The Student Room Group

Algebra quotient rings

Stuck on iv.

a, b and c can be three possible numbers so is the answer simply 3^3?

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by cooldudeman
Stuck on iv.

a, b and c can be three possible numbers so is the answer simply 3^3?

Posted from TSR Mobile

It is. You've shown that every member of the quotient is of the form [a+bx+cx2]+I[a+bx+cx^2]+I; conversely, it's obvious that every polynomial of the form a+bx+cx2a+bx+c x^2 induces a different member [a+bx+cx2]+I[a+bx+cx^2]+I in the quotient, so we have a bijection taking (a,b,c)[a+bx+cx2]+I(a,b,c) \mapsto [a+bx+c x^2]+I.

There are, as you say, 27 elements of the left-hand set, so there must be 27 of the right-hand set.

The question has constructed a field extension F3(θ)\mathbb{F}_3(\theta), where θ3+θ+1=0\theta^3 + \theta + 1 = 0.
Original post by Smaug123
It is. You've shown that every member of the quotient is of the form [a+bx+cx2]+I[a+bx+cx^2]+I; conversely, it's obvious that every polynomial of the form a+bx+cx2a+bx+c x^2 induces a different member [a+bx+cx2]+I[a+bx+cx^2]+I in the quotient, so we have a bijection taking (a,b,c)[a+bx+cx2]+I(a,b,c) \mapsto [a+bx+c x^2]+I.

There are, as you say, 27 elements of the left-hand set, so there must be 27 of the right-hand set.

The question has constructed a field extension F3(θ)\mathbb{F}_3(\theta), where θ3+θ+1=0\theta^3 + \theta + 1 = 0.


Thanks so much. Would you be able to help me on c too.

It doesn't specifically say what I is so I'm a little confused on that. I'm trying to show that I is a subset of (a) and vise versa.

I also am considering the definition of an ideal too. But how do I know that a natural number exists in I...

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 3
Original post by cooldudeman
Thanks so much. Would you be able to help me on c too.

It doesn't specifically say what I is so I'm a little confused on that. I'm trying to show that I is a subset of (a) and vise versa.

I also am considering the definition of an ideal too. But how do I know that a natural number exists in I...

Posted from TSR Mobile


You know I is an ideal of Z, so I contains integers as it is obvious it is a subset of Z. Suppose m is an integer in I. Then if m is greater than or equal to 0, you have m is a natural. If not, then you know I is a subgroup under addition so you must have an additive inverse of m in I as well, and this is -m. If m < 0, then -m > 0 and so in both cases you have a natural number in I.

As for the actual question, it can't tell you explicitly what I is because you're trying to prove a statement about the general structure of ideals in Z. Specialising defeats the point of the question. I'd encourage you to keep on thinking about it, because for this question any hint is a big one, I think. You have that (a) is a subset of I for any a in I, so a good strategy is try and pick an a that is special somehow, so that you can prove I is a subset of (a).

Spoilers for more specific hint.

Spoiler

Original post by cooldudeman
Thanks so much. Would you be able to help me on c too.

It doesn't specifically say what I is so I'm a little confused on that. I'm trying to show that I is a subset of (a) and vise versa.

I also am considering the definition of an ideal too. But how do I know that a natural number exists in I...

Posted from TSR Mobile

II is an ideal of Z\mathbb{Z}, and therefore it can only contain integers.

You're going to have trouble showing that IaI \subset \langle a \rangle if you don't know what aa is. Suppose I gave you the ideal I=6,15ZI = \langle 6, 15 \rangle \subset \mathbb{Z}. The question is asking you to show that there is some aa such that I=aI = \langle a \rangle. Can you tell me what aa is in this case?
Original post by Smaug123
II is an ideal of Z\mathbb{Z}, and therefore it can only contain integers.

You're going to have trouble showing that IaI \subset \langle a \rangle if you don't know what aa is. Suppose I gave you the ideal I=6,15ZI = \langle 6, 15 \rangle \subset \mathbb{Z}. The question is asking you to show that there is some aa such that I=aI = \langle a \rangle. Can you tell me what aa is in this case?


Im not understanding what the comma is all about. <6, 15> what does the comma mean in this? I have never seen notation like this before...
Reply 6
Original post by cooldudeman
Im not understanding what the comma is all about. <6, 15> what does the comma mean in this? I have never seen notation like this before...


