Mixing
Quotienting a ring modulo maximal ideal is a field
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm learning abstract algebra and there's an exercise which states
Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unit. Call an ideal $M$ to be maximal if the only ideal containing $M$ is $R$ and $M$ itself. Prove for any ideal $I$ of $R$, $R/I$ is a field iff $I$ is maximal.
I've a proof for this, but I'm not sure if it's correct or whether the entire proof doesn't makes sense. Can you check my proof ?
We use the following notation: we denote $I leq R$ if $I$ is an ideal of $R$ and we denote $I < R$ if $I leq R$ and there's an element which is in $R$ but not in $I$ (i.e $R$ is "bigger" than $I$ and "contains" it).
Lemma: Let $S$ be a commutative ring with unit. Then $S$ is a field if and only if the only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself.
Proof:
For the first part, i.e ($S$ is a field) $Rightarrow$ (Only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself), consider an ideal $I$ of $S$ such that $0 < I leq S$. I will prove that $I = S$. As $0 < I$, pick $a$ such that $a in I$ and $a neq 0$. Now for any nonzero element $c in S$, $c in I$ too since for any $a in I$, $a (a^-1c) in I Rightarrow c in I$, as desired.
For the other direction, i.e (Only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself) $Rightarrow$ ($S$ is a field), we prove the contrapositive, i.e if $S$ is not a field, then there's a $M$ such that $0 < M < S$. Since $S$ is not a field, we can find a nonzero noinvertible element $a in S$. Now it's easy to see that $M = aS$ is an ideal, hence $M leq S$. To prove it's strict inequality, i.e $M < S$, note that $1 not in M$ since $1 in M Leftrightarrow exists b in R text such that ba = 1$, but it contradicts the invertibility of $a$.
This completes the proof of this lemma $blacksquare$.
Now returning to the main problem, let $I$ be an ideal of $R$.
Suppose $R/I$ be a field. I will show that there doesn't exist $J$ such that $I < J < R$. For the sake of contradiction, assume such $J$ exists. But then some routine calculation reveals $0 < J/I < R/I$, a contradiction to our Lemma.
Suppose $M$ is a maximal ideal of $R$. I will prove that $R/M$ is a field. Actually I prove the contrapositive, i.e if $R/M$ is not a field, then $M$ is not a maximal ideal of $R$.
- By contrapositive to Lemma, we can find $J$ such that $0 < J < R/M$. Since the elements of $J$ are of the form $j + M$ for $j in R$, define $S = j+M in J $. It's easy to see that $S < R$ and $M subset S subset R$ (strict subset)
- Clearly $M leq S leq R$. I now claim that $M < S < R$. Indeed, pick $s in S - M, b in R - S$ (they exists since $ M subset S subset R$). Now since $s not in M$, but $s in S$, we have $M < R$. Similarly, since $b not in S$ but $b in R$, we get $S < R$. Hence $M$ is not maximal, as desired.
This finishes the proof of this theorem $blacksquare$.
abstract-algebra proof-verification ring-theory
asked Jul 24 at 18:08
alxchen
402220
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm learning abstract algebra and there's an exercise which states
Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unit. Call an ideal $M$ to be maximal if the only ideal containing $M$ is $R$ and $M$ itself. Prove for any ideal $I$ of $R$, $R/I$ is a field iff $I$ is maximal.
I've a proof for this, but I'm not sure if it's correct or whether the entire proof doesn't makes sense. Can you check my proof ?
We use the following notation: we denote $I leq R$ if $I$ is an ideal of $R$ and we denote $I < R$ if $I leq R$ and there's an element which is in $R$ but not in $I$ (i.e $R$ is "bigger" than $I$ and "contains" it).
Lemma: Let $S$ be a commutative ring with unit. Then $S$ is a field if and only if the only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself.
Proof:
For the first part, i.e ($S$ is a field) $Rightarrow$ (Only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself), consider an ideal $I$ of $S$ such that $0 < I leq S$. I will prove that $I = S$. As $0 < I$, pick $a$ such that $a in I$ and $a neq 0$. Now for any nonzero element $c in S$, $c in I$ too since for any $a in I$, $a (a^-1c) in I Rightarrow c in I$, as desired.
For the other direction, i.e (Only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself) $Rightarrow$ ($S$ is a field), we prove the contrapositive, i.e if $S$ is not a field, then there's a $M$ such that $0 < M < S$. Since $S$ is not a field, we can find a nonzero noinvertible element $a in S$. Now it's easy to see that $M = aS$ is an ideal, hence $M leq S$. To prove it's strict inequality, i.e $M < S$, note that $1 not in M$ since $1 in M Leftrightarrow exists b in R text such that ba = 1$, but it contradicts the invertibility of $a$.
