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.

So I am trying to understand what a coset is and what a quotient ring is.

So I am going to tell you guys what I know. And please let me know if my thinking is right or wrong, and if I am missing something. For the rest of this post, assume R is a ring and I is an ideal of that ring.

So $I = (m)$ is a principal ideal generated by $m$ where $m \in R$.

Now the congruence class of $a$ and $I$ is denoted by $[a]_m$ but this congruence class can also be written as $a + (m)$ or simply $a + I$. now this congruence class is obviously a set. So is this the coset of it? So for any $a$ that you choose in $R$ and you "add" the ideal to it (generated by m which is also in R) you get a coset.

The quotient ring R/I just means ALL the cosets of I in R. So does this say that if hypothetically speaking m = 3, then 1 + (3) is one coset, 2 + (3) is another coset and hence the quotient ring is ALL the cosets for every possible a?

I hope I make sense. If someone could send me a link to an easy (introduction to algebra) article or a "tutorial", that would be appreciated. I am using Hungerford Algebra.

If anyone can explain this to me in easy english, that is appreciated.

Thanks

share|improve this question
3  
"So $I=(m)$ is a principal ideal..." The word "So" is not correct here, since not every ideal in every ring is principal. Did you mean " Say $I=(m)$ is a principal ideal..." ? –  Arturo Magidin Feb 25 '11 at 4:25
    
what is the difference between a principal and a "regular" ideal? I guess "say" would work but I wanna know the difference. –  Tyler Hilton Feb 25 '11 at 4:34
1  
@Tyler: every principal ideal is an ideal, but not every ideal is principal (there are some rings where they are, but those are very special rings). For example, if $R=\mathbb{Z}[x]$, the ring of all polynomials with integer coefficients, the set $I$ of all polynomials that have even constant coefficient is an ideal (check that this is the case), but it cannot be written as $(p(x))$ for some polynomial $p(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$: such a polynomial would have to divide $2$, and also divide $x$, and you'll see that the only polynomials that do that are $\pm 1$, which are not in the ideal. –  Arturo Magidin Feb 25 '11 at 4:40
1  
@Tyler: Just to be clear: an ideal is any nonempty subset $I$ such that for all $a,b$, if $a,b\in I$ then $a-b\in I$, and if $a\in I$ and $x\in R$, then $xa,ax\in I$. Taking "multiples of $m\in R$" gives one example of ideals, but they aren't the only ones in general, as the example above shows. –  Arturo Magidin Feb 25 '11 at 4:49
1  
@Tyler: P.S. You have to be very careful with adjectives in ring theory. As it happens "regular ideal" is a term of art, it describes a specific kind of ideal... –  Arturo Magidin Feb 25 '11 at 5:03

1 Answer 1

up vote 8 down vote accepted

Remember that every equivalence relation induces a partition on the set on which you have defined the relation. An ideal $I$ defines an equivalence relation on the set $R$ by saying that $a\sim b$ if and only if $a-b\in I$; we express this by saying that $a$ is congruent to $b$ modulo $I$.

That means that $R$ is partitioned into equivalence class under this "congruent to modulo $I$" relation. The equivalence classes are called "cosets" (I claimed some time ago this is short for "congruence set", but have been unable to substantiate this; but you can surely imagine that it is). The cosets are the equivalence classes.

Now, what is the equivalence class of an $a\in R$? it is the set of all things that are congruent to $a$ modulo $I$; this consists exactly of all elements of the form $a+x$ with $x\in I$, so we write it as $$ a + I = \{ a+x \mid x\in I\}.$$ This is its description as a set. If we want to think of it in terms of the equivalence relation and remember that it is the equivalence class of $a$, then we use the standard notation for equivalence classes and write $[a]$ (or $[a]_I$, or $[a]_m$, to remind us also of which ideal $I$ we are dealing with).

When you ask if $a+I$ is "the coset of it", it is unclear to me who "it" is. But, $a+I$ is the equivalence class of $a$, so it is the coset of $a$ (since "the coset of $x$" just means "the equivalence class of $x$ under the equivalence relation 'congruent modulo $I$'").

