Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Do we have $(R/I)/(J/I) \cong (R/J)/(I/J)$ where $R$ is a ring and $I,J$ are ideals?

If $I \subset J$ then it follows from the third isomorphism theorem.

In $R= \mathbb Z$ with $I = 3 \mathbb Z$ and $J = 5 \mathbb Z$ we have $I/J = \{ \bar{0}, \bar{3}, \bar{6}, \bar{9}, \bar{12} \} \cong R/J$ and $J/I = \{ \bar{0}, \bar{5}, \bar{10} \} \cong R/I$. Then $(R/I) / (J/I) = 0 = (R/J) / (I/J)$ so it seems to hold also.

I assume it doesn't hold in general. Or does it? Does it hold for principal ideal domains? Thanks.

share|cite|improve this question
You can only speak of $I/J$ if $J\subseteq I$, so your question only makes sense if both $I\subseteq J$ and $J\subseteq I$, or equivalently $I=J$. – Zev Chonoles Jun 28 '12 at 20:58
In your example, neither $I/J$ nor $J/I$ make sense, because neither contains the other. – Arturo Magidin Jun 28 '12 at 20:59
@ZevChonoles: I guess he means $I+J / J$ and $J+I/I$. – Michalis Jun 28 '12 at 20:59
Right, but it's probably good to make that point clear before tackling this question. – Dylan Moreland Jun 28 '12 at 21:02
Note. Even assuming that it all makes sense, $J/I\cong R/I$ does not imply $(R/I)/(J/I) = 0$! Take $R=\oplus_{i=1}^{\infty}\mathbb{Z}$, $J$ the sum of the even-indexed terms, and $I$ the sum of the multiple-of-4 index terms. Then $R/I\cong R$, $J/I\cong R$, but $(R/I)/(J/I)$ is isomorphic to $R$ again, not to $0$. – Arturo Magidin Jun 28 '12 at 21:25
up vote 6 down vote accepted

You can only speak of $I/J$ if $J\subseteq I$, so your question of whether $$(R/I)/(J/I) \cong (R/J)/(I/J)$$ only makes sense if both $I\subseteq J$ and $J\subseteq I$, or equivalently $I=J$. Of course, when that is the case, then the above statement is trivially true.

Let's use your specific example, where $R=\mathbb{Z}$, $I=3\mathbb{Z}$, and $J=5\mathbb{Z}$. There is no such thing as $I/J$, but you can talk about $$I/(I\cap J)=3\mathbb{Z}/15\mathbb{Z}=\{\bar{0},\bar{3},\bar{6},\bar{9},\bar{12}\}\cong \mathbb{Z}/5\mathbb{Z},$$ and $$J/(I\cap J)=5\mathbb{Z}/15\mathbb{Z}=\{\bar{0},\bar{5},\bar{10}\}\cong \mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}.$$ However, note that (by the third isomorphism theorem) $$(R/(I\cap J))/(I/(I\cap J))\cong R/I$$ $$(R/(I\cap J))/(J/(I\cap J))\cong R/J$$ and there is no reason for those two rings to be isomorphic in general.

share|cite|improve this answer

As written, what you have does not make sense. $J/I$ requires $I\subseteq J$, which is not met in your example. If both $J/I$ and $I/J$ make sense as written, then this requires $I=J$, and so in both cases we have $$(R/I)/(J/I) = (R/I)/(I/I) \cong R/I =R/J \cong (R/J)/(J/J) = (R/J)/(I/J),$$ and we are fine, but I doubt this is what you meant.

Instead, we can consider $(R/I)/((J+I)/I)$ and $(R/J)/((I+J)/J)$, since $I+J$ is the smallest ideal that contains both $I$ and $J$.

If so, then the answer is "yes", and it follows from the Isomorphism Theorems. In both cases we have that the quotient is isomorphic to $R/(I+J)$.

(However, as noted by Zev and as I failed to notice, this would not agree with your claim that "$5\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z} = \{\overline{0}, \overline{5},\overline{10}\}$", since my interpretation would be to set it equal to $\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$; while it also has $3$ elements, since $(I+J)/I \cong J/(I\cap J)$, it is not the "same" quotient.)

share|cite|improve this answer
@Clark And note that in your example $3$ and $5$ are coprime and hence $3\mathbf Z + 5\mathbf Z = \mathbf Z$. – Dylan Moreland Jun 28 '12 at 21:09
@DylanMoreland Thank you. – Rudy the Reindeer Jun 28 '12 at 21:18
@ClarkKent: The definition of quotient only applies then you have an ideal. An ideal must, among other things, be a subset. So you cannot talk about $J/I$ unless $I$ is an ideal of $J$, which requires $I$ to be a subset of $J$. What you are doing, instead, is looking at $J/(I\cap J)$, which does make sense, since $I\cap J$ is an ideal of $J$. (Note that we are talking about the quotient structure, not the equivalence relation; the equivalence relation you give is induced by $I\cap J$) – Arturo Magidin Jun 28 '12 at 21:21
@ArturoMagidin Thank you. – Rudy the Reindeer Jun 28 '12 at 21:23

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.