In Artin's Algebra the statement in the title is introduced as a corollary of the following:

The only ideals of a field are the zero ideal and the unit ideal. $\star$

The proof of the statement in the title then goes as following:

The kernel of $\varphi$ is an ideal of $F$. So according to $\star$, the kernel is either $(0)$ or $(1)$. If $\ker \varphi$ were the unit ideal $(1)$, $\varphi$ would be the zero map. But the zero map isn't a homomorphism when $R$ isn't the zero ring. Therefore $\ker \varphi = (0),$ and $\varphi$ is injective.

Now $R$ sure isn't the zero ring, but the zero ring is still embedded in $R$. Suppose $\varphi$ is the zero map, then

$$ \varphi(a + b) = 0 = 0 + 0 = \varphi(a) + \varphi(b)\\ \varphi(ab) = 0 = 0 \cdot 0 = \varphi(a)\varphi(b) \\ \varphi(1_R) = 0 = 1, $$

so $\varphi$ is a homomorphism from $F$ to $R$ (although it doesn't hit anything except $0$ in $R$).

So is the statement in bold technically incorrect, or am I missing something? Other questions on this topic indicate that other authors like to phrase the original statement as "$\varphi$ is injective or the zero map".


It is the last claim which fails: $$\varphi(1_R) = 0 \neq 1$$

Note that if $R$ is a ring and $0=1$, then $R$ is the zero ring.

Indeed, for all $x \in R$ we have $$x=x \cdot 1=x \cdot 0=0$$

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! So the last claim fails really because any subring is supposed to inherit 1 from the ring? $\endgroup$ – Andrey Portnoy Feb 13 '18 at 5:20
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreyPortnoy The last claim fails because in an unitary ring, unless the ring is trivial, $1 \neq 0$. And part of the definition of ring homomorphism is $\phi(1)=1$. $\endgroup$ – N. S. Feb 13 '18 at 5:22

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.