3
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to solve an exercise which asks me to prove that $\frac{\mathbb{R}[x]}{\langle x \rangle}$ and $\frac{\mathbb{R}[x]}{\langle x-1 \rangle}$ are isomorphic as rings, but not as $\mathbb{R}[x]$ modules.

It's easy to show they're isomorphic as rings - you can either do it directly or use the first isomorphism theorem for rings to show they're both isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$.

I'm not sure how to approach showing that they're not isomorphic as modules though - it seems natural to try to prove it by contradiction, but if I assume there is an isomorphism I'm struggling to see where the contradiction comes from.

Your help would be much appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The scalar $x$ behaves very differently in $\mathbb R[x]/(x)$ then it does in $\mathbb R[x]/(x-1)$. If they were isomorphic as $\mathbb R[x]$ modules, this scalar should behave the same way. $\endgroup$ – Mike Earnest Feb 22 at 2:08
5
$\begingroup$

Hint: what is $x \cdot 1$ in each of these?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you expand this answer please? Not for the OP, but other viewers like me. $\endgroup$ – stressed out Feb 22 at 18:05
  • $\begingroup$ If $\varphi$ is an $R[x]$-module homomorphism between the two modules in question, where does $x \cdot 1$ go? There are two possible answers to this question. $\endgroup$ – RghtHndSd Feb 22 at 22:04
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, Silly me! So, $\phi(x + \langle x \rangle) = \phi(\langle x \rangle)= \langle x+1 \rangle$ and at the same $\phi(x + \langle x \rangle)= x \varphi(1+\langle x \rangle) = x\cdot (1 + \langle x-1 \rangle)$ because $x$ is a scalar. Right? (+1) $\endgroup$ – stressed out Feb 23 at 3:29

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.