KMB, Tuesday 30 October, 2012

Algebra III M3P8/M4P8/M5P8, Solutions to Problem Sheet 2

1) a) No, because (1) = 1 = 1. 0 b) No, because the identity in the ring S is the matrix 1 0 1 , so again (1) = 1. c) No, because (i2 ) = (1) = 1/2, but (i)2 = 02 = 0, so (rs) = (r)(s) in general. d) This one is a ring homomorphism. For simplicitly, for A a 2 2 complex matrix, write A to mean (A). We check 0 = 0 and 1 = 1 and A + B = A + B easily. Probably its safest to expand out the case of multiplication explicitly: if e f ae+bg af +bh ae+bg af +bh b A= a c d and B = g h then AB = cedg cf +dh so (AB ) = ce+dg cf +dh and this is easily checked to be AB = (A)(B ). e) No because again (1) = 2 = 1. 2) R becomes a vector space over F because for a vector space I need to be able to add two elements together (and r + s makes sense for r, s R) and I need to be able to multiply a vector by a scalar (but f r makes sense for f F and r R) and now I need to check the axioms. A vector space needs to be an abelian group under + (and thats OK, because a ring is too), and scalar multiplication needs to be associative: (v ) = ()v (and thats OK because rings are associative), and nally we need two distributivity statements, which are OK because theyre also in the axioms for a ring. If R is an integral domain and F is a subeld of R with R nite-dimensional, then to prove R is a eld all we need to do is to show is that R = 0 (which is obvious because 0 = 1 in F , so 0 = 1 in R) and that for 0 = r R there is s R with rs = 1. The trick is to consider the F -linear map on R dened by (x) = rx. This is easily checked to be linear, and furthermore it is injective (as rx = 0 implies either r = 0 or x = 0 because R is an integral domain, and r is assumed non-zero). Hence it is surjective, because of standard facts about nite-dimensional vector spaces. So choose s such that (s) = 1 and now rs = 1 and we are done. Finally, the polynomial ring R[x] is an integral domain (because R is) and contains a eld R, but is not a eld itself (because 1/x isnt a polynomial). Of course R[x] is innite-dimensional over R (indeed a basis is {1, x, x2 , . . .}, so there is no contradiction). 3) a) Let J be a bi-ideal in R and assume J = 0 (Ill use J for an ideal so I can let I denote the identity matrix). Choose a non-zero matrix M J . If mij denotes the (i, j )th component of M then we can choose , with m, = 0. One checks without too much trouble that E1, M E,1 is the matrix whose (1, 1) entry is m, and all of whose other entries are zero. But by denition of a biideal, this matrix is also in J . Now do the same for E2, M E,2 to get a matrix whose (2, 2) entry is m, and all of whose other entries are zero, and so on. All of these matrices must be in J . Now add them up and deduce that m, I J , where here I denotes the identity matrix. Now by assumption m, = 0, so

1 m , I R and so the product, which is I , must also be in J . Finally, for any matrix X , we have X = XI J , so J = R. b) First I claim that if M Mn (C) is not diagonal, then it is not in the centre. For if i = j and mij = 0 then M Ejj is non-zero in the (i, j )th component, but Ejj M has (i, j )th component equal to zero. Next I claim that if M is diagonal but two diagonal entries are distinct, then again its not in the centre. For if i = j and mii = mjj then M Eij and M Eji are dierent in place (i, j ) (one is mii and the other is mjj ). So the only possibilities left are the scalar matrices, which are easily checked to be in the centre. So were done.

4) If x R and 2x means, as usual, x + x, then x2 = x and (2x)2 = (2x) so 2x = (2x)2 = 4x2 = 4x and subracting 2x from both sides we get 2x = 0. Alternatively note that 2 = 22 = 4 so 2 = 0 and hence 2x = 0 for all x. To prove that R is commutative, note that for x and y R we have x2 = x and y 2 = y and (x + y ) = (x + y )2 = x2 + xy + yx + y 2 = x + xy + yx + y so, cancelling x + y , we get xy + yx = 0. But xy = xy from the rst part, so xy = yx. Finally, let P be a prime ideal of R. If x2 = x in R then certainly x2 = x in R/P , so R/P is an integral domain A such that x2 = x for all x A. But x2 = x is the same as x(x 1) = 0, and in an integral domain this implies x = 0 or x 1 = 0. Hence R/P can have at most two elements, namely 0 and 1. On the other hand it has at least two elements because its an integral domain, so it really is the eld with two elements. [A student once asked me for a non-trivial example of a ring satisfying the conditions of this question. Heres one: let X be any set at all, let R be the set of subsets of that set, and dene + and by letting A + B be the symmetric dierence of A and B (that is, A + B is the elements of X that are in precisely one of A and B ) and letting A B be the intersection of A and B . Exercise: this is a ring! (the empty set is zero, and X is one). As of course is any subring of this. Rings with x2 = x for all x are called boolean rings so you can Wikipedia/google your way to more...] 5) a) We showed in lectures that if m Z1 then mZ is prime i its maximal i m is a prime number. Hence I is neither prime nor maximal. b) I claim I = (3). For 3 = 9 6 I and hence (3) I . Conversely both 6 and 9 are in (3) so I (3). Hence I = (3) and so by lectures (just after Cor 2.20) I is both prime and maximal. c) I is the kernel of the evaluation homomorphism R Z sending X to 1. To see this, note that f is in the kernel i f (1) = 0 i X 1 is a factor of f in, say, C[X ], but if f = (X 1)g with f Z[X ], then an easy induction on coecients shows g Z[X ] too. Hence the kernel is contained in (X 1), which itself is trivially contained in the kernel. Hence R/I = Z, as the map is clearly surjective, and because Z is an integral domain but not a eld, we see that I is prime but not maximal. d) I is not prime: indeed any non-zero element of I is of the form (X 2 1)g and hence has degree at least 2; hence X + 1 I and X 1 I , but the product clearly is in I , so I is not prime and hence not maximal either. e) None of the brackets in what follows mean ideal generated by, theyre just normal brackets! Note that I contains X (X 2 + 1) (X 3 1) = X + 1 and

