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.

I would like to know whether there are established terms for

  • A subring $S$ of a ring $R$ such that $S \cap U(R) = U(S)$; in other words, every element of $S$ which is invertible in $R$ is invertible in $S$.
  • The smallest subring $S$ of a ring $R$ containing some set $r_1, r_2, ...$ of elements of $R$ satisfying the above property.

Motivation: if $f : R \to T$ is a ring homomorphism, then knowing $f(r_1), f(r_2), ...$ implies that you know $f$ on the subring $S$ above. (Contrast the corresponding motivation for subrings: if $f : T \to R$ is a ring homomorphism, then knowing that $r_1, r_2, ...$ are in the image of $f$ implies that the subring generated by $r_1, r_2, ...$ is in the image of $f$.)

share|improve this question
    
Not an answer, but "inverse-closed subalgebra" seems well established in functional analysis. –  Jonas Meyer Aug 15 '11 at 23:37
    
I am interested in this question because I also want to know: for a subset $X$ of a ring $R$, and a ring homomorphism $f$ from $R$ to another ring $T$, when $f(x)$ is determined for any $x \in X$, to what extend is $f$ determined? @Jonas Meyer: do you mean the inverse-closed subalgebra of a Banach algebra? The definition for this is similar to what Qiaochu Yuan wanted to define in a ring... I think the notion could be extended to rings (if it is not already done), because in my mind, algebras are special rings, and Banach algebras are special algebras. –  ShinyaSakai Nov 13 '11 at 16:27
    
@ShinyaSakai: I agree, the case for algebras is a special case of the general case for rings. (The algebras I had in mind are usually, but not always, Banach algebras.) But even so that doesn't answer the question of what is or is not established terminology used by ring theorists. –  Jonas Meyer Nov 14 '11 at 0:47
    
@Jonas Meyer: Yes. I think if the asker is writing a thesis, he might borrow the term from that of algebras :) –  ShinyaSakai Nov 14 '11 at 11:19

1 Answer 1

A ring extension $\rm\: R \subset S\:$ is said to be $\rm\:\cal C$-survival if every ideal of $\rm\:I\:$ of type $\rm\:\cal C\:$ "survives" in $\rm\:S\:,\:$ i.e. $\rm\:I\ne R\ \Rightarrow\ I\:S \ne S\:.\:$ Your notion is the special case where $\cal\: C\:$ is the class of principal ideals, i.e. principal-survival. Such extensions are encountered in literature characterizing integral extensions in terms of various properties such as LO (lying-over), GO (going-up), INC (incomparbility), etc. For example, a ring homomorphism is integral (resp., satisfies LO) if and only if it is universally a survival-pair homomorphism (resp., universally a survival homomorphism), see Cokendall; Dobbs. Survival-pairs of commutative rings have the lying-over property.

share|improve this answer

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.