0
$\begingroup$

I know the opposite is not true in general as was discussed here: Does $R[x] \cong S[x]$ imply $R \cong S$?

Rings are assumed to be commutative with identity.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $R\cong S$ means that after renaming we have $R=S$. So it is obvious. $\endgroup$ – Dietrich Burde Mar 15 at 13:18
1
$\begingroup$

I think it does, could you please define your "equivalence symbol"? If it means "Isomorph" then your claim is absolutely true:

Let $f:R\to S$ be a ring isomorphism. We define $g:R[x]\to S[x]$ as follows:

  • $g(a)=f(a)$ for every $a \in R$
  • $g(x)=x$.

You can easily check that $g$ is an isomorphism.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes it means isomorph. $\endgroup$ – DeuzharNickens Mar 15 at 13:08
2
$\begingroup$

Yes. When you realise that $R \cong S$ means that $R$ and $S$ are the same ring just with the elements relabeled, the result is obvious.

If you want to exhibit an example of a ring isomorphism $R[X] \rightarrow S[X]$, then start with a ring isomorphism $f: R \rightarrow S$ and define $\overline{f} : R[X] \rightarrow S[X]$ by $$\overline{f} \left( \sum_{i=0}^{k} a_i X^i \right) = \sum_{i=0}^{k} f(a_i) X^i.$$

$\endgroup$

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.