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.

The hypothesis of theorem 5.5 in page 152 of Hungerford's Algebra requires that the homomorphism maps the identity of R to the identity of S, but the proof "never" use this hypothesis. Is the theorem still true if the stronger hypothesis is removed. I am so sorry that I currently do not have link to the book.

Theorem 5.5 Let $R$ and $S$ be commutative rings with identity and $\varphi: R \to S$ a homomorphism of rings such that $\varphi(1_R) =1_S$. If $s_1, \dots, s_n \in S$, then there is a unique homomorphism of rings $\overline{\varphi}: R[x_1, \dots , x_n] \to S$ such that $\overline{\varphi}|R = \varphi$ and $\overline{\varphi}(x_i) = s_i$ for $i = 1,2, \dots, n$. This property completely determines $R[x_1, \dots, x_n]$ up to isomorphism.

share|improve this question
1  
@Yuan: You should really provide the text of the problem. –  Arturo Magidin Jan 24 '11 at 22:18
    
Isn't it by definition that a ring homomorphism maps identities to identities for a CRWI? –  PEV Jan 24 '11 at 22:19
    
@PEV: it is mutiplicative identity –  Yuan Jan 24 '11 at 22:23
    
@PEV: It's a convention that many, but not all follow; if I recall correctly (not in my office right now), Hungerford does not require a ring homomorphism between rings with identity to restrict to a monoid homomorphism of the multiplicative monoids of the rings, but only a semigroup homomorphism (that is, a fancy way of saying Hungerford does not require ring homomorphisms between rings with identity to map the identity to the identity). –  Arturo Magidin Jan 25 '11 at 3:27
1  
@Arturo You're quite right. Hungerford explicitly says so in page 119 of his Algebra book. To quote him: "If $R$ and $S$ both have identities $1_R$ and $1_S$, we do not require that a homomorphism of rings map $1_R$ to $1_S$". –  Adrián Barquero Jan 25 '11 at 4:10
show 1 more comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

The hypothesis is being stealthily used in the assertion that $\overline{\varphi}$ is a homomorphism of rings.

Added and rewritten: More explicitly: the sketch Hungerford provides is to take an element of the polynomial ring $$\sum r_{i}x_1^{k_{1i}}x_2^{k_{2i}}\cdots x_n^{k_{ni}}$$ (suitably finite) and suggests mapping it to $$\sum\varphi(r_i)s_1^{k_{1i}}\cdots x_n^{k_{ni}}.$$ Then Hungerford asserts that this makes $\overline{\varphi}$ into a ring homomorphism.

You don't actually need the full hypothesis that $\varphi(1_R)=1_S$, but you do need something:

For $\varphi$ to be a ring homomorphism, we need $\varphi(1_R)$ to be an identity for $\varphi(R)$; for $\overline{\varphi}$ defined as above to be a ring homomorphism, we also need $\varphi(1_R)s_j = s_j$, because taking $p = 1_R$ and $q=x_j$ we have $\overline{\varphi}(pq) = \overline{\varphi}(x_j) =s_j$, and $\overline{\varphi}(p)\overline{\varphi}(q) = \varphi(1_R)s_j$. Thus, for $\overline{\varphi}$ to be a ring homomorphism, it is necessary that $\varphi(1_R)$ be an identity of the subring of $S$ generated by $\varphi(R)$ and $s_1,\ldots,s_n$ (as $R$ and $S$ are both commutative).

In fact, this is also sufficient for you to be able to get a homomorphism: you must require that $\varphi(1_R)$ be the identity for the subring of $S$ generated by $\varphi(R)$ and $s_1,\ldots,s_n$.

But it is not hard to check that the apparently weaker condition in the theorem (weaker, because it refers to a smaller class of homomorphisms and possible selections of $s_1,\ldots,s_n$) is in fact sufficient to characterize the polynomial ring up to unique isomorphism; the theorem suffices to prove the more general case by considering first the map onto $S'=\langle \varphi(R),s_1,\ldots,s_n\rangle$ and then composing with the embedding $S'\hookrightarrow S$ (since we are not requiring maps of rings with identity to send the identity to the identity).

share|improve this answer
    
Could you please explain "completely determine" means in this theorem? I feel confused about it. –  Yuan Jan 27 '11 at 4:43
    
@Yuan: It means that any commutative ring with identity $T$ and elements $t_1,\ldots,t_n$, together with an embedding $i\colon R\to T$, which satisfies the hypothesis of the theorem (for every homomorphism $\varphi\colon R\to S$ with $\varphi(1_R)=1_S$ and every elements $s_1,\ldots,s_n\in S$ there exists a unique homomorphism $\overline{\varphi}\colon T\to S$ such that $\varphi=\overline{\varphi}\circ i$ and $\overline{\varphi}(t_j)=s_j$, will be isomorphic to the ring of polynomials, and the isomorphism will be canonical. It's a typical category-theory statement about universality. –  Arturo Magidin Jan 27 '11 at 5:10
add comment

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.