This completes the proof of this lemma $blacksquare$.
Now returning to the main problem, let $I$ be an ideal of $R$.
Suppose $R/I$ be a field. I will show that there doesn't exist $J$ such that $I < J < R$. For the sake of contradiction, assume such $J$ exists. But then some routine calculation reveals $0 < J/I < R/I$, a contradiction to our Lemma.
Suppose $M$ is a maximal ideal of $R$. I will prove that $R/M$ is a field. Actually I prove the contrapositive, i.e if $R/M$ is not a field, then $M$ is not a maximal ideal of $R$.
- By contrapositive to Lemma, we can find $J$ such that $0 < J < R/M$. Since the elements of $J$ are of the form $j + M$ for $j in R$, define $S = j+M in J $. It's easy to see that $S < R$ and $M subset S subset R$ (strict subset)
- Clearly $M leq S leq R$. I now claim that $M < S < R$. Indeed, pick $s in S - M, b in R - S$ (they exists since $ M subset S subset R$). Now since $s not in M$, but $s in S$, we have $M < R$. Similarly, since $b not in S$ but $b in R$, we get $S < R$. Hence $M$ is not maximal, as desired.
This finishes the proof of this theorem $blacksquare$.
abstract-algebra proof-verification ring-theory
asked Jul 24 at 18:08
alxchen
402220
You don't have a question, you have a solution. Why don't you try posting it as a solution for math.stackexchange.com/q/106909/29335 say? Among all the duplicates of that question, that ones seems pretty well attended.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:14
@rschwieb I'm not too much familiar with how proof-verification questoins are dealt but should this be a stand alone question since this is asking to verify a possibly wrong proof ?
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:15
I don't speak for everybody, but IMO, unless you have a specific question about a place you do think is wrong, I think solutions should be posted as solutions. Probably someone is going to answer your question anyway, since your proof seems to be a lot more involved than is necessary, and there is "a lot to say" about what you wrote.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:16
And when you post a new solution to a question that is duplicated so many times, people are bound to think you aren't looking for content on the site before asking. Nobody wants to help people who don't help themselves to the content we've been trying to maintain. Keep that in mind for future reference, and have a good day.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:18
1
@rschwieb Is that really so? When I post something in the proof-verification tag, I am most of the time sure, that the question was asked before, or could be looked up. But I want to learn from my own mistakes and want to find my solution to solve the problem, where I might need some help to do so. And I thought this is appreciated.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:27
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm learning abstract algebra and there's an exercise which states
Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unit. Call an ideal $M$ to be maximal if the only ideal containing $M$ is $R$ and $M$ itself. Prove for any ideal $I$ of $R$, $R/I$ is a field iff $I$ is maximal.
I've a proof for this, but I'm not sure if it's correct or whether the entire proof doesn't makes sense. Can you check my proof ?
We use the following notation: we denote $I leq R$ if $I$ is an ideal of $R$ and we denote $I < R$ if $I leq R$ and there's an element which is in $R$ but not in $I$ (i.e $R$ is "bigger" than $I$ and "contains" it).
Lemma: Let $S$ be a commutative ring with unit. Then $S$ is a field if and only if the only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself.
Proof:
For the first part, i.e ($S$ is a field) $Rightarrow$ (Only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself), consider an ideal $I$ of $S$ such that $0 < I leq S$. I will prove that $I = S$. As $0 < I$, pick $a$ such that $a in I$ and $a neq 0$. Now for any nonzero element $c in S$, $c in I$ too since for any $a in I$, $a (a^-1c) in I Rightarrow c in I$, as desired.
For the other direction, i.e (Only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself) $Rightarrow$ ($S$ is a field), we prove the contrapositive, i.e if $S$ is not a field, then there's a $M$ such that $0 < M < S$. Since $S$ is not a field, we can find a nonzero noinvertible element $a in S$. Now it's easy to see that $M = aS$ is an ideal, hence $M leq S$. To prove it's strict inequality, i.e $M < S$, note that $1 not in M$ since $1 in M Leftrightarrow exists b in R text such that ba = 1$, but it contradicts the invertibility of $a$.
This completes the proof of this lemma $blacksquare$.
Now returning to the main problem, let $I$ be an ideal of $R$.
