It will be important to understand the subfields of a given field; this is a key step in figuring out whether a field is an extension by radicals or not. We need some “machinery” before we can develop this understanding.
Recall:
Definition 1 A ring is a set
together with two binary operations
on
such that:
is commutative.
- There is an additive identity
![]()
- Any
has an additive inverse
![]()
is associative.
is associative.
distributes over
both on the right and on the left.
So is a ring with the usual operations, as is each
Any field is a ring. These are all examples of commutative rings, since
holds in them. They are also rings with identity, since there is a multiplicative identity
in all of them.
If is a field,
is a commutative ring with identity.
Here is an exercise, to check your understanding: Suppose is a ring. Is
a ring?
If denotes the collection of
matrices with coefficients in the field
then
is a ring. In general, it is not commutative. Here is another exercise: Is there some
such that
is commutative?
If is a set and
is its power set, i.e., the collection of all subsets of
then we can turn
into a commutative ring with identity: For
subsets of
define
This is the symmetric difference of
and
Define
Check that this is indeed a commutative ring with identity. What is the
element? What is the
element?
Definition 2 If
is a ring, a subring of
is a subset
which is a ring with the operations inherited from
![]()
Just as with subfields, there is an easy way of verifying whether a given subset of a ring is a subring.
Proposition 3 Let
be a ring and let
Then
is a subring of
iff the following conditions hold:
is closed under addition and multiplication.
![]()
- Whenever
then
![]()
![]()
The proof of the proposition is an easy modification of the corresponding argument for subfields.
Here are some examples:
For any ring both
and
are subrings of
Note that the latter is a ring without identity, or what is typically called a rng.
For any integer let
be the set of integer multiples of
Then
is a subring of
(again, without identity).
In fact: Suppose is a subring. Then
for some
Indeed, either
or else
must contain a positive element. Using the division algorithm, one easily checks that if
is the smallest positive element of
then
Let An
matrix
has eigenvector
iff
is a scalar multiple of
i.e., for some complex number
(In the context of linear algebra, in addition one usually insists that
where the latter is the vector all of whose entries are 0.)
Fix a column vector with
entries, and let
be the collection of matrices in
with eigenvector
Then
is a subring of
Make sure you verify that this is indeed the case.
Definition 4 Given rings
and
a homomorphism between
and
is a function
such that for any
:
![]()
![]()
![]()
Informally, translates the operations of
into the operations of
in a “coherent” way.
Proposition 5 If
is a homomorphism of rings and
then
is a subring of
![]()
![]()
This is easy. It is a good idea to check first that for any
Here are some examples:
Let and
and let
be the map that to each
assigns its class modulo
Then
is a homomorphism.
Let let
and let
be the evaluation by
Then
is a homomorphism. For example, if
then
This is not only a subring of
it is in fact a field.
Proposition 6 Suppose
is a ring homomorphism. Then
is 1-1 iff the only
such that
is
in symbols,
![]()
![]()
For example, if
and
then
is 1-1, because
is transcendental, i.e., there is no nonzero polynomial in
such that
We just saw that the image of a homomorphism is a subring of the target ring. Homomorphisms also provide us with subrings of the source ring. These are special subrings:
Definition 7 Let
be a ring. A subset
is an ideal provided the following hold:
![]()
- Whenever
then
![]()
- Whenever
and
then
and
![]()
Lemma 8 If
is an ideal of a ring
then
is a subring of
![]()
![]()
Here is an example: Let let
and let
be the set of all polynomial multiples of
Then
is an ideal. It is the ideal generated by
and we write
On the other hand, if
is a column vector with 2 entries and
is the collection of matrices in
with eigenvector
then this is a subring of
but not necessarily an ideal, since there is no reason why
should imply that
is a multiple of
for an arbitrary
As an exercise, find a counterexample.
Proposition 9 Let
be a ring homomorphism. Let
Then
is an ideal of
![]()
![]()
Typeset using LaTeX2WP. Here is a printable version of this post.