Suppose $R$ is a unitary ring and $S$ has no zero divisor. Prove that if $f$ is a homomorphic function from...












1















Suppose $R$ is a unitary ring and $S$ has no zero divisor. Prove that if $f$ is a homomorphic function from $R$ to $S$ then $S$ is unitary.




My attempt:
I think if S is going to be unitary, then it's unit element should be the image of the unit element of R.
but no idea for starting...






ring-theory







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    You have to assume that $f$ is non-trivial. With that in mind, you might not know yet that $f(1) = 1$, but what do you know about $f(1)$?
    – Arthur
    yesterday












  • f(1) isnt zero divisor @arthur
    – Arman_jr
    yesterday












  • Sure, because there are none in $S$. You're told that $f$ is a homomorphism. Does that tell you anything else about $f(1)$ than it not being a zero divisor?
    – Arthur
    yesterday










  • @arthur if S be unitary then if we look at s in S which is not zero then, f(1).s=s so [f(1) - 1].s=0, because S has no left divisor and s in nonzero so f(1)=1
    – Arman_jr
    yesterday












  • You can't assume $S$ is unitary (because that's what we're asked to prove), and you can't assume $f(1)cdot s = s$ for arbitrary $s$ because, again, we don't know yet that $f(1) = 1$. What about $(f(1))^2$?
    – Arthur
    yesterday


















1















Suppose $R$ is a unitary ring and $S$ has no zero divisor. Prove that if $f$ is a homomorphic function from $R$ to $S$ then $S$ is unitary.




My attempt:
I think if S is going to be unitary, then it's unit element should be the image of the unit element of R.
but no idea for starting...






ring-theory







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    You have to assume that $f$ is non-trivial. With that in mind, you might not know yet that $f(1) = 1$, but what do you know about $f(1)$?
    – Arthur
    yesterday












  • f(1) isnt zero divisor @arthur
    – Arman_jr
    yesterday












  • Sure, because there are none in $S$. You're told that $f$ is a homomorphism. Does that tell you anything else about $f(1)$ than it not being a zero divisor?
    – Arthur
    yesterday










  • @arthur if S be unitary then if we look at s in S which is not zero then, f(1).s=s so [f(1) - 1].s=0, because S has no left divisor and s in nonzero so f(1)=1
    – Arman_jr
    yesterday












  • You can't assume $S$ is unitary (because that's what we're asked to prove), and you can't assume $f(1)cdot s = s$ for arbitrary $s$ because, again, we don't know yet that $f(1) = 1$. What about $(f(1))^2$?
    – Arthur
    yesterday
















1












1








1








Suppose $R$ is a unitary ring and $S$ has no zero divisor. Prove that if $f$ is a homomorphic function from $R$ to $S$ then $S$ is unitary.




My attempt:
I think if S is going to be unitary, then it's unit element should be the image of the unit element of R.
but no idea for starting...






ring-theory







share|cite|improve this question
















Suppose $R$ is a unitary ring and $S$ has no zero divisor. Prove that if $f$ is a homomorphic function from $R$ to $S$ then $S$ is unitary.




My attempt:
I think if S is going to be unitary, then it's unit element should be the image of the unit element of R.
but no idea for starting...






ring-theory




ring-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









rschwieb

105k1299244




105k1299244










asked yesterday









Arman_jr

284




284








  • 1




    You have to assume that $f$ is non-trivial. With that in mind, you might not know yet that $f(1) = 1$, but what do you know about $f(1)$?
    – Arthur
    yesterday












  • f(1) isnt zero divisor @arthur
    – Arman_jr
    yesterday












  • Sure, because there are none in $S$. You're told that $f$ is a homomorphism. Does that tell you anything else about $f(1)$ than it not being a zero divisor?
    – Arthur
    yesterday










