Injective Homomorphism from $mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}$ to the ring of Continuous functions
$begingroup$
Does there exist an injective ring homomorphism from the ring $mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}$ to the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb{R}$?
I know that $mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}$ is a field. So, any ring homomrphism should have either identity or the whole field as a kernel. So, does it imply that there is such a homomorphism? I am unable to think of any examples. Any hints. Thanks beforehand.
abstract-algebra ring-theory ring-homomorphism
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Does there exist an injective ring homomorphism from the ring $mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}$ to the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb{R}$?
I know that $mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}$ is a field. So, any ring homomrphism should have either identity or the whole field as a kernel. So, does it imply that there is such a homomorphism? I am unable to think of any examples. Any hints. Thanks beforehand.
abstract-algebra ring-theory ring-homomorphism
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
$mathbb R times mathbb R$ is not a field. Remember, the direct product of fields is not going to be a field in general, because, for example, $(1,0) cdot (0,1) = (0,0)$.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:10
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг oh, thanks for that fact. So, then, it is not even an integral domain!
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:11
$begingroup$
By the definition of the direct product, two homomorphisms from $mathbb R$ to the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$ give rise to a homomorphism from $mathbb R times mathbb R$ to the latter space, with the two maps as components/projections. However, the pair of maps being injective does not imply that the combined map will be injective.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:18
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг ok, any good examples?
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Does there exist an injective ring homomorphism from the ring $mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}$ to the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb{R}$?
I know that $mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}$ is a field. So, any ring homomrphism should have either identity or the whole field as a kernel. So, does it imply that there is such a homomorphism? I am unable to think of any examples. Any hints. Thanks beforehand.
abstract-algebra ring-theory ring-homomorphism
$endgroup$
Does there exist an injective ring homomorphism from the ring $mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}$ to the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb{R}$?
I know that $mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}$ is a field. So, any ring homomrphism should have either identity or the whole field as a kernel. So, does it imply that there is such a homomorphism? I am unable to think of any examples. Any hints. Thanks beforehand.
abstract-algebra ring-theory ring-homomorphism
abstract-algebra ring-theory ring-homomorphism
asked Dec 10 '18 at 12:08
vidyarthividyarthi
2,9421832
2,9421832
1
$begingroup$
$mathbb R times mathbb R$ is not a field. Remember, the direct product of fields is not going to be a field in general, because, for example, $(1,0) cdot (0,1) = (0,0)$.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:10
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг oh, thanks for that fact. So, then, it is not even an integral domain!
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:11
$begingroup$
By the definition of the direct product, two homomorphisms from $mathbb R$ to the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$ give rise to a homomorphism from $mathbb R times mathbb R$ to the latter space, with the two maps as components/projections. However, the pair of maps being injective does not imply that the combined map will be injective.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:18
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг ok, any good examples?
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
$mathbb R times mathbb R$ is not a field. Remember, the direct product of fields is not going to be a field in general, because, for example, $(1,0) cdot (0,1) = (0,0)$.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:10
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг oh, thanks for that fact. So, then, it is not even an integral domain!
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:11
$begingroup$
By the definition of the direct product, two homomorphisms from $mathbb R$ to the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$ give rise to a homomorphism from $mathbb R times mathbb R$ to the latter space, with the two maps as components/projections. However, the pair of maps being injective does not imply that the combined map will be injective.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:18
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг ok, any good examples?
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:23
1
1
$begingroup$
$mathbb R times mathbb R$ is not a field. Remember, the direct product of fields is not going to be a field in general, because, for example, $(1,0) cdot (0,1) = (0,0)$.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:10
$begingroup$
$mathbb R times mathbb R$ is not a field. Remember, the direct product of fields is not going to be a field in general, because, for example, $(1,0) cdot (0,1) = (0,0)$.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:10
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг oh, thanks for that fact. So, then, it is not even an integral domain!
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:11
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг oh, thanks for that fact. So, then, it is not even an integral domain!
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:11
$begingroup$
By the definition of the direct product, two homomorphisms from $mathbb R$ to the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$ give rise to a homomorphism from $mathbb R times mathbb R$ to the latter space, with the two maps as components/projections. However, the pair of maps being injective does not imply that the combined map will be injective.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:18
$begingroup$
By the definition of the direct product, two homomorphisms from $mathbb R$ to the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$ give rise to a homomorphism from $mathbb R times mathbb R$ to the latter space, with the two maps as components/projections. However, the pair of maps being injective does not imply that the combined map will be injective.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:18
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг ok, any good examples?
