Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey! Sign in to get help with your study questionsNew here? Join for free to post

Rings

Announcements Posted on
What are your mock exam revision tips?! Share them with our year 10 & 11 students! 19-11-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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...
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  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
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 11, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.