Radicals and the Ring of Quotients

In summary, the author shows that if an ideal is in the multiplicative subset of a commutative ring with identity, then the ideal is in the ring. If an ideal is in the multiplicative subset, then there exists a natural number such that the ideal is in the ring. Finally, the author shows that if an ideal is in the multiplicative subset, then the ideal is in the ring.
  • #1
Bashyboy
1,421
5

Homework Statement


Let ##S## be a multiplicative subset of a commutative ring ##R## with identity. If ##I## is an ideal in ##R##, then ##S^{-1}(\mbox{ Rad } I) = \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



If ##x \in S^{-1}(\mbox{ Rad } I)##, then ##x = \frac{r}{s}## for some ##r \in \mbox{ Rad } I## and ##s \in S##. Hence, there exists an ##n \in \Bbb{N}## such that ##r^n \in I##; moreover, since ##S## is multiplicative, ##s^n \in S##. Therefore ##\left( \frac{r}{s} \right)^n = \frac{r^n}{s^n} \in S^{-1}I## which means that ##\frac{r}{s} \in \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##.

Now suppose that ##x \in \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##. Then there exists a natural number ##n## such that ##S^{-1}I \ni \left( \frac{r}{s} \right)^n = \frac{r^n}{s^n}##. Therefore ##r^n \in I## which implies ##r \in \mbox{Rad } I##, and so ##\frac{r}{s} \in S^{-1}(\mbox{ Rad } I)##.

Is it really that easy, or did I make a simple blunder?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bashyboy said:

Homework Statement


Let ##S## be a multiplicative subset of a commutative ring ##R## with identity. If ##I## is an ideal in ##R##, then ##S^{-1}(\mbox{ Rad } I) = \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



If ##x \in S^{-1}(\mbox{ Rad } I)##, then ##x = \frac{r}{s}## for some ##r \in \mbox{ Rad } I## and ##s \in S##. Hence, there exists an ##n \in \Bbb{N}## such that ##r^n \in I##; moreover, since ##S## is multiplicative, ##s^n \in S##. Therefore ##\left( \frac{r}{s} \right)^n = \frac{r^n}{s^n} \in S^{-1}I## which means that ##\frac{r}{s} \in \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##.

Now suppose that ##x \in \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##. Then there exists a natural number ##n## such that ##S^{-1}I \ni \left( \frac{r}{s} \right)^n = \frac{r^n}{s^n}##. Therefore ##r^n \in I## which implies ##r \in \mbox{Rad } I##, and so ##\frac{r}{s} \in S^{-1}(\mbox{ Rad } I)##.

Is it really that easy, or did I make a simple blunder?
I don't follow your conclusion ##\operatorname{Rad}(S^{-1}I) \subseteq S^{-1}\operatorname{Rad}(I)##. With ##x \in \operatorname{Rad}(S^{-1}I)## we have ##x^n=rs^{-1}\; , \;r \in I##. How can we assume, that ##x## is of the form ##r^ns^{-n}\,##?
 
  • #3
Bashyboy said:

Homework Statement


Let ##S## be a multiplicative subset of a commutative ring ##R## with identity. If ##I## is an ideal in ##R##, then ##S^{-1}(\mbox{ Rad } I) = \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



If ##x \in S^{-1}(\mbox{ Rad } I)##, then ##x = \frac{r}{s}## for some ##r \in \mbox{ Rad } I## and ##s \in S##. Hence, there exists an ##n \in \Bbb{N}## such that ##r^n \in I##; moreover, since ##S## is multiplicative, ##s^n \in S##. Therefore ##\left( \frac{r}{s} \right)^n = \frac{r^n}{s^n} \in S^{-1}I## which means that ##\frac{r}{s} \in \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##.

Now suppose that ##x \in \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##. Then there exists a natural number ##n## such that ##S^{-1}I \ni \left( \frac{r}{s} \right)^n = \frac{r^n}{s^n}##. Therefore ##r^n \in I## which implies ##r \in \mbox{Rad } I##, and so ##\frac{r}{s} \in S^{-1}(\mbox{ Rad } I)##.

Is it really that easy, or did I make a simple blunder?
I don't follow your conclusion ##\operatorname{Rad}(S^{-1}I) \subseteq S^{-1}\operatorname{Rad}(I)##. With ##x \in \operatorname{Rad}(S^{-1}I)## we have ##x^n=rs^{-1}\; , \;r \in I\,.## How can we assume, that ##x## is of the form ##r^ns^{-n}\,##?
 