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:23
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг ok, any good examples?
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let us make a general statement, and then apply it to this case.
Definition : Given a ring $R$, an element $e in R$ is said to be idempotent, if $e^2 = e$. Note that $0,1$ are idempotent. Any other idempotent will be referred to as non-trivial.
Let $R,S$ be rings such that $R$ has a non-trivial idempotent but $S$ does not have any non-trivial idempotent. Then, any homomorphism $phi : R to S$ is not injective.
Proof : Let $e in R$ be a non-trivial idempotent, which is to say that $e^2 = e$, and $e neq 0,1$. Let us look at $phi(e)$. Then, $(phi(e))^2 = phi(e^2)= phi(e)$, so $phi(e)$ is idempotent in $S$, hence equals zero or one. if $phi(e) = 0$ then $phi$ is not injective as $e neq 0$. If $phi(e) =1$, then $phi(1-e) = 0$, and again injectivity is contradicted.
You can use the general statement in lots of places. Try to find candidates for $R$ and $S$.
In our case, $S$ , as the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$,contains no non-trivial idempotent, since if $f^2 = f$, then for each $x$ we have $f(x) = 0$ or $1$. However, as $f$ is continuous, $f(mathbb R)$ is connected, hence an interval, but has to be a subset of ${0,1}$, which is discrete. Consequently, $f$ is either identically zero or identically one, hence is a trivial idempotent.
However, $mathbb R times mathbb R$ contains the non-trivial idempotent $(0,1)$. Hence, the general statement gives the result you have desired.
As to non-injective maps, there are many of them. As mentioned earlier, consider $f,g in S$ not necessarily distinct. Then, $(a,b) to af + bg$ is a homomorphism. It is not difficult to see that every homomorphism is of this form.
Also, think about what happens if you treat $R$ and $S$ as just abelian groups under addition. In that case, can you find an injective group homomorphism between the two? Note that the concept of idempotent cannot be defined without the multiplication, so this might be an interesting side question.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose there is an injective ring homomorphism. The unit element $ (1,1) $ of $ mathbb{R} times mathbb{R} $ maps to the unit element of $ mathcal{C} (mathbb{R} ) $, i.e. the constant function $ 1_{mathbb{R}} $. If $ f,g $ are the images of $ (1,0) , (0,1) $ respectively, then $ f+g = 1_{mathbb{R}} $ and $ fg = 0 $. This shows that $ f(1_{mathbb{R}}-f) = 0 implies f = f^2 $. Since $ f $ is continuous, $ f $ is identically $ 0 $ or identically $ 1 $. The first case contradicts injectivity and so does the second because then $ g = 0 $. So there does not exist any injective ring map.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1: Very nice argument! And from this we readily find that the only ring homomorphisms $Bbb RtimesBbb Rtomathcal C(Bbb R)$ are $(x,y)mapsto xcdot 1_{Bbb R}$ and $(x,y)mapsto ycdot 1_{Bbb R}.$
$endgroup$
– Cameron Buie
Dec 10 '18 at 18:36
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3033825%2finjective-homomorphism-from-mathbbr-times-mathbbr-to-the-ring-of-continuo%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
$begingroup$
Let us make a general statement, and then apply it to this case.
Definition : Given a ring $R$, an element $e in R$ is said to be idempotent, if $e^2 = e$. Note that $0,1$ are idempotent. Any other idempotent will be referred to as non-trivial.
Let $R,S$ be rings such that $R$ has a non-trivial idempotent but $S$ does not have any non-trivial idempotent. Then, any homomorphism $phi : R to S$ is not injective.
Proof : Let $e in R$ be a non-trivial idempotent, which is to say that $e^2 = e$, and $e neq 0,1$. Let us look at $phi(e)$. Then, $(phi(e))^2 = phi(e^2)= phi(e)$, so $phi(e)$ is idempotent in $S$, hence equals zero or one. if $phi(e) = 0$ then $phi$ is not injective as $e neq 0$. If $phi(e) =1$, then $phi(1-e) = 0$, and again injectivity is contradicted.
