/I\rightarrow R/J$$ $$r+I\mapsto xr+J$$ is well defined 
April 20th, 2018, 03:57 PM  #3  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,157 Thanks: 631  Quote:
FWIW, relative to the ongoing moderation discussions, I'll take a thousand cranks and nuts rather than people repeatedly asking upperdivision questions without showing any work.  
April 20th, 2018, 03:59 PM  #4 
Senior Member Joined: Jan 2015 From: usa Posts: 104 Thanks: 1 
we need to show that $$r+I=r'+I \implies xr+J=xr'+J$$ for all $x\in (J:I)$ but i don't manage to do that 
April 20th, 2018, 04:26 PM  #5 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 733 Thanks: 247  
April 20th, 2018, 05:56 PM  #6 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,157 Thanks: 631  I did not make a comparison. I said that I prefer one thing to another thing. A statement of preference can't be wrong, it's nothing more than my preference. I did not ask anyone else to share my personal preference. I'm not a fan of integration, but I'm REALLY not a fan of posters who repeatedly ask upperdivision or early gradlevel question and NEVER show any work of their own. That's my personal preference. It's not an endorsement of integration's posts. It's a statement of what frosts my butt. One thing frosts my butt more than another thing. Your butt frosting may vary. You should click through the OP's posts to get a sense of what I mean. I'm not basing my remarks on one post. For the record I don't mean to bash one particular poster, this OP just happened to show up the same day that there's a discussion of moderation policies. And again, why is the Mariga thread still going on? That one frosts my butt too. Damn my butt is getting cold. Last edited by Maschke; April 20th, 2018 at 06:01 PM. 
April 20th, 2018, 06:01 PM  #7 
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2016 From: USA Posts: 558 Thanks: 323 Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics  I'm not sure I would go so far as to prefer the crackpots over this, but I agree 99% with Maschke on this. Its absolutely absurd to be working at this level of math and still be unable to ask a more pointed questions than simply repeating the exercise. Mona's reply to his question is also completely unsatisfactory as it is nothing more than a restatement of the original question.

May 11th, 2018, 01:38 PM  #8 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2017 From: United Kingdom Posts: 307 Thanks: 101 Math Focus: Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry  
May 14th, 2018, 04:11 PM  #9 
Banned Camp Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,720 Thanks: 124 
What's so advanced about the OP? It's no more difficult than Pinochle. It's just a matter of definitions. Commutative ring is a straightforward set of elementary definitions you could teach in grammar school. What is the definition of the triangle? Is that what makes something advanced, an undefined symbol? 
May 14th, 2018, 09:57 PM  #10  
Banned Camp Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,720 Thanks: 124  Quote:
Definitions: $\displaystyle \triangleleft$ Ideal: Ideal  from Wolfram MathWorld R/I is a quotient ring: Couldn't find a coherent definition. From: Quotient Ring  from Wolfram MathWorld "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." But qotient in this context is undefined. Add to this the notation in b) of OP, which I couldn't google, and you are in the bowells of abstract pinochle. Drilling down through all the definitions I find uninstructive, and impossible to remember and create a coherent picture. But just out of curiousity, I would like to see a clean proof of OP b) with the steps referenced to approbriate definitions. No matter what the topic, if the problem can be completely ensconced in a small set of intelligible definitions, it is interesting and educational, in spite of what Maschke says. I thought this might be the case here, but I see now that it would have been impossible for OP to even describe the problem in anything other than symbolism.  

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 