Beck's monadicity theorem: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
en>Brad7777
 
External links: changed to use nlab template
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Hello from Australia. I'm glad to be here. My first name is Eulah. <br>I live in a small city called Mccrae in western Australia.<br>I was also born in Mccrae 40 years ago. Married in April 2008. I'm working at the post office.<br><br>my web blog ... [http://sitijunction.com/index.php?do=/blog/16527/fifa-coin-generator/ how to get free fifa 15 coins]
In [[commutative algebra]], the '''extension and contraction of ideals''' are operations performed on sets of [[ideal (ring theory)|ideal]]s.
 
== Extension of an ideal ==
 
Let ''A'' and ''B'' be two [[commutative ring]]s with [[identity element|unity]], and let ''f'' : ''A'' → ''B'' be a (unital) [[ring homomorphism]]. If <math>\mathfrak{a}</math> is an [[ideal (ring theory)|ideal]] in ''A'', then <math>f(\mathfrak{a})</math> need not be an ideal in ''B'' (e.g. take ''f'' to be the [[inclusion map|inclusion]] of the ring of integers '''Z''' into the field of rationals '''Q'''). The '''extension''' <math>\mathfrak{a}^e</math> of <math>\mathfrak{a}</math> in ''B'' is defined to be the ideal in ''B'' generated by <math>f(\mathfrak{a})</math>. Explicitly,
 
:<math>\mathfrak{a}^e = \Big\{ \sum y_if(x_i) : x_i \in \mathfrak{a}, y_i \in B \Big\}</math>
 
== Contraction of an ideal ==
 
If <math>\mathfrak{b}</math> is an ideal of ''B'', then <math>f^{-1}(\mathfrak{b})</math> is always an ideal of ''A'', called the '''contraction''' <math>\mathfrak{b}^c</math> of <math>\mathfrak{b}</math> to ''A''.
 
== Properties ==
 
Assuming ''f'' : ''A'' → ''B'' is a unital ring homomorphism, <math>\mathfrak{a}</math> is an ideal in ''A'', <math>\mathfrak{b}</math> is an ideal in ''B'', then:
 
* <math>\mathfrak{b}</math> is prime in ''B'' <math>\Rightarrow</math> <math>\mathfrak{b}^c</math> is prime in ''A''.
 
* <math>\mathfrak{a}^{ec} \supseteq \mathfrak{a}</math>
 
* <math>\mathfrak{b}^{ce} \subseteq \mathfrak{b}</math>
 
** It is false, in general, that <math>\mathfrak{a}</math> being prime (or maximal) in ''A'' implies that <math>\mathfrak{a}^e</math> is prime (or maximal) in ''B''. Many classic examples of this stem from algebraic number theory. For example, [[embedding]] <math>\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}\left\lbrack i \right\rbrack</math>. In <math>B = \mathbb{Z}\left\lbrack i \right\rbrack</math>, the element 2 factors as <math>2 = (1 + i)(1 - i)</math> where (one can show) neither of <math>1 + i, 1 - i</math> are units in ''B''. So <math>(2)^e</math> is not prime in ''B'' (and therefore not maximal, as well). Indeed, <math>(1 \pm i)^2 = \pm 2i</math> shows that <math>(1 + i) = ((1 - i) - (1 - i)^2)</math>, <math>(1 - i) = ((1 + i) - (1 + i)^2)</math>, and therefore <math>(2)^e = (1 + i)^2</math>.
 
On the other hand, if ''f'' is surjective and <math> \mathfrak{a} \supseteq \mathop{\mathrm{ker}} f</math> then:
* <math>\mathfrak{a}^{ec}=\mathfrak{a} </math> and <math>\mathfrak{b}^{ce}=\mathfrak{b}</math>.
 
* <math>\mathfrak{a}</math> is a [[prime ideal]] in ''A'' <math>\Leftrightarrow</math> <math>\mathfrak{a}^e</math> is a prime ideal in ''B''.
 
* <math>\mathfrak{a}</math> is a [[maximal ideal]] in ''A'' <math>\Leftrightarrow</math> <math>\mathfrak{a}^e</math> is a maximal ideal in ''B''.
 
== Extension of prime ideals in number theory ==
 
Let ''K'' be a [[field extension]] of ''L'', and let ''B'' and ''A'' be the [[ring of integers|rings of integers]] of ''K'' and ''L'', respectively. Then ''B'' is an [[integral extension]] of ''A'', and we let ''f'' be the [[inclusion map]] from ''A'' to ''B''. The behaviour of a [[prime ideal]] <math>\mathfrak{a} = \mathfrak{p}</math> of ''A'' under extension is one of the central problems of [[algebraic number theory]].
 
==See also==
 
*[[Splitting of prime ideals in Galois extensions]]
 
==References==
 
*[[M. F. Atiyah|Atiyah, M. F.]] and [[Ian G. Macdonald|Macdonald, I. G.]], ''[[Introduction to Commutative Algebra]]'', Perseus Books, 1969, ISBN 0-201-00361-9
 
[[Category:Commutative algebra]]
[[Category:Algebraic number theory]]

Latest revision as of 20:11, 4 July 2013

In commutative algebra, the extension and contraction of ideals are operations performed on sets of ideals.

Extension of an ideal

Let A and B be two commutative rings with unity, and let f : AB be a (unital) ring homomorphism. If a is an ideal in A, then f(a) need not be an ideal in B (e.g. take f to be the inclusion of the ring of integers Z into the field of rationals Q). The extension ae of a in B is defined to be the ideal in B generated by f(a). Explicitly,

ae={yif(xi):xia,yiB}

Contraction of an ideal

If b is an ideal of B, then f1(b) is always an ideal of A, called the contraction bc of b to A.

Properties

Assuming f : AB is a unital ring homomorphism, a is an ideal in A, b is an ideal in B, then:

  • b is prime in B bc is prime in A.

On the other hand, if f is surjective and akerf then:

Extension of prime ideals in number theory

Let K be a field extension of L, and let B and A be the rings of integers of K and L, respectively. Then B is an integral extension of A, and we let f be the inclusion map from A to B. The behaviour of a prime ideal a=p of A under extension is one of the central problems of algebraic number theory.

See also

References