Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Algebra quotient rings watch

1. Stuck on iv.

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

Posted from TSR Mobile
Attached Images

2. (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 ; conversely, it's obvious that every polynomial of the form induces a different member in the quotient, so we have a bijection taking .

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 , where .
3. (Original post by Smaug123)
It is. You've shown that every member of the quotient is of the form ; conversely, it's obvious that every polynomial of the form induces a different member in the quotient, so we have a bijection taking .

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 , where .
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
Attached Images

4. (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:
Show
Instead, pick the lowest natural in I (if it's not immediately obvious that there is one, think about the structure of the naturals), and see what information you can glean about the ideal generated by it.
5. (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
is an ideal of , and therefore it can only contain integers.

You're going to have trouble showing that if you don't know what is. Suppose I gave you the ideal . The question is asking you to show that there is some such that . Can you tell me what is in this case?
6. (Original post by Smaug123)
is an ideal of , and therefore it can only contain integers.

You're going to have trouble showing that if you don't know what is. Suppose I gave you the ideal . The question is asking you to show that there is some such that . Can you tell me what 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...
7. (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.
8. (Original post by Smaug123)
is an ideal of , and therefore it can only contain integers.

You're going to have trouble showing that if you don't know what is. Suppose I gave you the ideal . The question is asking you to show that there is some such that . Can you tell me what 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
Attached Images

9. (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.
10. (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.
, of course, so WLOG 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 is principal: that there exists such that .

For 1), you've written "maximal" instead of "minimal". Nonzero ideals in 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: " for all " is not true of any ideal.

I think what you have written is more convincing as a proof that sets of the form are ideals of . 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:
Show
Let be the least positive element of . We show that .

Firstly: . Let , and we show that .

By the division algorithm, any may be written as , with . But since , must have , so .

But was the least positive element of , and is nonnegative and less than , so must be zero. That is, , so .

Conversely, any element is an element of because it is a multiple of .
11. (Original post by Smaug123)
, of course, so WLOG is greater than 0.

To be honest, it doesn't really. You need to show that is principal: that there exists such that .

For 1), you've written "maximal" instead of "minimal". Nonzero ideals in 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: " for all " is not true of any ideal.

I think what you have written is more convincing as a proof that sets of the form are ideals of . 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:
Show
Let be the least positive element of . We show that .

Firstly: . Let , and we show that .

By the division algorithm, any may be written as , with . But since , must have , so .

But was the least positive element of , and is nonnegative and less than , so must be zero. That is, , so .

Conversely, any element is an element of because it is a multiple of .
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.
12. (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.

Turn on thread page Beta

### Related university courses

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:
Updated: May 15, 2015
Today on TSR

### A level Maths discussions

Find out how you've done here

### 2,864

students online now

Exam discussions

Poll
Useful resources

## Make your revision easier

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE