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

Let $R$ be a commutative unital ring, $A$ an associative unital $R$-algebra, $I$ an arbitrary set, and $\mathfrak{a}$ an ideal of $R[x_i; i\!\in\!I]$. If $A$ is commutative, then there is an isomorphism of $R$-algebras

$$R[x_i,i\!\in\!I]/\mathfrak{a} \otimes A \:\cong\: A[x_i,i\!\in\!I]/\mathfrak{a}1_A,$$

where $\mathfrak{a}1_A$ denotes the ideal of $A[x_i,i\!\in\!I]$, generated by $\{1_Af(x); f(x)\!\in\!\mathfrak{a}\}$. For example, there is an isomorphism of $\mathbb{Z}$-algebras $\mathbb{Z}_3\,\otimes\,\mathbb{Z}[x,y]/\langle\langle 1\!+\!3x^2\!-\!5xy\rangle\rangle \:\cong\: \mathbb{Z}_3[x,y]/\langle\langle 1\!-\!2xy\rangle\rangle$.

Question 1: Is everything correct?

Question 2: Does the isomorphism still hold when $A$ is noncommutative? Must $A$ be replaced with $A^\mathrm{op}$ on the right hand side?

share|cite|improve this question
Yes, everything is correct (except that you should not write $\mathbb{Z}_3$ when you actually mean $\mathbb{Z}/3$ ... but let us not start this discussion here). – Martin Brandenburg Jan 2 '13 at 14:08
Great, so the noncommutative case also holds, right? Without $^\mathrm{op}$? – Leon Jan 2 '13 at 22:18

This actually holds in slightly more generality than you have proposed. Let $S$ be a commutative ring, $\mathfrak{a}$ an ideal in $S$ and $A$ a $S$-algebra, then $S/\mathfrak{a} \otimes_S A \cong A/\mathfrak{a}A$.

One could verify this using the universal property of tensor products, but it's easiest just to do it directly. Define a map $\phi:S/\mathfrak{a} \otimes_S A \rightarrow A/\mathfrak{a}A$ by $\phi(s+\mathfrak{a} \otimes a)=(s+\mathfrak{a})a$ for all $s \in S$, $a \in A$. By the commutivity of $S$, it follows that this defines an algebra homomorphism. It is then left to show that it is bijective. Surjectivity is easy since $\phi(1_S+\mathfrak{a} \otimes a) = a+\mathfrak{a}$ for all $a \in A$. Moreover, if there exists $s \in S$ and $a \in A$ such that $\phi(s+\mathfrak{a},a)=0$ then this implies that $sa \in \mathfrak{a}$. Thus, $\ker\phi=\mathfrak{a}$ and so the map is injective.

share|cite|improve this answer
what do you mean by "One could verify this using the universal property of tensor products, but it's easiest just to do it directly." when you use the universal property in the next sentence (which you cannot avoid anyway)? – Martin Brandenburg Jan 4 '13 at 15:31
By that you mean the homomorphism comes from the universal property? – J. Gaddis Jan 4 '13 at 17:21
Thank you. But how is this a generalization? Isn't this a special case when there are no variables $x_i$? Now that I think of it, $(A/I) \otimes (B/J) \cong (A\otimes B)/(A\otimes J +I\otimes B)$ seems more useful, though I still can't see if it is a generalization. – Leon Jan 5 '13 at 15:23

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.