Just like <a> is the ideal generated by a, so elements of the form na where n is in Z, <a, b> is the ideal generated by a and b so elements of the form na + mb for n and m in Z.

So <6, 15> is elements of the form 6n + 15m for n and m in Z.
Original post by Smaug123
II is an ideal of Z\mathbb{Z}, and therefore it can only contain integers.

You're going to have trouble showing that IaI \subset \langle a \rangle if you don't know what aa is. Suppose I gave you the ideal I=6,15ZI = \langle 6, 15 \rangle \subset \mathbb{Z}. The question is asking you to show that there is some aa such that I=aI = \langle a \rangle. Can you tell me what aa is in this case?


Original post by SParm
Just like <a> is the ideal generated by a, so elements of the form na where n is in Z, <a, b> is the ideal generated by a and b so elements of the form na + mb for n and m in Z.

So <6, 15> is elements of the form 6n + 15m for n and m in Z.


Hi very very sorry that I didnt reply. Been very busy. I had my exam today and the same question came up but m is and integer and not a natural number.

This is whay I did. Please can someone check it. if this was out of 7 marks, how many do you think I would get. Really not sure if what I did made sense...

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by cooldudeman
Hi very very sorry that I didnt reply. Been very busy. I had my exam today and the same question came up but m is and integer and not a natural number.

This is whay I did. Please can someone check it. if this was out of 7 marks, how many do you think I would get. Really not sure if what I did made sense...

Posted from TSR Mobile


Sorry to say, you seem to have proven the converse.

You were asked to show:

IF I is an ideal THEN it has a certain form.

You've assumed it has a certain form, and shown (didn't check the details as I'm not well up even on basic ring theory) that it is an ideal.
Original post by cooldudeman
Hi very very sorry that I didnt reply. Been very busy. I had my exam today and the same question came up but m is and integer and not a natural number.

m=m\langle -m \rangle = \langle m \rangle, of course, so WLOG mm is greater than 0.

This is whay I did. Please can someone check it. if this was out of 7 marks, how many do you think I would get. Really not sure if what I did made sense...

To be honest, it doesn't really. You need to show that II is principal: that there exists mm such that I=mI = \langle m \rangle.

For 1), you've written "maximal" instead of "minimal". Nonzero ideals in Z\mathbb{Z} don't have maximal elements.
It's all a bit unclear for me, to be honest, and I'm not really sure how you're trying to prove it. Your final line doesn't make sense anyway: "I=mI = \langle m \rangle for all mZm \in \mathbb{Z}" is not true of any ideal.

I think what you have written is more convincing as a proof that sets of the form m\langle m \rangle are ideals of Z\mathbb{Z}. I see some of the right answer in there, but also some bits that aren't right.

To answer the question as stated in a "model answer" kind of way (bearing in mind that solutions anyone comes up with on the spot are usually much less well-structured than this):

Spoiler

Original post by Smaug123
m=m\langle -m \rangle = \langle m \rangle, of course, so WLOG mm is greater than 0.


To be honest, it doesn't really. You need to show that II is principal: that there exists mm such that I=mI = \langle m \rangle.

For 1), you've written "maximal" instead of "minimal". Nonzero ideals in Z\mathbb{Z} don't have maximal elements.
It's all a bit unclear for me, to be honest, and I'm not really sure how you're trying to prove it. Your final line doesn't make sense anyway: "I=mI = \langle m \rangle for all mZm \in \mathbb{Z}" is not true of any ideal.

I think what you have written is more convincing as a proof that sets of the form m\langle m \rangle are ideals of Z\mathbb{Z}. I see some of the right answer in there, but also some bits that aren't right.

To answer the question as stated in a "model answer" kind of way (bearing in mind that solutions anyone comes up with on the spot are usually much less well-structured than this):

Spoiler


OK I see. Thanks for the model answer.

Do you think Id even get one mark lol...

Thank god this was the ONLY thing I struggled on.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by cooldudeman
OK I see. Thanks for the model answer.

Do you think Id even get one mark lol...

Thank god this was the ONLY thing I struggled on.

No idea how they mark these things - some of your lines (your Chunk 3) would appear in a proof, so you might get something for that.

Quick Reply

Latest