You are Here: Home

Rings

Announcements Posted on
Talking about ISA/EMPA specifics is against our guidelines - read more here 28-04-2016
1. Let R be a commutative ring and I an ideal of R. Show that if I is maximal then R/I is a field. I'm a bit stuck on how to start this. Any would would be appreciated. Thanks.
2. (Original post by JBKProductions)
Let R be a commutative ring and I an ideal of R. Show that if I is maximal then R/I is a field. I'm a bit stuck on how to start this. Any would would be appreciated. Thanks.
Suppose R/I is not a field. Then there exists x+I in R/I with no multiplicative inverse, so...
3. Ok. Pick x in R with x not in I (else x is just 0 in R/I). Now consider the ideal generated by x and I: what can we say about this since I is maximal?
4. Unless I misunderstood something, I'm not sure why if x is in I then x = 0 in R/I? Thanks for the replies btw.
5. If you know the correspondence theorem this is immediate (i.e. if R/I has a non-trivial proper ideal J then consider the corresponding ideal J' in R. The ideal J' contains I so must be either R or I by maximality of I. The first contradicts the fact that J was proper, the second contradicts non-triviality)

I am assuming therefore, that you don't know and/or aren't expected to know the correspondence theorem. In that case; it is a bit harder to think up.

Hint: For each non-zero element x+I in R/I and consider the ideal J = I + Rx.

Spoiler:
Show

Since x isn't in I (else x+I would be zero in R/I), I is strictly contained in J, whence by maximality of I we have that J = R. Thus in particular - the identity element 1 of R is in J and so we may write 1 = i + rx for some r in R, i in I. It then follows that (x+I)(r+I) = xr +I = xr + i + I = 1 + I so that (x+I) is invertible as required.
6. (Original post by JBKProductions)
Unless I misunderstood something, I'm not sure why if x is in I then x = 0 in R/I? Thanks for the replies btw.
By pure definition: If x = i for some i in I then the image of x under the projection from R to R/I is equal to the coset 0 + I

Look up the definition and construction of the quotient ring to refresh yourself.
7. (Original post by Jake22)
By pure definition: If x = i for some i in I then the image of x under the projection from R to R/I is equal to the coset 0 + I

Look up the definition and construction of the quotient ring to refresh yourself.
Ah ok, I see. I'll have a go at the rest of it now. Thanks.

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
1. this can't be left blank
2. this can't be left blank
3. this can't be left blank

6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

4. this can't be left empty
1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register

Updated: May 11, 2012
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Today on TSR

How to predict exam questions

No crystal ball required

Poll
Useful resources

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read here first

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams