Ring homomorphism composition of surjective and injective map.
$begingroup$
So say I have two rings, $R_1$ and $R_2$, and I have a homomorphism between them, $phi$.
There are sources, such as my lecturer, who said in passing that the homomorphism $phi$ can be factorized as a composition of a surjective map and an injective map$$R_1 to phi(R_1) hookrightarrow R_2.$$The first arrow is $phi$ and onto, of course. And the image $phi(R_1)$ is a subring of $R_2$, while it is a quotient ring of $R_1$.
What is the significance of this, and how do I see this? It seems mysterious. I'll rattle off a few of my thoughts.
- The first arrow is onto, so everything in the image, i.e. $R_1$ gets hit. No one gets left out. And the cardinality of $R_1$, "morally", is at least as big as that of $phi(R_1)$ if we want to preserve the structure. Indeed, $phi(R_1)$ is a quotient ring of $R_1$, which should indicate it's like a miniature version of $R_1$.
- The second arrow is into, so $1$-to-$1$, no funny business like $y = x^2$, etc. It's sort of the opposite of the first map. "Morally" the cardinality of $R_2$ is at least as big as that of $phi(R_1)$. And yeah, $phi(R_1)$ is just the image living inside this ambient space of $R_2$. Hence subring.
I guess I am curious, what is the usefulness of this factorization for algebraic geometry (which a lot of people on this website talk about), i.e. what important problems does it solve there?
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry ring-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So say I have two rings, $R_1$ and $R_2$, and I have a homomorphism between them, $phi$.
There are sources, such as my lecturer, who said in passing that the homomorphism $phi$ can be factorized as a composition of a surjective map and an injective map$$R_1 to phi(R_1) hookrightarrow R_2.$$The first arrow is $phi$ and onto, of course. And the image $phi(R_1)$ is a subring of $R_2$, while it is a quotient ring of $R_1$.
What is the significance of this, and how do I see this? It seems mysterious. I'll rattle off a few of my thoughts.
- The first arrow is onto, so everything in the image, i.e. $R_1$ gets hit. No one gets left out. And the cardinality of $R_1$, "morally", is at least as big as that of $phi(R_1)$ if we want to preserve the structure. Indeed, $phi(R_1)$ is a quotient ring of $R_1$, which should indicate it's like a miniature version of $R_1$.
- The second arrow is into, so $1$-to-$1$, no funny business like $y = x^2$, etc. It's sort of the opposite of the first map. "Morally" the cardinality of $R_2$ is at least as big as that of $phi(R_1)$. And yeah, $phi(R_1)$ is just the image living inside this ambient space of $R_2$. Hence subring.
I guess I am curious, what is the usefulness of this factorization for algebraic geometry (which a lot of people on this website talk about), i.e. what important problems does it solve there?
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry ring-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So say I have two rings, $R_1$ and $R_2$, and I have a homomorphism between them, $phi$.
There are sources, such as my lecturer, who said in passing that the homomorphism $phi$ can be factorized as a composition of a surjective map and an injective map$$R_1 to phi(R_1) hookrightarrow R_2.$$The first arrow is $phi$ and onto, of course. And the image $phi(R_1)$ is a subring of $R_2$, while it is a quotient ring of $R_1$.
What is the significance of this, and how do I see this? It seems mysterious. I'll rattle off a few of my thoughts.
- The first arrow is onto, so everything in the image, i.e. $R_1$ gets hit. No one gets left out. And the cardinality of $R_1$, "morally", is at least as big as that of $phi(R_1)$ if we want to preserve the structure. Indeed, $phi(R_1)$ is a quotient ring of $R_1$, which should indicate it's like a miniature version of $R_1$.
- The second arrow is into, so $1$-to-$1$, no funny business like $y = x^2$, etc. It's sort of the opposite of the first map. "Morally" the cardinality of $R_2$ is at least as big as that of $phi(R_1)$. And yeah, $phi(R_1)$ is just the image living inside this ambient space of $R_2$. Hence subring.
I guess I am curious, what is the usefulness of this factorization for algebraic geometry (which a lot of people on this website talk about), i.e. what important problems does it solve there?
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry ring-theory
$endgroup$
So say I have two rings, $R_1$ and $R_2$, and I have a homomorphism between them, $phi$.
There are sources, such as my lecturer, who said in passing that the homomorphism $phi$ can be factorized as a composition of a surjective map and an injective map$$R_1 to phi(R_1) hookrightarrow R_2.$$The first arrow is $phi$ and onto, of course. And the image $phi(R_1)$ is a subring of $R_2$, while it is a quotient ring of $R_1$.
What is the significance of this, and how do I see this? It seems mysterious. I'll rattle off a few of my thoughts.
- The first arrow is onto, so everything in the image, i.e. $R_1$ gets hit. No one gets left out. And the cardinality of $R_1$, "morally", is at least as big as that of $phi(R_1)$ if we want to preserve the structure. Indeed, $phi(R_1)$ is a quotient ring of $R_1$, which should indicate it's like a miniature version of $R_1$.
- The second arrow is into, so $1$-to-$1$, no funny business like $y = x^2$, etc. It's sort of the opposite of the first map. "Morally" the cardinality of $R_2$ is at least as big as that of $phi(R_1)$. And yeah, $phi(R_1)$ is just the image living inside this ambient space of $R_2$. Hence subring.
I guess I am curious, what is the usefulness of this factorization for algebraic geometry (which a lot of people on this website talk about), i.e. what important problems does it solve there?
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry ring-theory
abstract-algebra algebraic-geometry ring-theory
asked Dec 4 '18 at 11:30
user622739user622739
111
111
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The other answers do a good job of explaining how the factorization works on the ring side: for a ring map $phi:Rto S$, decompose the map as $Rto R/kerphi to S$ via the first isomorphism theorem, and check that the first map is surjective and the second map is injective.
If you want to apply this result to algebraic geometry, you need to know that surjective maps of rings correspond via $operatorname{Spec}$ to closed immersions of affine varieties and injective maps correspond in the same way to dominant maps of affine varieties. As $operatorname{Spec}$ is a contravariant functor, this means the factorization of $Rto S$ into $Rtwoheadrightarrow R/kerphi hookrightarrow S$ corresponds to $operatorname{Spec} S to operatorname{Spec} (R/kerphi) to operatorname{Spec} R$ where the first map is dominant and the second is a closed immersion.
Why is this useful? It gives us our first result in understanding what all morphisms of affine schemes have to look like. Without any results in this area, it would be hard to have an idea for what an arbitrary morphism of affine schemes looked like geometrically. This result gives some intuition early on in one's algebraic geometry life for a modest investment. The final word on what an arbitrary morphism looks like is Chevalley's theorem: the image of any morphism is a constructible set (a finite union of locally closed sets). This is more general and requires more work, but provides a fuller and more robust description which is more widely applicable.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well, in view of the homomorphism theorem, for each homomorphism $phi:R_1rightarrow R_2$, there is an injective homomorphism $psi:R_1/kerphi rightarrow R_2$ given by $psi(r+ker phi) = phi(r)$. When the image is restricted to $phi(R_2)$, the mapping $psi:R_1/kerphirightarrow phi(R_1)$ is an isomorphism. This gives you homomorphisms
$R_1rightarrow R_1/kerphi:rmapsto r+kerphi$, $R_1/kerphirightarrow phi(R_1); r+kerphimapsto phi(r)$ and an embedding $phi(R_1)rightarrow R_2$ of the subring $phi(R_1)$ into $R_2$, as claimed.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As for intuition, obseve by the First Isomorphism Theorem that
$$R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2$$
Leading to (two equally valid) factorizations:
$$R_1overset{f}{longrightarrow} R_2=left(text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2right)circ left(R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)right)$$
And
$$left(R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2right)circ left(R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/text{ker}(f)right)=R_1overset{f}{longrightarrow} R_2$$
$endgroup$
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%2f3025451%2fring-homomorphism-composition-of-surjective-and-injective-map%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The other answers do a good job of explaining how the factorization works on the ring side: for a ring map $phi:Rto S$, decompose the map as $Rto R/kerphi to S$ via the first isomorphism theorem, and check that the first map is surjective and the second map is injective.
If you want to apply this result to algebraic geometry, you need to know that surjective maps of rings correspond via $operatorname{Spec}$ to closed immersions of affine varieties and injective maps correspond in the same way to dominant maps of affine varieties. As $operatorname{Spec}$ is a contravariant functor, this means the factorization of $Rto S$ into $Rtwoheadrightarrow R/kerphi hookrightarrow S$ corresponds to $operatorname{Spec} S to operatorname{Spec} (R/kerphi) to operatorname{Spec} R$ where the first map is dominant and the second is a closed immersion.
Why is this useful? It gives us our first result in understanding what all morphisms of affine schemes have to look like. Without any results in this area, it would be hard to have an idea for what an arbitrary morphism of affine schemes looked like geometrically. This result gives some intuition early on in one's algebraic geometry life for a modest investment. The final word on what an arbitrary morphism looks like is Chevalley's theorem: the image of any morphism is a constructible set (a finite union of locally closed sets). This is more general and requires more work, but provides a fuller and more robust description which is more widely applicable.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The other answers do a good job of explaining how the factorization works on the ring side: for a ring map $phi:Rto S$, decompose the map as $Rto R/kerphi to S$ via the first isomorphism theorem, and check that the first map is surjective and the second map is injective.
If you want to apply this result to algebraic geometry, you need to know that surjective maps of rings correspond via $operatorname{Spec}$ to closed immersions of affine varieties and injective maps correspond in the same way to dominant maps of affine varieties. As $operatorname{Spec}$ is a contravariant functor, this means the factorization of $Rto S$ into $Rtwoheadrightarrow R/kerphi hookrightarrow S$ corresponds to $operatorname{Spec} S to operatorname{Spec} (R/kerphi) to operatorname{Spec} R$ where the first map is dominant and the second is a closed immersion.
Why is this useful? It gives us our first result in understanding what all morphisms of affine schemes have to look like. Without any results in this area, it would be hard to have an idea for what an arbitrary morphism of affine schemes looked like geometrically. This result gives some intuition early on in one's algebraic geometry life for a modest investment. The final word on what an arbitrary morphism looks like is Chevalley's theorem: the image of any morphism is a constructible set (a finite union of locally closed sets). This is more general and requires more work, but provides a fuller and more robust description which is more widely applicable.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The other answers do a good job of explaining how the factorization works on the ring side: for a ring map $phi:Rto S$, decompose the map as $Rto R/kerphi to S$ via the first isomorphism theorem, and check that the first map is surjective and the second map is injective.
If you want to apply this result to algebraic geometry, you need to know that surjective maps of rings correspond via $operatorname{Spec}$ to closed immersions of affine varieties and injective maps correspond in the same way to dominant maps of affine varieties. As $operatorname{Spec}$ is a contravariant functor, this means the factorization of $Rto S$ into $Rtwoheadrightarrow R/kerphi hookrightarrow S$ corresponds to $operatorname{Spec} S to operatorname{Spec} (R/kerphi) to operatorname{Spec} R$ where the first map is dominant and the second is a closed immersion.
Why is this useful? It gives us our first result in understanding what all morphisms of affine schemes have to look like. Without any results in this area, it would be hard to have an idea for what an arbitrary morphism of affine schemes looked like geometrically. This result gives some intuition early on in one's algebraic geometry life for a modest investment. The final word on what an arbitrary morphism looks like is Chevalley's theorem: the image of any morphism is a constructible set (a finite union of locally closed sets). This is more general and requires more work, but provides a fuller and more robust description which is more widely applicable.
$endgroup$
The other answers do a good job of explaining how the factorization works on the ring side: for a ring map $phi:Rto S$, decompose the map as $Rto R/kerphi to S$ via the first isomorphism theorem, and check that the first map is surjective and the second map is injective.
If you want to apply this result to algebraic geometry, you need to know that surjective maps of rings correspond via $operatorname{Spec}$ to closed immersions of affine varieties and injective maps correspond in the same way to dominant maps of affine varieties. As $operatorname{Spec}$ is a contravariant functor, this means the factorization of $Rto S$ into $Rtwoheadrightarrow R/kerphi hookrightarrow S$ corresponds to $operatorname{Spec} S to operatorname{Spec} (R/kerphi) to operatorname{Spec} R$ where the first map is dominant and the second is a closed immersion.
Why is this useful? It gives us our first result in understanding what all morphisms of affine schemes have to look like. Without any results in this area, it would be hard to have an idea for what an arbitrary morphism of affine schemes looked like geometrically. This result gives some intuition early on in one's algebraic geometry life for a modest investment. The final word on what an arbitrary morphism looks like is Chevalley's theorem: the image of any morphism is a constructible set (a finite union of locally closed sets). This is more general and requires more work, but provides a fuller and more robust description which is more widely applicable.
answered Dec 4 '18 at 19:07
KReiserKReiser
9,40221435
9,40221435
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well, in view of the homomorphism theorem, for each homomorphism $phi:R_1rightarrow R_2$, there is an injective homomorphism $psi:R_1/kerphi rightarrow R_2$ given by $psi(r+ker phi) = phi(r)$. When the image is restricted to $phi(R_2)$, the mapping $psi:R_1/kerphirightarrow phi(R_1)$ is an isomorphism. This gives you homomorphisms
$R_1rightarrow R_1/kerphi:rmapsto r+kerphi$, $R_1/kerphirightarrow phi(R_1); r+kerphimapsto phi(r)$ and an embedding $phi(R_1)rightarrow R_2$ of the subring $phi(R_1)$ into $R_2$, as claimed.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well, in view of the homomorphism theorem, for each homomorphism $phi:R_1rightarrow R_2$, there is an injective homomorphism $psi:R_1/kerphi rightarrow R_2$ given by $psi(r+ker phi) = phi(r)$. When the image is restricted to $phi(R_2)$, the mapping $psi:R_1/kerphirightarrow phi(R_1)$ is an isomorphism. This gives you homomorphisms
$R_1rightarrow R_1/kerphi:rmapsto r+kerphi$, $R_1/kerphirightarrow phi(R_1); r+kerphimapsto phi(r)$ and an embedding $phi(R_1)rightarrow R_2$ of the subring $phi(R_1)$ into $R_2$, as claimed.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well, in view of the homomorphism theorem, for each homomorphism $phi:R_1rightarrow R_2$, there is an injective homomorphism $psi:R_1/kerphi rightarrow R_2$ given by $psi(r+ker phi) = phi(r)$. When the image is restricted to $phi(R_2)$, the mapping $psi:R_1/kerphirightarrow phi(R_1)$ is an isomorphism. This gives you homomorphisms
$R_1rightarrow R_1/kerphi:rmapsto r+kerphi$, $R_1/kerphirightarrow phi(R_1); r+kerphimapsto phi(r)$ and an embedding $phi(R_1)rightarrow R_2$ of the subring $phi(R_1)$ into $R_2$, as claimed.
$endgroup$
Well, in view of the homomorphism theorem, for each homomorphism $phi:R_1rightarrow R_2$, there is an injective homomorphism $psi:R_1/kerphi rightarrow R_2$ given by $psi(r+ker phi) = phi(r)$. When the image is restricted to $phi(R_2)$, the mapping $psi:R_1/kerphirightarrow phi(R_1)$ is an isomorphism. This gives you homomorphisms
$R_1rightarrow R_1/kerphi:rmapsto r+kerphi$, $R_1/kerphirightarrow phi(R_1); r+kerphimapsto phi(r)$ and an embedding $phi(R_1)rightarrow R_2$ of the subring $phi(R_1)$ into $R_2$, as claimed.
answered Dec 4 '18 at 13:31
WuestenfuxWuestenfux
4,2281413
4,2281413
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As for intuition, obseve by the First Isomorphism Theorem that
$$R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2$$
Leading to (two equally valid) factorizations:
$$R_1overset{f}{longrightarrow} R_2=left(text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2right)circ left(R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)right)$$
And
$$left(R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2right)circ left(R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/text{ker}(f)right)=R_1overset{f}{longrightarrow} R_2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As for intuition, obseve by the First Isomorphism Theorem that
$$R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2$$
Leading to (two equally valid) factorizations:
$$R_1overset{f}{longrightarrow} R_2=left(text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2right)circ left(R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)right)$$
And
$$left(R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2right)circ left(R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/text{ker}(f)right)=R_1overset{f}{longrightarrow} R_2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As for intuition, obseve by the First Isomorphism Theorem that
$$R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2$$
Leading to (two equally valid) factorizations:
$$R_1overset{f}{longrightarrow} R_2=left(text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2right)circ left(R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)right)$$
And
$$left(R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2right)circ left(R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/text{ker}(f)right)=R_1overset{f}{longrightarrow} R_2$$
$endgroup$
As for intuition, obseve by the First Isomorphism Theorem that
$$R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2$$
Leading to (two equally valid) factorizations:
$$R_1overset{f}{longrightarrow} R_2=left(text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2right)circ left(R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)right)$$
And
$$left(R_1/ text{ker}(f)overset{cong}{to} text{im}(f)hookrightarrow R_2right)circ left(R_1twoheadrightarrow R_1/text{ker}(f)right)=R_1overset{f}{longrightarrow} R_2$$
edited Dec 4 '18 at 17:21
answered Dec 4 '18 at 17:05
Rafay AsharyRafay Ashary
83618
83618
add a comment |
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%2f3025451%2fring-homomorphism-composition-of-surjective-and-injective-map%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