Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:


    Know that here we have

    f(k_1+k_2)=f(k_1)+f(k_2)
    f(k_1 \cdot k_2)=f(k_2) \cdot f(k_2)

    for k_1, k_2 \in \mathbb{K}

    also I know that f is injective iff \mathrm{ker} f = \{ e_R \} where e_R is the identity element of R.

    So f(k)=f(k \cdot 1)=f(k)\cdot f(1) but for this to be 0 then we need f(1)=0 but why is this the case? Why is the multiplicative identity in K getting mapped to the additive identity of R? Why not mult. id. to mult. id.?

    How do I know what the identity element of R is since it has 2 operations; addition and multiplication?

    Confused on the Q overall but those are my thoughts so far.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)


    Know that here we have

    f(k_1+k_2)=f(k_1)+f(k_2)
    f(k_1 \cdot k_2)=f(k_2) \cdot f(k_2)

    for k_1, k_2 \in \mathbb{K}

    also I know that f is injective iff \mathrm{ker} f = \{ e_R \} where e_R is the identity element of R.

    So f(k)=f(k \cdot 1)=f(k)\cdot f(1) but for this to be 0 then we need f(1)=0 but why is this the case? Why is the multiplicative identity in K getting mapped to the additive identity of R? Why not mult. id. to mult. id.?

    How do I know what the identity element of R is since it has 2 operations; addition and multiplication?

    Confused on the Q overall but those are my thoughts so far.
    This does strike me as a bit odd, because I was under the impression that ring homomorphisms send multiplicative identities to multiplicative identities by definition. I think that the f(k) = 0 for all k option is saying that either the homomorphism is trivial (the image is just the set {0}, where it makes sense for 0 to be both the additive and multiplicative identity), or it is injective.

    But if this is the case, then injectivity follows easily using the fact that f(1) = 1 and f(k1.k2) = f(k1)f(k2), and I can't see how we've used the fact that K is a field - this seems to work just as well if it is a ring.

    As a get-out clause, I haven't thought about this sort of thing for years...
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    So f(k)=f(k \cdot 1)=f(k)\cdot f(1) but for this to be 0 then we need f(1)=0 but why is this the case? Why is the multiplicative identity in K getting mapped to the additive identity of R? Why not mult. id. to mult. id.?
    I feel this logic is getting rather convoluted. You're asking why things are true, but this seems to be based on some assumptions (that the product is in the kernel, that f(k) isn't 0, etc) that you aren't explicitly making.

    In general, it *isn't* going to be true that 1 \in K is getting mapped to 0 \in R, but obviously if f(k) = 0 for all k, then it is going to be true. But I don't know if you're assuming that, trying to prove it, or whatever...

    I think the obvious thing to ask yourself here is: "what's special about a field". Unless I'm being stupid, once you answer this, proving the result you want is pretty (very) straightforward.

    How do I know what the identity element of R is since it has 2 operations; addition and multiplication?
    For a ring homomorphism, the kernel is the set of elements mapped to 0 (identity under addition). This is essentially "by definition".
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pangol)
    This does strike me as a bit odd, because I was under the impression that ring homomorphisms send multiplicative identities to multiplicative identities by definition. I think that the f(k) = 0 for all k option is saying that either the homomorphism is trivial (the image is just the set {0}, where it makes sense for 0 to be both the additive and multiplicative identity), or it is injective.

    But if this is the case, then injectivity follows easily using the fact that f(1) = 1 and f(k1.k2) = f(k1)f(k2), and I can't see how we've used the fact that K is a field - this seems to work just as well if it is a ring.
    Depends on whether your rings contain 1 (by definition) or not.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Depends on whether your rings contain 1 (by definition) or not.
    So would that be the key - we need the additive and multiplicative identities of K to be distinct, and this will be guaranteed if it is a field?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pangol)
    So would that be the key - we need the additive and multiplicative identities of K to be distinct, and this will be guaranteed if it is a field?
    Not really There are effectively two slightly different definitions for a "ring homomorphism" (*):

    if you define a ring to have 1, then the homomorphism should preserve 1.

    If you don't define a ring to have a 1, then it need not preserve 1.

    In this case, I think it's clear it's not assumed rings have a 1 (otherwise the case where everything gets mapped to 0 isn't possible).

    Edit: (*) I would hesitate to say what I've written is universally accepted - as ever, the notes for the course being taken should be taken as definitive.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    I feel this logic is getting rather convoluted. You're asking why things are true, but this seems to be based on some assumptions (that the product is in the kernel, that f(k) isn't 0, etc) that you aren't explicitly making.

    In general, it *isn't* going to be true that 1 \in K is getting mapped to 0 \in R, but obviously if f(k) = 0 for all k, then it is going to be true. But I don't know if you're assuming that, trying to prove it, or whatever...

    I think the obvious thing to ask yourself here is: "what's special about a field". Unless I'm being stupid, once you answer this, proving the result you want is pretty (very) straightforward.

    For a ring homomorphism, the kernel is the set of elements mapped to 0 (identity under addition). This is essentially "by definition".
    The def for a ring I got doesn't mention 1 so I guess the one in reference has no mult. identity. Does that mean that both additive and mult. identities in K get mapped to the additive identity in R? Does that mean the function puts all other elements from K to 0 as well - hence the constant function? Then if that's the case f must otherwise be injective as f(0) goes to 0 and f(1) goes to something else, and the same for all other elements of K?

