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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is it true for a commutative domain $R$ and its ideals $I$ and $J$ that if the quotient $R$-modules $R/I$ and $R/J$ are isomorphic then $I=J$?

share|cite|improve this question
$F[x,y]/(x) \cong F[y] \cong F[x] \cong F[x,y]/(y)$. But $(x)\neq(y)$. – Arturo Magidin Jun 22 '12 at 2:38
up vote 5 down vote accepted

No, just take a polynomial ring $k[X]$ for some field $k$ (which is a commutative domain), and consider the ideal generated by $X$ and the ideal generated by $X-1$. The quotient rings are both (isomorphic to) $k$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Problem 22 of Chapter 4 of Steven Roman's Advanced Linear Algebra asks to prove this question in the affirmative when $R/I\simeq R/J$ are isomorphic as $R$-modules, and then asks about the case when $R/I\simeq R/J$ as rings.

The nice existing answers show it is not necessarily true that $I=J$ when the quotients are isomorphic as rings. However, suppose $R/I\simeq R/J$ as $R$-modules with the standard $R$-module structure.

Let $\tau\colon R/I\to R/J$ be an $R$-module isomorphism. Then for any $j\in J$, $$ \tau(j+I)=\tau(j\cdot 1+I)=j\cdot\tau(1+I)=0+J $$ since $\tau(1+I)\in R/J$, and any element of $R/J$ is annihilated by multiplication by elements of $J$. Thus $j+I\in\ker\tau=\{I\}$, the equality following since $\tau$ is injective. So $j+I=I$, thus $j\in I$, and $J\subseteq I$. The reverse containment follows similarly, by looking at $\tau^{-1}$ say. So $I=J$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.