You can use the general statement in lots of places. Try to find candidates for $R$ and $S$.
In our case, $S$ , as the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$,contains no non-trivial idempotent, since if $f^2 = f$, then for each $x$ we have $f(x) = 0$ or $1$. However, as $f$ is continuous, $f(mathbb R)$ is connected, hence an interval, but has to be a subset of ${0,1}$, which is discrete. Consequently, $f$ is either identically zero or identically one, hence is a trivial idempotent.
However, $mathbb R times mathbb R$ contains the non-trivial idempotent $(0,1)$. Hence, the general statement gives the result you have desired.
As to non-injective maps, there are many of them. As mentioned earlier, consider $f,g in S$ not necessarily distinct. Then, $(a,b) to af + bg$ is a homomorphism. It is not difficult to see that every homomorphism is of this form.
Also, think about what happens if you treat $R$ and $S$ as just abelian groups under addition. In that case, can you find an injective group homomorphism between the two? Note that the concept of idempotent cannot be defined without the multiplication, so this might be an interesting side question.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let us make a general statement, and then apply it to this case.
Definition : Given a ring $R$, an element $e in R$ is said to be idempotent, if $e^2 = e$. Note that $0,1$ are idempotent. Any other idempotent will be referred to as non-trivial.
Let $R,S$ be rings such that $R$ has a non-trivial idempotent but $S$ does not have any non-trivial idempotent. Then, any homomorphism $phi : R to S$ is not injective.
Proof : Let $e in R$ be a non-trivial idempotent, which is to say that $e^2 = e$, and $e neq 0,1$. Let us look at $phi(e)$. Then, $(phi(e))^2 = phi(e^2)= phi(e)$, so $phi(e)$ is idempotent in $S$, hence equals zero or one. if $phi(e) = 0$ then $phi$ is not injective as $e neq 0$. If $phi(e) =1$, then $phi(1-e) = 0$, and again injectivity is contradicted.
You can use the general statement in lots of places. Try to find candidates for $R$ and $S$.
In our case, $S$ , as the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$,contains no non-trivial idempotent, since if $f^2 = f$, then for each $x$ we have $f(x) = 0$ or $1$. However, as $f$ is continuous, $f(mathbb R)$ is connected, hence an interval, but has to be a subset of ${0,1}$, which is discrete. Consequently, $f$ is either identically zero or identically one, hence is a trivial idempotent.
However, $mathbb R times mathbb R$ contains the non-trivial idempotent $(0,1)$. Hence, the general statement gives the result you have desired.
As to non-injective maps, there are many of them. As mentioned earlier, consider $f,g in S$ not necessarily distinct. Then, $(a,b) to af + bg$ is a homomorphism. It is not difficult to see that every homomorphism is of this form.
Also, think about what happens if you treat $R$ and $S$ as just abelian groups under addition. In that case, can you find an injective group homomorphism between the two? Note that the concept of idempotent cannot be defined without the multiplication, so this might be an interesting side question.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let us make a general statement, and then apply it to this case.
Definition : Given a ring $R$, an element $e in R$ is said to be idempotent, if $e^2 = e$. Note that $0,1$ are idempotent. Any other idempotent will be referred to as non-trivial.
Let $R,S$ be rings such that $R$ has a non-trivial idempotent but $S$ does not have any non-trivial idempotent. Then, any homomorphism $phi : R to S$ is not injective.
Proof : Let $e in R$ be a non-trivial idempotent, which is to say that $e^2 = e$, and $e neq 0,1$. Let us look at $phi(e)$. Then, $(phi(e))^2 = phi(e^2)= phi(e)$, so $phi(e)$ is idempotent in $S$, hence equals zero or one. if $phi(e) = 0$ then $phi$ is not injective as $e neq 0$. If $phi(e) =1$, then $phi(1-e) = 0$, and again injectivity is contradicted.
You can use the general statement in lots of places. Try to find candidates for $R$ and $S$.
In our case, $S$ , as the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$,contains no non-trivial idempotent, since if $f^2 = f$, then for each $x$ we have $f(x) = 0$ or $1$. However, as $f$ is continuous, $f(mathbb R)$ is connected, hence an interval, but has to be a subset of ${0,1}$, which is discrete. Consequently, $f$ is either identically zero or identically one, hence is a trivial idempotent.
