Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have a quick question on a problem out of Dummit and Foote (problem 7.5.6 for those who might have the text):

Prove that the real numbers, $\mathbb{R}$, contain a subring $A$ with $1 \in A$ and $A$ maximal (under inclusion) with respect to the property that $1/2 \notin A$ [Hint: Use Zorn's Lemma].

My question is in how I should interpret this. Are we looking for a subring with the properties (1) it contains $1$ and (2) it is maximal with respect to 'not containing 1/2?'

Or should we be looking for a subring $A$ with the single property (1') it is maximal with respect to 'containing $1$' and 'not containing $1/2$?'

In the first interpretation, showing (2) is quite straitforward: as the hint suggests, apply Zorn's Lemma to the collection of all subrings that don't contain 1/2. The problem comes in trying to prove (1), that the maximal element contains the identity. If this is how I should interpret the problem, then this is where I'm hung up. The subfield generated by $A$ certainly contains $1$, and if I could show $1/2$ is not in that subfield, then I'd be done since $A$ is maximal. But is this even true? Is there another way I could show this?

If I should interpret the problem in the second way (i.e., prove property (1') only), then the problem is, similar to above, a straitforward application of Zorn's Lemma to the collection of all subrings that contain $1$ but not $1/2$.

So, to summarize my question:

How should I interpret this problem? If I should interpret it the first way I mentioned, then I need help showing the maximal element contains the identity. If I should interpret the problem the second way, then I don't have any problem.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

share|improve this question
    
"the set of rings containing $1$ and not $1/2$ has maximal elements". –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 18 '12 at 6:56
    
It doesn't matter. Remember the key word maximal. You can heap on any further conditions you like, it will not affect maximality as long as you can keep $1/2$ out. –  André Nicolas Jan 18 '12 at 6:57
    
Usually, the construction «maximal with respect to the property P» is used confusingly, sadly. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 18 '12 at 7:02

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

From the statement of Zorn's Lemma given in Dummit & Foote, I would use the second interpretation, for exactly the reasons you give. Zorn's Lemma will give you a subring of $\mathbb{R}$ which is maximal with respect to not containing $\frac{1}{2}$, but you can't really control whether this subring contains $1$.

You should note that there is an a priori slightly more general (but actually equivalent) form of Zorn's Lemma that would enable you to use the first interpretation:

Zorn's Lemma (second form). Suppose that $( A , \leq )$ is a partially ordered set in which every chain has an upper bound. Then given any element $a \in A$ there is a maximal element $b$ of $A$ with $a \leq b$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks so much everybody, it makes much more sense now. I did not realize that the maximal subring I obtain in the proof of the second interpretation satisfies the first interpretation. –  John Myers Jan 18 '12 at 7:22

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.