    Again, not sure where to start with the question so my mind's flying all over the definitions and such but that's what I think the question wants me to show in a nutshell, unless I'm wrong.

    The only thing I see that is special about a field is what it has over a ring; so multiplication is commutative, there is a multiplicative identity 1, and every nonzero element in K has an inverse in K. I have already spent over 10 mins looking at these and nothing has clicked as to how they tie in...
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    The def for a ring I got doesn't mention 1 so I guess the one in reference has no mult. identity.
    Why do you guess this? (Totally confused myself now).

    Does that mean that both additive and mult. identities in K get mapped to the additive identity in R?
    No.

    Again, not sure where to start with the question so my mind's flying all over the definitions and such but that's what I think the question wants me to show in a nutshell, unless I'm wrong.
    I'm not even sure what you're trying to show, but that said, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I would say that worrying about the kernel, or what identities map to is not the way to go. Instead, go right from the basic definition: if f is not injective, then we can find distinct elements x, y with f(x) = f(y).

    The only thing I see that is special about a field is what it has over a ring; so multiplication is commutative, there is a multiplicative identity 1, and every nonzero element in K has an inverse in K. I have already spent over 10 mins looking at these and nothing has clicked as to how they tie in...
    Well, K could be a multiplicative ring with 1 and two of those things would still be true. There's only one thing that is specifically true about a field...
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Why do you guess this? (Totally confused myself now).
    Well my my module hasn't explicitly used 1 in the def of the ring, but I've seen online that there are rings with element 1 under the name of 'rings with identity' so I wasn't sure whether to take the ring in question as one with the element 1 or not; but whatever, I'll stick to the ones without mult. identity.

    Spoiler:
    Show








    (Original post by DFranklin)
    I'm not even sure what you're trying to show, but that said, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I would say that worrying about the kernel, or what identities map to is not the way to go. Instead, go right from the basic definition: if f is not injective, then we can find distinct elements x, y with f(x) = f(y).
    OK, so say that for some x \neq y we have f(x)=f(y) which leads us to saying that 0=f(x)-f(y)=f(x-y) where a non-zero element in K is mapped to the additive identity in R. Is this a contradiction since a non-zero element is mapped to an identity?

    Well, K could be a multiplicative ring with 1 and two of those things would still be true. There's only one thing that is specifically true about a field...
    The existence of multiplicative inverses. Not sure how this fits in though.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    Well my my module hasn't explicitly used 1 in the def of the ring, but I've seen online that there are rings with element 1 under the name of 'rings with identity' so I wasn't sure whether to take the ring in question as one with the element 1 or not.
    My point is, there's a difference between "rings are not defined to have an identity", and "rings are defined not to have an identity". (In the first case, rings may or may not have an identity).
    OK, so say that for some x \neq y we have f(x)=f(y) which leads us to saying that 0=f(x)-f(y)=f(x-y) where a non-zero element in K is mapped to the additive identity in R. Is this a contradiction since a non-zero element is mapped to an identity?
    It's not a contradiction. It can happen.

    What you want to show is that if we can find x \neq y s.t. f(x)=f(y) then in fact f(z) = 0 for every z.

    What I would say to you at this point is you should stop thinking about "additive identities" and "multiplicative identities". Think of them as "0" and "1". This is maybe a little informal, but I'd say it's how most people think about these things, and as it stands it seems quite clear you're getting confused between the two identities.

    The existence of multiplicative inverses. Not sure how this fits in though.
    Well, we did just discuss the existence of a particular non-zero element...
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    My point is, there's a difference between "rings are not defined to have an identity", and "rings are defined not to have an identity". (In the first case, rings may or may not have an identity).It's not a contradiction. It can happen.

    What you want to show is that if we can find x \neq y s.t. f(x)=f(y) then in fact f(z) = 0 for every z.

    What I would say to you at this point is you should stop thinking about "additive identities" and "multiplicative identities". Think of them as "0" and "1". This is maybe a little informal, but I'd say it's how most people think about these things, and as it stands it seems quite clear you're getting confused between the two identities.

    Well, we did just discuss the existence of a particular non-zero element...
    So since x-y \neq 0 there is an inverse \frac{1}{x-y}, and so if we take 0=f(x-y) and mult both sides by f(\frac{1}{x-y}) we get 0=f(1). How does this show that f(z)=0 though?

    I wasn't confused which one is which when it came to the identities, I was just confusing about the mappings from K to R of them.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    So since x-y \neq 0 there is an inverse \frac{1}{x-y}, and so if we take 0=f(x-y) and mult both sides by f(\frac{1}{x-y}) we get 0=f(1). How does this show that f(z)=0 though?
    Well, if f(1) = 0, and we know that f(a)f(b) = f(ab) for all a, b, what does that tell us about f(b) for arbitrary b?
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Well, if f(1) = 0, and we know that f(a)f(b) = f(ab) for all a, b, what does that tell us about f(b) for arbitrary b?
    OH f(1)\cdot f(k) = f(k) = 0 so if it's not injective then it must be a function equal to 0 for all k in K.

    I've looked at this proof earlier online but didn't quite understand where the step with f(z)=0 came from.

    Thanks.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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