However, $mathbb R times mathbb R$ contains the non-trivial idempotent $(0,1)$. Hence, the general statement gives the result you have desired.
As to non-injective maps, there are many of them. As mentioned earlier, consider $f,g in S$ not necessarily distinct. Then, $(a,b) to af + bg$ is a homomorphism. It is not difficult to see that every homomorphism is of this form.
Also, think about what happens if you treat $R$ and $S$ as just abelian groups under addition. In that case, can you find an injective group homomorphism between the two? Note that the concept of idempotent cannot be defined without the multiplication, so this might be an interesting side question.
$endgroup$
Let us make a general statement, and then apply it to this case.
Definition : Given a ring $R$, an element $e in R$ is said to be idempotent, if $e^2 = e$. Note that $0,1$ are idempotent. Any other idempotent will be referred to as non-trivial.
Let $R,S$ be rings such that $R$ has a non-trivial idempotent but $S$ does not have any non-trivial idempotent. Then, any homomorphism $phi : R to S$ is not injective.
Proof : Let $e in R$ be a non-trivial idempotent, which is to say that $e^2 = e$, and $e neq 0,1$. Let us look at $phi(e)$. Then, $(phi(e))^2 = phi(e^2)= phi(e)$, so $phi(e)$ is idempotent in $S$, hence equals zero or one. if $phi(e) = 0$ then $phi$ is not injective as $e neq 0$. If $phi(e) =1$, then $phi(1-e) = 0$, and again injectivity is contradicted.
You can use the general statement in lots of places. Try to find candidates for $R$ and $S$.
In our case, $S$ , as the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$,contains no non-trivial idempotent, since if $f^2 = f$, then for each $x$ we have $f(x) = 0$ or $1$. However, as $f$ is continuous, $f(mathbb R)$ is connected, hence an interval, but has to be a subset of ${0,1}$, which is discrete. Consequently, $f$ is either identically zero or identically one, hence is a trivial idempotent.
However, $mathbb R times mathbb R$ contains the non-trivial idempotent $(0,1)$. Hence, the general statement gives the result you have desired.
As to non-injective maps, there are many of them. As mentioned earlier, consider $f,g in S$ not necessarily distinct. Then, $(a,b) to af + bg$ is a homomorphism. It is not difficult to see that every homomorphism is of this form.
Also, think about what happens if you treat $R$ and $S$ as just abelian groups under addition. In that case, can you find an injective group homomorphism between the two? Note that the concept of idempotent cannot be defined without the multiplication, so this might be an interesting side question.
answered Dec 10 '18 at 13:03
астон вілла олоф мэллбэргастон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
38.1k33376
38.1k33376
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose there is an injective ring homomorphism. The unit element $ (1,1) $ of $ mathbb{R} times mathbb{R} $ maps to the unit element of $ mathcal{C} (mathbb{R} ) $, i.e. the constant function $ 1_{mathbb{R}} $. If $ f,g $ are the images of $ (1,0) , (0,1) $ respectively, then $ f+g = 1_{mathbb{R}} $ and $ fg = 0 $. This shows that $ f(1_{mathbb{R}}-f) = 0 implies f = f^2 $. Since $ f $ is continuous, $ f $ is identically $ 0 $ or identically $ 1 $. The first case contradicts injectivity and so does the second because then $ g = 0 $. So there does not exist any injective ring map.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1: Very nice argument! And from this we readily find that the only ring homomorphisms $Bbb RtimesBbb Rtomathcal C(Bbb R)$ are $(x,y)mapsto xcdot 1_{Bbb R}$ and $(x,y)mapsto ycdot 1_{Bbb R}.$
$endgroup$
– Cameron Buie
Dec 10 '18 at 18:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose there is an injective ring homomorphism. The unit element $ (1,1) $ of $ mathbb{R} times mathbb{R} $ maps to the unit element of $ mathcal{C} (mathbb{R} ) $, i.e. the constant function $ 1_{mathbb{R}} $. If $ f,g $ are the images of $ (1,0) , (0,1) $ respectively, then $ f+g = 1_{mathbb{R}} $ and $ fg = 0 $. This shows that $ f(1_{mathbb{R}}-f) = 0 implies f = f^2 $. Since $ f $ is continuous, $ f $ is identically $ 0 $ or identically $ 1 $. The first case contradicts injectivity and so does the second because then $ g = 0 $. So there does not exist any injective ring map.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1: Very nice argument! And from this we readily find that the only ring homomorphisms $Bbb RtimesBbb Rtomathcal C(Bbb R)$ are $(x,y)mapsto xcdot 1_{Bbb R}$ and $(x,y)mapsto ycdot 1_{Bbb R}.$
$endgroup$
– Cameron Buie
Dec 10 '18 at 18:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose there is an injective ring homomorphism. The unit element $ (1,1) $ of $ mathbb{R} times mathbb{R} $ maps to the unit element of $ mathcal{C} (mathbb{R} ) $, i.e. the constant function $ 1_{mathbb{R}} $. If $ f,g $ are the images of $ (1,0) , (0,1) $ respectively, then $ f+g = 1_{mathbb{R}} $ and $ fg = 0 $. This shows that $ f(1_{mathbb{R}}-f) = 0 implies f = f^2 $. Since $ f $ is continuous, $ f $ is identically $ 0 $ or identically $ 1 $. The first case contradicts injectivity and so does the second because then $ g = 0 $. So there does not exist any injective ring map.