  • @arthur if S be unitary then if we look at s in S which is not zero then, f(1).s=s so [f(1) - 1].s=0, because S has no left divisor and s in nonzero so f(1)=1
    – Arman_jr
    yesterday












  • You can't assume $S$ is unitary (because that's what we're asked to prove), and you can't assume $f(1)cdot s = s$ for arbitrary $s$ because, again, we don't know yet that $f(1) = 1$. What about $(f(1))^2$?
    – Arthur
    yesterday
















  • 1




    You have to assume that $f$ is non-trivial. With that in mind, you might not know yet that $f(1) = 1$, but what do you know about $f(1)$?
    – Arthur
    yesterday












  • f(1) isnt zero divisor @arthur
    – Arman_jr
    yesterday












  • Sure, because there are none in $S$. You're told that $f$ is a homomorphism. Does that tell you anything else about $f(1)$ than it not being a zero divisor?
    – Arthur
    yesterday










  • @arthur if S be unitary then if we look at s in S which is not zero then, f(1).s=s so [f(1) - 1].s=0, because S has no left divisor and s in nonzero so f(1)=1
    – Arman_jr
    yesterday












  • You can't assume $S$ is unitary (because that's what we're asked to prove), and you can't assume $f(1)cdot s = s$ for arbitrary $s$ because, again, we don't know yet that $f(1) = 1$. What about $(f(1))^2$?
    – Arthur
    yesterday










1




1




You have to assume that $f$ is non-trivial. With that in mind, you might not know yet that $f(1) = 1$, but what do you know about $f(1)$?
– Arthur
yesterday






You have to assume that $f$ is non-trivial. With that in mind, you might not know yet that $f(1) = 1$, but what do you know about $f(1)$?
– Arthur
yesterday














f(1) isnt zero divisor @arthur
– Arman_jr
yesterday






f(1) isnt zero divisor @arthur
– Arman_jr
yesterday














Sure, because there are none in $S$. You're told that $f$ is a homomorphism. Does that tell you anything else about $f(1)$ than it not being a zero divisor?
– Arthur
yesterday




Sure, because there are none in $S$. You're told that $f$ is a homomorphism. Does that tell you anything else about $f(1)$ than it not being a zero divisor?
– Arthur
yesterday












@arthur if S be unitary then if we look at s in S which is not zero then, f(1).s=s so [f(1) - 1].s=0, because S has no left divisor and s in nonzero so f(1)=1
– Arman_jr
yesterday






@arthur if S be unitary then if we look at s in S which is not zero then, f(1).s=s so [f(1) - 1].s=0, because S has no left divisor and s in nonzero so f(1)=1
– Arman_jr
yesterday














You can't assume $S$ is unitary (because that's what we're asked to prove), and you can't assume $f(1)cdot s = s$ for arbitrary $s$ because, again, we don't know yet that $f(1) = 1$. What about $(f(1))^2$?
– Arthur
yesterday






You can't assume $S$ is unitary (because that's what we're asked to prove), and you can't assume $f(1)cdot s = s$ for arbitrary $s$ because, again, we don't know yet that $f(1) = 1$. What about $(f(1))^2$?
– Arthur
yesterday












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















0














If $f$ is the zero homomorphism, this is false. Let's suppose otherwise from here on out. It turns out that you don't even need to know $S$ has an identity up front:




its unit element should be the image of the unit element of R




This is a good idea. Here is a hint to make it work: verify $f(1)$ is an idempotent of $S$. That reduces the problem to this question.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    0














    Since $f(1)$ is the unit element of $im(f)$ and we assume $f$ to be non-zero, it follows that $f(1) neq 0$.
    Let $a in S$. Then $f(1)^2 a = f(1) a$ and therefore $f(1) a = a$, since $f(1)$ is not a zero divisor. In the same way it follows that $a f(1) = a$, so $f(1) = 1_S$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060560%2fsuppose-r-is-a-unitary-ring-and-s-has-no-zero-divisor-prove-that-if-f-is%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      0