The reason that when you "add" the ideal you get the coset is just because of what the definition of the equivalence relation is: every element of the form $a+i$ is congruent to $a$ modulo $I$, because $a-(a+i) = -i\in I$; and if $b$ is congruent to $a$ modulo $I$, then $a-b=i$ for some $i\in I$, so we get that $b=a-i$. That is, every element of the form $a+x$ with $x\in I$ is in the coset, and everything in the coset is of the form $a+x$ with $x\in I$. So the notation $a+I$ is both suggestive and useful.

Now, the set $R/I$ is just the set of equivalence classes; as a set, the elements are the cosets. Each coset has many different names, since $[a]_I = [b]_I$ whenever $a\sim b$.

As a ring, $R/I$ is the ring whose elements are the cosets/equivalence classes, and whose operations $\oplus$ and $\odot$ are defined by $$\begin{align*} [x]_I \oplus [y]_I &= [x+y]_I,\\\ [x]_I\odot[y]_I &= [x\cdot y]_I \end{align*}$$ where $+$ and $\cdot$ are the operations in $R$. (We later drop the distinction between $+$ and $\oplus$, but the point here is that they are operations defined on different sets, so they are really different functions, though very closely related).

In your example, yes: $R/I$ is the collection of all cosets, but remember that the same coset may have many different names. So, for instance, if $R=\mathbb{Z}$ and $I=(3)$, then $R/I$ consists of all cosets, which are sets of the form $$ a + (3) = \{ \ldots, a+3(-2), a+3(-1) , a+3(0), a+3(1), a+3(2), a+3(4),\ldots\}$$ for all $a$. But as it happens, every single coset is equal to either $0+(3)$, $1+(3)$, or $2+(3)$, so in fact $R/I$ has only three elements, even though each of those elements has infinitely many names: \begin{align*} 0+(3) &= 3+(3) = 6+(3) = 9+(3) =\cdots = 3k+(3),\\ 1+(3) &= 4+(3) = 7+(3) = 10+(3) = \cdots = 3k+1 + (3)\\ 2+(3) &= 5+(3) = 8+(3) = 11+(3) = \cdots = 3k+2 + (3) \end{align*}

share|improve this answer
    
In your last example, why can $a$ only be $0, 1, 2$? –  Tyler Hilton Feb 25 '11 at 5:07
    
@Tyler Hilton: $a$ can be anything, but no matter what $a$ is, $a+(3)$ will be equal to one and only one of $0+(3)$, $1+(3)$, or $2+(3)$. For example, $-5+(3)$ is perfectly fine, it just happens to be the same set as $1+(3)$. As to how I can tell that those three are enough, it's because every number in $\mathbb{Z}$ can be written uniquely as $a=3k+r$, with $0\leq r\lt 3$ (division algorithm), and it is easy to check that the set $a+(3)$ will be the same as the set $r+(3)$ (just check equality as sets). –  Arturo Magidin Feb 25 '11 at 5:10
    
but how can -5 be the same as 1? I know that we learn congruent classes last samester so I mean, i know WHY -5 is also 1. but how can you see it here? I think I am getting confused about (3). How do you add a single element to a set? srry, just read your edit now. Still kinda confused :( –  Tyler Hilton Feb 25 '11 at 5:13
    
@Tyler: $-5$ is not the same as $1$! I'm saying the equivalence class of $-5$, under the relation "is congruent to modulo $I$" is the same as the equivalence class of $1$ under that equivalence relation. As to how you "add elements to sets", it's explained in the post. "$a+(3)$" is just shorthand for the set $\{a+x\mid x\in (3)\}$, that is, the set of all sums of $a$ with elements of the set $(3)$. –  Arturo Magidin Feb 25 '11 at 5:16
    
@Tyler: As to why the equivalence classes are the same, because $-5\equiv 1$ modulo $(3)$. Or, we want to show that$$\{-5+x\mid x\in(3)\} = \{1+y\mid y\in (3)\}$$ as sets. So, pick $-5+x$ in the LHS; then $x=3k$ for some $k$, and $-5+x = 3(-2)+1+3k = 1+3(k-2)$, which is in the RHS. So $\subseteq$ holds. And if $1+y$ is in the RHS, then $y=3\ell$ for some $\ell$ (since $y\in(3)$), and $1+y = 1+3\ell = -5 + 3(\ell+2)$, which is in the LHS. So $\supseteq$ also holds, and we have equality of sets. –  Arturo Magidin Feb 25 '11 at 5:19

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.