$endgroup$
Suppose there is an injective ring homomorphism. The unit element $ (1,1) $ of $ mathbb{R} times mathbb{R} $ maps to the unit element of $ mathcal{C} (mathbb{R} ) $, i.e. the constant function $ 1_{mathbb{R}} $. If $ f,g $ are the images of $ (1,0) , (0,1) $ respectively, then $ f+g = 1_{mathbb{R}} $ and $ fg = 0 $. This shows that $ f(1_{mathbb{R}}-f) = 0 implies f = f^2 $. Since $ f $ is continuous, $ f $ is identically $ 0 $ or identically $ 1 $. The first case contradicts injectivity and so does the second because then $ g = 0 $. So there does not exist any injective ring map.
answered Dec 10 '18 at 12:24
hellHoundhellHound
48328
48328
$begingroup$
+1: Very nice argument! And from this we readily find that the only ring homomorphisms $Bbb RtimesBbb Rtomathcal C(Bbb R)$ are $(x,y)mapsto xcdot 1_{Bbb R}$ and $(x,y)mapsto ycdot 1_{Bbb R}.$
$endgroup$
– Cameron Buie
Dec 10 '18 at 18:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
+1: Very nice argument! And from this we readily find that the only ring homomorphisms $Bbb RtimesBbb Rtomathcal C(Bbb R)$ are $(x,y)mapsto xcdot 1_{Bbb R}$ and $(x,y)mapsto ycdot 1_{Bbb R}.$
$endgroup$
– Cameron Buie
Dec 10 '18 at 18:36
$begingroup$
+1: Very nice argument! And from this we readily find that the only ring homomorphisms $Bbb RtimesBbb Rtomathcal C(Bbb R)$ are $(x,y)mapsto xcdot 1_{Bbb R}$ and $(x,y)mapsto ycdot 1_{Bbb R}.$
$endgroup$
– Cameron Buie
Dec 10 '18 at 18:36
$begingroup$
+1: Very nice argument! And from this we readily find that the only ring homomorphisms $Bbb RtimesBbb Rtomathcal C(Bbb R)$ are $(x,y)mapsto xcdot 1_{Bbb R}$ and $(x,y)mapsto ycdot 1_{Bbb R}.$
$endgroup$
– Cameron Buie
Dec 10 '18 at 18:36
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3033825%2finjective-homomorphism-from-mathbbr-times-mathbbr-to-the-ring-of-continuo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
$begingroup$
$mathbb R times mathbb R$ is not a field. Remember, the direct product of fields is not going to be a field in general, because, for example, $(1,0) cdot (0,1) = (0,0)$.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:10
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг oh, thanks for that fact. So, then, it is not even an integral domain!
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:11
$begingroup$
By the definition of the direct product, two homomorphisms from $mathbb R$ to the ring of continuous functions over $mathbb R$ give rise to a homomorphism from $mathbb R times mathbb R$ to the latter space, with the two maps as components/projections. However, the pair of maps being injective does not imply that the combined map will be injective.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 10 '18 at 12:18
$begingroup$
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг ok, any good examples?
$endgroup$
– vidyarthi
Dec 10 '18 at 12:23