  • #4
Let me try again. Suppose that ##x \in \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##. Then ##x = \frac{r}{s}## with ##s \in S## and ##r \in R## such that ##x^n = \frac{r^n}{s^n} \in S^{-1} I##. Then by definition ##r^n \in I## and ##s^n \in S## and therefore ##r \in \mbox{Rad } I##. Hence ##\frac{r}{s} \in S^{-1} \mbox{Rad}(I)##.
 
  • #5
Bashyboy said:
Let me try again. Suppose that ##x \in \mbox{Rad}(S^{-1}I)##. Then ##x = \frac{r}{s}## with ##s \in S## and ##r \in R## such that ##x^n = \frac{r^n}{s^n} \in S^{-1} I##. Then by definition ##r^n \in I## and ##s^n \in S## and therefore ##r \in \mbox{Rad } I##. Hence ##\frac{r}{s} \in S^{-1} \mbox{Rad}(I)##.
For ##x \in \operatorname{Rad}(S^{-1}I) ## we have ##x^n=s^{-1}r## with ##r \in I## by definition. But how do we know that ##x \in RS^{-1}\,?## What have I missed?
 
  • #6
fresh_42 said:
For x∈Rad(S−1I)x∈Rad⁡(S−1I)x \in \operatorname{Rad}(S^{-1}I) we have xn=s−1rxn=s−1rx^n=s^{-1}r with r∈Ir∈Ir \in I by definition. But how do we know that x∈RS−1?x∈RS−1?x \in RS^{-1}\,? What have I missed?

Well, ##I \subseteq R##, so ##S^{-1} I \subseteq S^{-1} R##.
 
  • #7
Bashyboy said:
Well, ##I \subseteq R##, so ##S^{-1} I \subseteq S^{-1} R##.
But you only have this for ##x^n## and not for ##x## itself. However, you keep making assumptions on ##x## which have to be proven.

Edit and hint: We want to have ##x=s^{-1}r'## with ##r' \in \operatorname{Rad}(I)## that is ##r'^{\,n} =(sx)^n \in I##.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Okay. Here is another try. If ##x \in \mbox{ Rad }(S^{-1})##, then ##x^n \in S^{-1}I## for some ##n \in \Bbb{N}## and therefore ##x^n = \frac{r}{s}## with ##r \in I##. But ##x## is also an element in ##S^{-1}R##, so that ##x = \frac{t}{k}## for ##t \in R## and ##k \in S##. This implies ##\frac{t^n}{k^n} = \frac{r}{s}## which happens if and only if there exists an ##s_1 \in S## such that ##s_1(st^n - rk^n) = 0## or ##s_1s t^n = r s_1 k^n \in I##. Since ##I## is an ideal, ##s_1^n s^n t^n = r s_1^n k^n s^{n-1} \in I##. Hence ##x = \frac{t}{k} = \frac{s_1 s t}{s_1 sk}## with ##(s_1 s t)^n \in I##, which means ##x \in S^{-1} \mbox{ Rad }(I)##.

How does this sound?
 
  • #9
Bashyboy said:
How does this sound?
Certainly too complicated. And again, why is ##x \in S^{-1}R\;##? Anyway, you don't need this detour.

##x \in \operatorname{Rad}(S^{-1}I)## means ##x^n=s^{-1}r\;(r \in I)## and we get
$$
(sx)^n=s^nx^n=s^{n-1}r \in I \Longrightarrow sx \in \operatorname{Rad}I \Longrightarrow x \in S^{-1}(\operatorname{Rad}I)
$$
 

FAQ: Radicals and the Ring of Quotients

1. What are radicals in mathematics?

Radicals are mathematical expressions that involve roots, such as square roots, cube roots, and higher roots. They are used to represent numbers that cannot be written as a simple fraction or decimal.

2. How are radicals related to the ring of quotients?

The ring of quotients is a mathematical structure that extends the set of integers to include fractions or rational numbers. Radicals are often used in the construction of this ring, as they provide a way to represent irrational numbers in terms of rational numbers.

3. What is the significance of the ring of quotients in mathematics?

The ring of quotients is an important mathematical concept as it allows for the inclusion of fractions and irrational numbers in algebraic structures. This is especially useful in fields such as abstract algebra and number theory.

4. How are radicals and the ring of quotients used in real-world applications?

Radicals and the ring of quotients are used in various fields, including physics, engineering, and finance. They are used to model and solve complex problems involving irrational quantities, such as in the calculation of interest rates or the design of electrical circuits.

5. Can the ring of quotients be applied to other mathematical structures?

Yes, the concept of the ring of quotients can be extended to other algebraic structures, such as rings and fields. In fact, the ring of quotients is a special case of the field of fractions, which is a more general construction that extends any integral domain to include fractions.

Back
Top