Suppose $R/I$ be a field. I will show that there doesn't exist $J$ such that $I < J < R$. For the sake of contradiction, assume such $J$ exists. But then some routine calculation reveals $0 < J/I < R/I$, a contradiction to our Lemma.
Suppose $M$ is a maximal ideal of $R$. I will prove that $R/M$ is a field. Actually I prove the contrapositive, i.e if $R/M$ is not a field, then $M$ is not a maximal ideal of $R$.
- By contrapositive to Lemma, we can find $J$ such that $0 < J < R/M$. Since the elements of $J$ are of the form $j + M$ for $j in R$, define $S = j+M in J $. It's easy to see that $S < R$ and $M subset S subset R$ (strict subset)
- Clearly $M leq S leq R$. I now claim that $M < S < R$. Indeed, pick $s in S - M, b in R - S$ (they exists since $ M subset S subset R$). Now since $s not in M$, but $s in S$, we have $M < R$. Similarly, since $b not in S$ but $b in R$, we get $S < R$. Hence $M$ is not maximal, as desired.
This finishes the proof of this theorem $blacksquare$.
abstract-algebra proof-verification ring-theory
asked Jul 24 at 18:08
alxchen
402220
I'm learning abstract algebra and there's an exercise which states
Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unit. Call an ideal $M$ to be maximal if the only ideal containing $M$ is $R$ and $M$ itself. Prove for any ideal $I$ of $R$, $R/I$ is a field iff $I$ is maximal.
I've a proof for this, but I'm not sure if it's correct or whether the entire proof doesn't makes sense. Can you check my proof ?
We use the following notation: we denote $I leq R$ if $I$ is an ideal of $R$ and we denote $I < R$ if $I leq R$ and there's an element which is in $R$ but not in $I$ (i.e $R$ is "bigger" than $I$ and "contains" it).
Lemma: Let $S$ be a commutative ring with unit. Then $S$ is a field if and only if the only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself.
Proof:
For the first part, i.e ($S$ is a field) $Rightarrow$ (Only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself), consider an ideal $I$ of $S$ such that $0 < I leq S$. I will prove that $I = S$. As $0 < I$, pick $a$ such that $a in I$ and $a neq 0$. Now for any nonzero element $c in S$, $c in I$ too since for any $a in I$, $a (a^-1c) in I Rightarrow c in I$, as desired.
For the other direction, i.e (Only ideals of $S$ are $0$ and $S$ itself) $Rightarrow$ ($S$ is a field), we prove the contrapositive, i.e if $S$ is not a field, then there's a $M$ such that $0 < M < S$. Since $S$ is not a field, we can find a nonzero noinvertible element $a in S$. Now it's easy to see that $M = aS$ is an ideal, hence $M leq S$. To prove it's strict inequality, i.e $M < S$, note that $1 not in M$ since $1 in M Leftrightarrow exists b in R text such that ba = 1$, but it contradicts the invertibility of $a$.
This completes the proof of this lemma $blacksquare$.
Now returning to the main problem, let $I$ be an ideal of $R$.
Suppose $R/I$ be a field. I will show that there doesn't exist $J$ such that $I < J < R$. For the sake of contradiction, assume such $J$ exists. But then some routine calculation reveals $0 < J/I < R/I$, a contradiction to our Lemma.
Suppose $M$ is a maximal ideal of $R$. I will prove that $R/M$ is a field. Actually I prove the contrapositive, i.e if $R/M$ is not a field, then $M$ is not a maximal ideal of $R$.
- By contrapositive to Lemma, we can find $J$ such that $0 < J < R/M$. Since the elements of $J$ are of the form $j + M$ for $j in R$, define $S = j+M in J $. It's easy to see that $S < R$ and $M subset S subset R$ (strict subset)
- Clearly $M leq S leq R$. I now claim that $M < S < R$. Indeed, pick $s in S - M, b in R - S$ (they exists since $ M subset S subset R$). Now since $s not in M$, but $s in S$, we have $M < R$. Similarly, since $b not in S$ but $b in R$, we get $S < R$. Hence $M$ is not maximal, as desired.
This finishes the proof of this theorem $blacksquare$.
abstract-algebra proof-verification ring-theory
asked Jul 24 at 18:08
alxchen
402220
edited Jul 24 at 18:34
asked Jul 24 at 18:08
alxchen
402220
asked Jul 24 at 18:08
alxchen
402220
asked Jul 24 at 18:08
alxchen
402220
402220
You don't have a question, you have a solution. Why don't you try posting it as a solution for math.stackexchange.com/q/106909/29335 say? Among all the duplicates of that question, that ones seems pretty well attended.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:14
@rschwieb I'm not too much familiar with how proof-verification questoins are dealt but should this be a stand alone question since this is asking to verify a possibly wrong proof ?
