Ring Homomorphism: unit in R implies unit in R'

  • Thread starter AcidRainLiTE
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Ring Unit
In summary, the conversation discusses the definition of ring homomorphisms and the requirement for a homomorphism to map 1 to 1' in order for certain statements to hold true. It is mentioned that not all rings are unitary and that some authors may use a different convention. An example is given to illustrate a case where 1 is not mapped to 1' in a ring homomorphism.
  • #1
AcidRainLiTE
90
2
I was just looking at wikipedia's article on ring homomorphisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_homomorphism) and I am a little confused.

If you look at the definition they give for ring homomorphism, they require only that addition and multiplication is preserved over the homomorphism (and not that it maps 1 to 1'). Then, under the 'Properties' section, the third bullet down claims:

If a has a multiplicative inverse in R, then f(a) has a multiplicative inverse in S and we have f(a−1) = (f(a))−1. Therefore, f induces a group homomorphism from the (multiplicative) group of units of R to the (multiplicative) group of units of S.

Don't you need to explicitly require that the homomorphism maps 1 to 1' in order for that statement to be true? Or is there someway to deduce this without specifying that requirement?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Not all rings are unitary, so the definition of ring homomorphism given on wikipedia is for a general ring. When a ring is unitary, most people require that a homomorphism map 1 to 1, but occasionally you will find authors who do not use this convention (in this case, 1 just maps to some unit in the ring).
 
  • #3
AcidRainLiTE said:
Don't you need to explicitly require that the homomorphism maps 1 to 1' in order for that statement to be true? Or is there someway to deduce this without specifying that requirement?

It need not be true if the homomorphism does not map 1 to 1'.

For example, consider the map [itex]f : \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow M_{2 \times 2}(\mathbb{R})[/itex] defined by
[tex]f(n) = \left[\begin{matrix}
n & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{matrix}\right][/tex]
This is a ring homomorphism that does not map 1 to 1', and clearly the image contains no units.
 
  • #4
Thanks for the quick response!
 
  • #5


I can understand your confusion. The definition of a ring homomorphism does not explicitly state that the unit element must be preserved. However, this is actually implied by the definition itself.

A ring homomorphism is a function that preserves the structure of a ring, meaning that it preserves the operations of addition and multiplication. This means that the unit element in the original ring R must be mapped to the unit element in the target ring R'.

If a is a unit in R, then there exists an element a^-1 in R such that aa^-1 = 1. Since the homomorphism preserves multiplication, we can apply it to both sides of this equation, giving f(aa^-1) = f(1). By the definition of a homomorphism, this is equal to f(a)f(a^-1) = 1'. This shows that f(a) is a unit in R'.

Therefore, the statement in the 'Properties' section is true because it is implied by the definition of a ring homomorphism. It is important to note that while it is not explicitly stated, it is still a necessary requirement for a homomorphism to preserve the unit element.
 

Related to Ring Homomorphism: unit in R implies unit in R'

1. What is a ring homomorphism?

A ring homomorphism is a function between two rings that preserves the ring structure, meaning it preserves the operations of addition and multiplication. This means that the output of the function when applied to the sum or product of two elements in the first ring is equal to the sum or product of the outputs when the function is applied to each element individually.

2. What is a unit in a ring?

A unit in a ring is an element that has a multiplicative inverse, meaning there exists another element in the ring that, when multiplied with the given element, results in the multiplicative identity element of the ring. In other words, a unit in a ring is an element that can be "undone" by multiplication.

3. What does it mean for a unit in one ring to imply a unit in another ring?

When it is stated that a unit in one ring implies a unit in another ring, it means that if a given element in the first ring is a unit, then the corresponding element in the second ring is also a unit. This is a direct result of the properties of ring homomorphisms, which preserve the multiplicative structure of rings.

4. Why is the statement "unit in R implies unit in R'" true for ring homomorphisms?

This statement is true for ring homomorphisms because of their defining property of preserving the ring structure. Since units are elements that have a multiplicative inverse, if a unit in the first ring is mapped to an element in the second ring, the corresponding element must also have a multiplicative inverse in order for the ring homomorphism to preserve the ring structure.

5. Can a unit in one ring imply a non-unit in another ring for ring homomorphisms?

No, a unit in one ring cannot imply a non-unit in another ring for ring homomorphisms. This is because ring homomorphisms preserve the ring structure, meaning they preserve the properties of units. If a unit in one ring is mapped to a non-unit in another ring, the ring homomorphism would not be preserving the ring structure.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top