hence I contains (X 1)(X + 1) = X 2 1 and hence I contains (X 2 + 1) (X 2 1) = 2, so I contains 1 2 2 = 1 and so I = R which by denition is neither prime nor maximal. f) Just as in (d), I is neither prime nor maximal, as (X + 2)(X 2) = X 2 4 = X 2 + 1. g) Consider the map from R to Q[Y, Z ] sending f (X, Y, Z ) to f (Y 2 , Y, Z ). This is clearly surjective, and its kernel clearly contains I . In fact its kernel is I but perhaps the best way for you to see this at this point is a hands-on approach. Say f is in the kernel. Write f = An X n + An1 X n1 + + A1 X + A0 with the Ai in Q[Y, Z ]. As f is in the kernel, we know An Y 2n + An1 Y 2n2 + + A0 = 0 in Q[Y, Z ]. Hence f = An (X n Y 2n ) + An1 (X n1 Y 2n2 ) + . But now we see that clearly f I , because X n Y 2n = (X Y 2 )(X n1 + X n2 Y 2 + + XY 2n4 + Y 2n2 ) I for all n. Hence R/I = Q[Y, Z ] is an integral domain but not a eld, and hence I is prime but not maximal. 6) a) Set 0 = (0, 0) and 1 = (1, 1). The addition on AB is just the group law for the product of two groups, and hence A B is indeed a group under addition, with 0 as the additive identity. Our element 1 satises (1, 1)(a, b) = (1a, 1b) = (a, b) = (a1, b1) = (a, b)(1, 1), and associativity ((a, b)(c, d))(e, f ) = (ace, bdf ) = (a, b)((c, d)(e, f )) for the product comes from associativity of the factors. Finally left distributivity (a, b)((c, d)+(e, f )) = (a, b)(c + e, d + f ) = (a(c + e), b(d + f )) = (ac + ae, bd + bf ) = (ac, bd) + (ae + bf ) = (a, b)(c, d) + (a, b)(e, f ) comes from left distributivity of the factors, and similarly right distributivity. b) Product of groups is a group so I J is a subgroup of A B . Finally if (a, b) A B and (i, j ) I J then (a, b)(i, j ) = (ai, bj ) I J as ai I etc etc. c) At last something a bit more interesting! Let L be a left ideal of A B . Dene I to be the i A such that there exists j B with (i, j ) L, that is I is the projection of L onto the rst factor. Simiarly dene J to be the projection onto the second factor. Its clear by denition that L I J . What is left is to check that I and J are left ideals, and that the inclusion is an equality. The reason I and J are left ideals is this: if i1 , i2 I then there are j1 , j2 B such that 1 = (i1 , j1 ) L and 2 = (i2 , j2 ) L. Now 1 2 L and hence i1 i2 I . Next (0, 0) L so 0 I . So I is an abelian group. Finally if i1 I and 1 = (i1 , j1 ) L, and a A, then (a, 0) 1 = (ai1 , 0) L and hence ai1 I . So I is a left ideal. Similarly J is a left ideal. Finally, to check I J L, we do the following. If i I then choose 1 = (i, j1 ) L, and because L is a left ideal and (1, 0) A B , the product (1, 0)(i, j1 ) = (i, 0) L. Similarly if j J then (0, j ) L. Hence the sum (i, j ) L and were done. 7) a) Why is I J a group under addition? Its the intersection of two groups, so it contains the additive identity, and if x, y I J then x, y I so x y I and similarly x y J , so x y I J and indeed I J is a group under addition. Next, if a A and i I J , then i I so ai I , and similarly ai J , so ai I J , and hence I J is an ideal. b) Say I J = P , and I = P and J = P . We wish to prove that in this case, P cannot be prime. Clearly P I and P J , so I = P means that the inclusion P I is proper, that is, there exists some i I with i P . Similarly, if J = P then theres some j J with j P . In particular neither i nor j are in P . However

ij I as i I , and ij J as j J , and hence ij I J = P . We have just constructed two elements i and j , neither in P , but with their product in P . Hence P is not prime.