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:15
I don't speak for everybody, but IMO, unless you have a specific question about a place you do think is wrong, I think solutions should be posted as solutions. Probably someone is going to answer your question anyway, since your proof seems to be a lot more involved than is necessary, and there is "a lot to say" about what you wrote.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:16
And when you post a new solution to a question that is duplicated so many times, people are bound to think you aren't looking for content on the site before asking. Nobody wants to help people who don't help themselves to the content we've been trying to maintain. Keep that in mind for future reference, and have a good day.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:18
1
@rschwieb Is that really so? When I post something in the proof-verification tag, I am most of the time sure, that the question was asked before, or could be looked up. But I want to learn from my own mistakes and want to find my solution to solve the problem, where I might need some help to do so. And I thought this is appreciated.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:27
 |Â
show 6 more comments
You don't have a question, you have a solution. Why don't you try posting it as a solution for math.stackexchange.com/q/106909/29335 say? Among all the duplicates of that question, that ones seems pretty well attended.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:14
@rschwieb I'm not too much familiar with how proof-verification questoins are dealt but should this be a stand alone question since this is asking to verify a possibly wrong proof ?
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:15
I don't speak for everybody, but IMO, unless you have a specific question about a place you do think is wrong, I think solutions should be posted as solutions. Probably someone is going to answer your question anyway, since your proof seems to be a lot more involved than is necessary, and there is "a lot to say" about what you wrote.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:16
And when you post a new solution to a question that is duplicated so many times, people are bound to think you aren't looking for content on the site before asking. Nobody wants to help people who don't help themselves to the content we've been trying to maintain. Keep that in mind for future reference, and have a good day.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:18
1
@rschwieb Is that really so? When I post something in the proof-verification tag, I am most of the time sure, that the question was asked before, or could be looked up. But I want to learn from my own mistakes and want to find my solution to solve the problem, where I might need some help to do so. And I thought this is appreciated.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:27
You don't have a question, you have a solution. Why don't you try posting it as a solution for math.stackexchange.com/q/106909/29335 say? Among all the duplicates of that question, that ones seems pretty well attended.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:14
You don't have a question, you have a solution. Why don't you try posting it as a solution for math.stackexchange.com/q/106909/29335 say? Among all the duplicates of that question, that ones seems pretty well attended.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:14
@rschwieb I'm not too much familiar with how proof-verification questoins are dealt but should this be a stand alone question since this is asking to verify a possibly wrong proof ?
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:15
@rschwieb I'm not too much familiar with how proof-verification questoins are dealt but should this be a stand alone question since this is asking to verify a possibly wrong proof ?
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:15
I don't speak for everybody, but IMO, unless you have a specific question about a place you do think is wrong, I think solutions should be posted as solutions. Probably someone is going to answer your question anyway, since your proof seems to be a lot more involved than is necessary, and there is "a lot to say" about what you wrote.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:16
I don't speak for everybody, but IMO, unless you have a specific question about a place you do think is wrong, I think solutions should be posted as solutions. Probably someone is going to answer your question anyway, since your proof seems to be a lot more involved than is necessary, and there is "a lot to say" about what you wrote.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:16
And when you post a new solution to a question that is duplicated so many times, people are bound to think you aren't looking for content on the site before asking. Nobody wants to help people who don't help themselves to the content we've been trying to maintain. Keep that in mind for future reference, and have a good day.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:18
And when you post a new solution to a question that is duplicated so many times, people are bound to think you aren't looking for content on the site before asking. Nobody wants to help people who don't help themselves to the content we've been trying to maintain. Keep that in mind for future reference, and have a good day.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:18
1
1
@rschwieb Is that really so? When I post something in the proof-verification tag, I am most of the time sure, that the question was asked before, or could be looked up. But I want to learn from my own mistakes and want to find my solution to solve the problem, where I might need some help to do so. And I thought this is appreciated.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:27
@rschwieb Is that really so? When I post something in the proof-verification tag, I am most of the time sure, that the question was asked before, or could be looked up. But I want to learn from my own mistakes and want to find my solution to solve the problem, where I might need some help to do so. And I thought this is appreciated.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:27
 |Â
show 6 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
We want to show, that $mathcalmsubset R$ is a maximal ideal iff $R/mathcalm$ is a field.
