I have something of a subtle question about the correspondence theorem for rings. The theorem is typically stated like this: Let $A$ be a ring, and $I$ an ideal of $A$. There is a $1-1$, order-preserving correspondence between \begin{align*} \{\mbox{Ideals}\ J\ ,\ I\subseteq J \subseteq A\} &\leftrightarrow \{\mbox{Ideals}\ \bar{J}\subseteq A/I \} \\ \end{align*} I just finished reading a direct proof which constructed the forward direction, and inverse maps for the $1-1$ correspondence. For the forward direction, we consider the canonical epimorphism $\varphi : A \rightarrow A/I$ sending $a \mapsto a+ I$, and restrict to $J$. That is we consider the map $$\varphi |_{J} : J \rightarrow A/I $$ The proof proceeds to establish that $\mbox{ker}(\varphi |_{J}) = I$. For this step it matters that $I \subset J$, because otherwise we might have $$ \mbox{ker}(\varphi |_{J}) = I \cap J \ne I $$ The isomorphism theorem for rings tells us that $$ \mbox{Im}(\varphi |_{J}) \cong J / \mbox{ker}(\varphi |_{J}) = J/I$$ Then the argument concludes that because $J/I$ is an ideal of $A/I$, the image does in fact ''land'' in the correct set.
Basically I'm wondering where exactly it is necessary that $I \subseteq J$. It seems that the above argument could be sidestepped. Isn't it clear by the definitions (and isn't it true even if $I \nsubseteq J$) that $\mbox{Im}(\varphi |_{J}) = J/I$? I'm surely missing some detail. Thanks so much in advance for your help!

  • $\begingroup$ If we don't have $I\subseteq J$, then $J$ won't consist of cosets of $I$, and $J/I$ begins to look very suspicious. What would it be? $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 30 '14 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "then $J$ won't consist of cosets of $I$." $J$ is an ideal of $A$ in a coset free world. $\endgroup$ – aherring Aug 30 '14 at 20:27
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry about not being clear. What I meant to say was: $J$ is not a union of cosets of $I$, so what would the elements of $J/I$ be? After all $J/I$ should be a quotient group (in addition to being an ideal of $A/I$). And to that end it is already necessary that $I$ is a subgroup of $J$. Hence $I$ should be a subset of $J$. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 30 '14 at 20:41

Indeed the projection map sends all ideals of $R$ to ideals of $R/I$. This is surjective, but not generally an injective map - two different ideals of $R$ can be sent to the same ideal of $R/I$. And when you go back by taking an ideal of $R/I$ and unioning the cosets of $I$ it contains to get an ideal of $R$ you will wind up with an ideal that contains $I$, so the inverse map takes ideals of $R/I$ and returns ideals of $R$ containing $I$.


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.