      If $f$ is the zero homomorphism, this is false. Let's suppose otherwise from here on out. It turns out that you don't even need to know $S$ has an identity up front:




      its unit element should be the image of the unit element of R




      This is a good idea. Here is a hint to make it work: verify $f(1)$ is an idempotent of $S$. That reduces the problem to this question.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        0














        If $f$ is the zero homomorphism, this is false. Let's suppose otherwise from here on out. It turns out that you don't even need to know $S$ has an identity up front:




        its unit element should be the image of the unit element of R




        This is a good idea. Here is a hint to make it work: verify $f(1)$ is an idempotent of $S$. That reduces the problem to this question.






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          0












          0








          0






          If $f$ is the zero homomorphism, this is false. Let's suppose otherwise from here on out. It turns out that you don't even need to know $S$ has an identity up front:




          its unit element should be the image of the unit element of R




          This is a good idea. Here is a hint to make it work: verify $f(1)$ is an idempotent of $S$. That reduces the problem to this question.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          If $f$ is the zero homomorphism, this is false. Let's suppose otherwise from here on out. It turns out that you don't even need to know $S$ has an identity up front:




          its unit element should be the image of the unit element of R




          This is a good idea. Here is a hint to make it work: verify $f(1)$ is an idempotent of $S$. That reduces the problem to this question.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          rschwieb

          105k1299244




          105k1299244























              0














              Since $f(1)$ is the unit element of $im(f)$ and we assume $f$ to be non-zero, it follows that $f(1) neq 0$.
              Let $a in S$. Then $f(1)^2 a = f(1) a$ and therefore $f(1) a = a$, since $f(1)$ is not a zero divisor. In the same way it follows that $a f(1) = a$, so $f(1) = 1_S$.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                0














                Since $f(1)$ is the unit element of $im(f)$ and we assume $f$ to be non-zero, it follows that $f(1) neq 0$.
                Let $a in S$. Then $f(1)^2 a = f(1) a$ and therefore $f(1) a = a$, since $f(1)$ is not a zero divisor. In the same way it follows that $a f(1) = a$, so $f(1) = 1_S$.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  0












                  0








                  0






                  Since $f(1)$ is the unit element of $im(f)$ and we assume $f$ to be non-zero, it follows that $f(1) neq 0$.
                  Let $a in S$. Then $f(1)^2 a = f(1) a$ and therefore $f(1) a = a$, since $f(1)$ is not a zero divisor. In the same way it follows that $a f(1) = a$, so $f(1) = 1_S$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Since $f(1)$ is the unit element of $im(f)$ and we assume $f$ to be non-zero, it follows that $f(1) neq 0$.
                  Let $a in S$. Then $f(1)^2 a = f(1) a$ and therefore $f(1) a = a$, since $f(1)$ is not a zero divisor. In the same way it follows that $a f(1) = a$, so $f(1) = 1_S$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 13 hours ago









                  Daniel W.

                  162




                  162






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060560%2fsuppose-r-is-a-unitary-ring-and-s-has-no-zero-divisor-prove-that-if-f-is%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      1300-talet

                      Image
                      Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output
                      Read more

                      1300-talet

                      Image
                      Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output
                      Read more

                      Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?

                      Image
                      36 3 The question Has there ever been a military combat going on around an active (running or in outage but not decommissioned) commercial nuclear power plant? Or dangerously near it? If yes, how did the plant and its personnel fare in such situation? Why I ask Let's assume for the scope of this question modern commercial nuclear power plants (CANDU, PWR, BWR of generation II plus all of gen III and newer) are usually reasonably safe to operate given that the engineering has been done right and there is a whole cohort of very well trained personnel on-site at all times, well rested and with considerable resources on their hands. Things hard to get with an armed conflict like the recent Syrian war raging around. I can't seem to find any reference or a comprehensive article about this, hence this question.
                      Read more