Rings

Maths and statistics discussion, revision, exam and homework help.

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
Important: please read these guidelines before posting about exams on The Student Room 28-04-2013
Sign in to Reply
  1. JBKProductions's Avatar
    • Overlord in Training
    • Posts: 2,106
    Rings
    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. Mark13's Avatar
    • Exalted and Worshipped Member
    • Posts: 930
    Re: Rings
    (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. Glutamic Acid's Avatar
    • TSR Legend
    • Location: E.I.R.E. / S.E. / Cam
    Re: Rings
    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. JBKProductions's Avatar
    • Overlord in Training
    • Posts: 2,106
    Re: Rings
    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. Jake22's Avatar
    • TSR Demigod
    • Posts: 5,171
    Re: Rings
    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.
    Last edited by Jake22; 11-05-2012 at 15:16.
  6. Jake22's Avatar
    • TSR Demigod
    • Posts: 5,171
    Re: Rings
    (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. JBKProductions's Avatar
    • Overlord in Training
    • Posts: 2,106
    Re: Rings
    (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.
Sign in to Reply
Share this discussion:  
Article updates
Moderators

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

Reputation gems:
The Reputation gems seen here indicate how well reputed the user is, red gem indicate negative reputation and green indicates a good rep.
Post rating score:
These scores show if a post has been positively or negatively rated by our members.