Note that $(0)subseteq R$ is a maximal ideal iff $R$ is a field.
Proof:
$(0)subseteq R$ is a maximal ideal iff $(0)$ and $R$ are the only ideals in $R$ iff $R$ is a field.
Now for what we initialy wanted to show:
The only ideals $mathcalmsubseteqmathcalAsubseteq R$ are $mathcalm$ and $R$ iff the only ideals $(0)subseteqoverlinemathcalAsubseteq R/mathcalm$ are $(0)$ and $R/mathcalm$.
answered Jul 24 at 18:25
Cornman
2,41021127
Thanks for your reply, but is my proof correct ? Thanks.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:29
I have not checked it yet. I just wanted to point out, that a proof for this statement can be quite small.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:30
Yes, I've also checked the thread rschwieb had previously pointed out before posting this. I thought my proof is very wrong (since the proofs given there was very short and mine is very long and clumpsy) that's why I posted.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:31
@AlexKChen I comment here, because there are already alot of comments under your initial questions. Do you confuse $S$ with $R$ in your starting post? This is the first that strikes me off guard.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:33
Ooops yes sorry. I've corrected the typo.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:34
 |Â
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
We want to show, that $mathcalmsubset R$ is a maximal ideal iff $R/mathcalm$ is a field.
Note that $(0)subseteq R$ is a maximal ideal iff $R$ is a field.
Proof:
$(0)subseteq R$ is a maximal ideal iff $(0)$ and $R$ are the only ideals in $R$ iff $R$ is a field.
Now for what we initialy wanted to show:
The only ideals $mathcalmsubseteqmathcalAsubseteq R$ are $mathcalm$ and $R$ iff the only ideals $(0)subseteqoverlinemathcalAsubseteq R/mathcalm$ are $(0)$ and $R/mathcalm$.
answered Jul 24 at 18:25
Cornman
2,41021127
Thanks for your reply, but is my proof correct ? Thanks.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:29
I have not checked it yet. I just wanted to point out, that a proof for this statement can be quite small.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:30
Yes, I've also checked the thread rschwieb had previously pointed out before posting this. I thought my proof is very wrong (since the proofs given there was very short and mine is very long and clumpsy) that's why I posted.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:31
@AlexKChen I comment here, because there are already alot of comments under your initial questions. Do you confuse $S$ with $R$ in your starting post? This is the first that strikes me off guard.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:33
Ooops yes sorry. I've corrected the typo.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:34
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
We want to show, that $mathcalmsubset R$ is a maximal ideal iff $R/mathcalm$ is a field.
Note that $(0)subseteq R$ is a maximal ideal iff $R$ is a field.
Proof:
$(0)subseteq R$ is a maximal ideal iff $(0)$ and $R$ are the only ideals in $R$ iff $R$ is a field.
Now for what we initialy wanted to show:
The only ideals $mathcalmsubseteqmathcalAsubseteq R$ are $mathcalm$ and $R$ iff the only ideals $(0)subseteqoverlinemathcalAsubseteq R/mathcalm$ are $(0)$ and $R/mathcalm$.
answered Jul 24 at 18:25
Cornman
2,41021127
Thanks for your reply, but is my proof correct ? Thanks.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:29
I have not checked it yet. I just wanted to point out, that a proof for this statement can be quite small.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:30
Yes, I've also checked the thread rschwieb had previously pointed out before posting this. I thought my proof is very wrong (since the proofs given there was very short and mine is very long and clumpsy) that's why I posted.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:31
@AlexKChen I comment here, because there are already alot of comments under your initial questions. Do you confuse $S$ with $R$ in your starting post? This is the first that strikes me off guard.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:33
Ooops yes sorry. I've corrected the typo.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:34
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
We want to show, that $mathcalmsubset R$ is a maximal ideal iff $R/mathcalm$ is a field.
Note that $(0)subseteq R$ is a maximal ideal iff $R$ is a field.
Proof:
$(0)subseteq R$ is a maximal ideal iff $(0)$ and $R$ are the only ideals in $R$ iff $R$ is a field.
Now for what we initialy wanted to show:
The only ideals $mathcalmsubseteqmathcalAsubseteq R$ are $mathcalm$ and $R$ iff the only ideals $(0)subseteqoverlinemathcalAsubseteq R/mathcalm$ are $(0)$ and $R/mathcalm$.
answered Jul 24 at 18:25
Cornman
2,41021127
We want to show, that $mathcalmsubset R$ is a maximal ideal iff $R/mathcalm$ is a field.
