5
$\begingroup$

Is homomorphism between two rings a symmetric relation? That is, suppose $\exists \phi:R\rightarrow R'$ a ring homomorphism. Then does there exist a ring homomorphism from $R'$ to $R$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes this should be true, but the other ring homomorphism will be trivial as in the cases described below. $\endgroup$ – jfarchione Apr 28 '17 at 1:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Hayden: Your comment is better than the two answers (as of now). Care to make it an answer? $\endgroup$ – Matthew Leingang Apr 28 '17 at 1:26
12
$\begingroup$

This will depend somewhat on your definition of a ring and a ring homomorphism, as there are a few standard ways of defining these notions.

Firstly, for rings, there is sometimes a distinction between a ring and a unital ring, which additionally has a multiplicative identity $1$ (whereas a ring need not have one).

Secondly, and more importantly, even when ring is taken to mean unital ring, there is sometimes a distinction between a ring homomorphism (which simply preserves addition and multiplication) and a unital ring homomorphism (which much additionally preserve the multiplicative identity).

If a ring homomorphism need not preserve the multiplicative identities (assuming these are present in our rings), then between any two rings $R,S$ there is the zero map $\mathbf{0}: R \to S$ defined by $\mathbf{0}(r) = 0$.

As such, if your ring homomorphisms need not be unital, then you will always have such trivial homomorphisms. Note that a non-trivial homomorphism between unital rings will usually preserve $1$, so whether you instead want to consider "non-trivial" or "unital" ring homomorphisms, the answers given by Hurkyl or Lord Shark give examples of (unital) rings which don't admit unital/non-trivial ring homomorphisms in both directions.

For example, there is the obvious inclusion of $\mathbb{Z}$ into $\mathbb{Q}$ (and this is a unital ring homomorphism), but a non-trivial homomorphism $\varphi: \mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{Z}$ must have $2\varphi(1/2) = \varphi(1)=1$, so thus $\varphi(1/2)$ is some integer which, when multiplied by $2$, gives $1$. Of course, this can't happen, so we get a contradiction.

(I said above that a non-trivial ring homomorphism between unital rings will usually preserve $1$. A quick and easy example of a non-trivial ring homomorphism not preserving $1$ between unital rings is given by the following: Take $\mathbb{F}_2 = \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ and consider the inclusion of $\mathbb{F}_2$ into $\mathbb{F}_2^2$ by sending $0\mapsto (0,0)$ and $1\mapsto (1,0)$. Now, $(1,0)$ is not the multiplicative identity of $\mathbb{F}^2$, as $(1,1)$ is. However, it is a multiplicative identity of the image of the inclusion. In general, a ring homomorphism sends a multiplicative identity to a multiplicative identity of the image. In many cases, especially rings which have some sort of multiplicative cancellation property, that will be enough to mean that it actually sends $1$ to $1$. This is why I was able to justify the fact that $\varphi(1)=1$ above.

For more about this idea, see here.)

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you sir for this wonderful explanation. $\endgroup$ – mudok Apr 28 '17 at 1:55
4
$\begingroup$

No. $\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{F}_2$ and $\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Q}$ are counterexamples.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ More generally, Z -> F for any non-trivial field F. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wilson Apr 28 '17 at 14:17
4
$\begingroup$

Certainly not. Take for instance $\Bbb Z$ and $\Bbb Q$. Or $\Bbb R$ and $\Bbb C$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I dont understand why? Z to Q there is the inclusion map. but why there is not a homomorphism from Q to Z? $\endgroup$ – mudok Apr 28 '17 at 1:22
  • $\begingroup$ @mudok $1$ must go to $1$ but where would $1/2$ go? $\endgroup$ – Angina Seng Apr 28 '17 at 1:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The material you flesh out in the Comments might well be edited into the body of your Answer. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Apr 28 '17 at 1:50
  • $\begingroup$ @LordSharktheUnknown you sir did not explain why 1 must go to 1? $\endgroup$ – mudok Apr 28 '17 at 1:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @mudok As Hayden explains it is conventional to insist that ring homomorphisms are unital, taking $1$ to $1$. If one does not adopt this convention then the zero map is always a ring homomorphism and your original question becomes idle. $\endgroup$ – Angina Seng Apr 28 '17 at 2:04
1
$\begingroup$

If we add, to the question, the reasonable requirement that the homomorphism is nonzero, the answer is still no.

For instance consider $R=M_2 (\mathbb R) $, $R'=M_3 (\mathbb R) $. There are many nontrivial homomorphisms $R\to R'$: for any invertible $B $, $$A\longmapsto B\,\begin{bmatrix}A&0\\0&0\end{bmatrix}\,B^{-1}, $$ is a ring homomorphism. But there are no nonzero homomorphisms $R'\to R $.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.