Note that $(0)subseteq R$ is a maximal ideal iff $R$ is a field.
Proof:
$(0)subseteq R$ is a maximal ideal iff $(0)$ and $R$ are the only ideals in $R$ iff $R$ is a field.
Now for what we initialy wanted to show:
The only ideals $mathcalmsubseteqmathcalAsubseteq R$ are $mathcalm$ and $R$ iff the only ideals $(0)subseteqoverlinemathcalAsubseteq R/mathcalm$ are $(0)$ and $R/mathcalm$.
answered Jul 24 at 18:25
Cornman
2,41021127
answered Jul 24 at 18:25
Cornman
2,41021127
answered Jul 24 at 18:25
Cornman
2,41021127
answered Jul 24 at 18:25
Cornman
2,41021127
2,41021127
Thanks for your reply, but is my proof correct ? Thanks.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:29
I have not checked it yet. I just wanted to point out, that a proof for this statement can be quite small.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:30
Yes, I've also checked the thread rschwieb had previously pointed out before posting this. I thought my proof is very wrong (since the proofs given there was very short and mine is very long and clumpsy) that's why I posted.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:31
@AlexKChen I comment here, because there are already alot of comments under your initial questions. Do you confuse $S$ with $R$ in your starting post? This is the first that strikes me off guard.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:33
Ooops yes sorry. I've corrected the typo.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:34
 |Â
show 3 more comments
Thanks for your reply, but is my proof correct ? Thanks.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:29
I have not checked it yet. I just wanted to point out, that a proof for this statement can be quite small.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:30
Yes, I've also checked the thread rschwieb had previously pointed out before posting this. I thought my proof is very wrong (since the proofs given there was very short and mine is very long and clumpsy) that's why I posted.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:31
@AlexKChen I comment here, because there are already alot of comments under your initial questions. Do you confuse $S$ with $R$ in your starting post? This is the first that strikes me off guard.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:33
Ooops yes sorry. I've corrected the typo.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:34
Thanks for your reply, but is my proof correct ? Thanks.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:29
Thanks for your reply, but is my proof correct ? Thanks.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:29
I have not checked it yet. I just wanted to point out, that a proof for this statement can be quite small.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:30
I have not checked it yet. I just wanted to point out, that a proof for this statement can be quite small.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:30
Yes, I've also checked the thread rschwieb had previously pointed out before posting this. I thought my proof is very wrong (since the proofs given there was very short and mine is very long and clumpsy) that's why I posted.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:31
Yes, I've also checked the thread rschwieb had previously pointed out before posting this. I thought my proof is very wrong (since the proofs given there was very short and mine is very long and clumpsy) that's why I posted.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:31
@AlexKChen I comment here, because there are already alot of comments under your initial questions. Do you confuse $S$ with $R$ in your starting post? This is the first that strikes me off guard.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:33
@AlexKChen I comment here, because there are already alot of comments under your initial questions. Do you confuse $S$ with $R$ in your starting post? This is the first that strikes me off guard.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:33
Ooops yes sorry. I've corrected the typo.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:34
Ooops yes sorry. I've corrected the typo.
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:34
 |Â
show 3 more comments
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2861617%2fquotienting-a-ring-modulo-maximal-ideal-is-a-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
You don't have a question, you have a solution. Why don't you try posting it as a solution for math.stackexchange.com/q/106909/29335 say? Among all the duplicates of that question, that ones seems pretty well attended.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:14
@rschwieb I'm not too much familiar with how proof-verification questoins are dealt but should this be a stand alone question since this is asking to verify a possibly wrong proof ?
– alxchen
Jul 24 at 18:15
I don't speak for everybody, but IMO, unless you have a specific question about a place you do think is wrong, I think solutions should be posted as solutions. Probably someone is going to answer your question anyway, since your proof seems to be a lot more involved than is necessary, and there is "a lot to say" about what you wrote.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:16
And when you post a new solution to a question that is duplicated so many times, people are bound to think you aren't looking for content on the site before asking. Nobody wants to help people who don't help themselves to the content we've been trying to maintain. Keep that in mind for future reference, and have a good day.
– rschwieb
Jul 24 at 18:18
1
@rschwieb Is that really so? When I post something in the proof-verification tag, I am most of the time sure, that the question was asked before, or could be looked up. But I want to learn from my own mistakes and want to find my solution to solve the problem, where I might need some help to do so. And I thought this is appreciated.
– Cornman
Jul 24 at 18:27