0

I am interested in a proof or disproof of the following statement:

Conjecture: If $A$ and $B$ are isomorphic ideals of a ring $R$ then the quotient ring $R/A$ is isomorphic to $R/B$. $$A\cong B\implies R/A\cong R/B$$

I start by assuming the existence of an isomorphism $\phi$ from $A$ to $B$. Then I define the mapping $$\Psi:r+A\mapsto \phi(r)+B.$$

  1. $\Psi$ is well-defined.

Suppose $r+A=s+A$ for some $s,r\in R$.

$$ r-s\in A\implies \phi(r)-\phi(s)=\phi(r-s)\in B.$$

Thus $\phi(r)+B=\phi(s)+B$.

  1. $\Psi$ is a homomorphism.

    • $$\Psi(r+s+A)=\phi(r+s)+B$$ $$=\phi(r)+\phi(s)+B=\Psi(r+A)+\Psi(s+A).$$
    • $$\Psi(rs+A)=\phi(rs)+B$$ $$\phi(r)\phi(s)+B=\Psi(r+A)\Psi(s+A).$$
  2. $\Psi$ is one-to-one.

If $\Psi(r+A)=\Psi(s+A)$ then $\phi(r)+B=\phi(s)+B$ which implies $\phi(r-s)\in B$.

How can I get $r-s\in A$?

  1. $\Psi$ is onto.

For any $t+B\in R/B$ choose $\phi^{-1}(t)+A\in R/A$. $\quad\square$


Questions: Is this work valid? Do I have sufficient conditions?

  • 1
    How does $\phi(r)$ make sense if $\phi: A \to B$? – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:22
  • Should I extend $\phi$ to be a homomorphism on $R$ and an isomorphism on $A$? –  Jul 10 '18 at 02:24
  • 1
    How you going to do that? – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:24
  • 1
    In what sense do you mean that $\phi$ is a morphism $I \to J$? As a morphism of their sets of elements? Of the additive groups with operation $+$? Viewing them as $R$-modules? As associative algebras? An isomorphism of the structure I would call "ideal of $R$" could only exist when $I=J$ and would be the identity map. –  Jul 10 '18 at 02:28
  • 1
    Why not try this with the simplest possible commutative ring? – Steve D Jul 10 '18 at 02:31
  • 2
    When two ideals are isomorphic? What's your definition of isomorphic ideals? Surely an ideal does not necessarily have to be a ring, so we can't say they are isomorphic as rings. What is your definition? – stressed out Jul 10 '18 at 02:43
  • Wait, why aren't ideals rings? – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:44
  • @M.Nestor You'll need to declare what you want out of your isos of ideals. As rings themselves? $R$-modules? $\mathbb{Z}$-modules (abelian groups)? – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:46
  • I can see that this is going to get messy depending on how married people are to rings having a $1$. – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:46
  • @Randall actually as $R$-modules so they need not be abelian groups. sigh and so we return to the rng vs. ring debate. – Andres Mejia Jul 10 '18 at 02:46
  • @Randall I am not familiar with modules yet, I will look into this, thanks for the comments –  Jul 10 '18 at 02:47
  • @stressedout Yes it does: take $r \in R$ to be an element of $I$. Then $I$ is closed under its own multiplications. – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:48
  • @stressedout It doesn't matter. If $I$ is a left ideal of $R$ then $xy \in I$ whenever $x, y \in I$. Precisely because $x \in R$ and $y \in I$ implies $xy \in I$ by definition of left ideal. So take $x \in I$.... – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:51
  • @Randall Yeah. But it can fail to have an identity element. Right? It pretty much depends on the OP's definition of a ring, whether rings have to be unital and stuff. – stressed out Jul 10 '18 at 02:53
  • Yeah, of course. I bet I know exactly what $I$ is if ideals are rings and rings must have $1$. – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:54
  • It is clear from OP's argument that s/he is assuming that $\phi: A \to B$ is a ring iso. – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:56

4 Answers4

4

If isomorphism of ideals means isomorphism as $R$-modules, then here's a very simple counter-example:

Take $R=\mathbb{Z}$. Note that $2\mathbb{Z} \cong \mathbb{Z}$ as $\mathbb{Z}$-modules but $\mathbb{Z}_2 \not\cong 0$.

Here's another counter-example which shows that two ideals can be isomorphic as rings, but their corresponding quotient rings can fail to be isomorphic.

Take $\bar{R}=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{\infty} R$ with component-wise addition and multiplication in $R$ where $R$ is supposed not to be the zero ring.

Now take $I = \bar{R}$ and take $J=\{(0,a_1,a_2,\cdots): a_n\in R\}$ which is obtained by shifting components to the right by one step. Notice that $J$ is indeed an ideal of $\bar{R}$.

Then $I \cong J$ as rings with component-wise addition and multiplication that is induced from $R$. Define $\varphi: I \to J$ given by $(a_1,a_2,\cdots) \mapsto(0,a_1,a_2,\cdots)$. It can easily be verified that $$\varphi(a_1+a_1',a_2+a_2',\cdots)=\varphi(a_1,a_2,\cdots)+\varphi(a_1',a_2',\cdots)$$ $$\varphi(a_1\cdot a_1',a_2\cdot a_2',\cdots)=\varphi(a_1,a_2,\cdots)\cdot\varphi(a_1',a_2',\cdots)$$

You can see that $\ker{\varphi}=(0,0,\cdots)=\bar{0}$ and you can easily verify that $\psi: J \to I$ given by $(0,a_1,a_2,\cdots) \mapsto (a_1,a_2,\cdots)$ is a right inverse for $\varphi$. Hence, $\varphi$ is surjective too and it's a ring isomorphism.

but $\bar{R} / I = 0$ while $\bar{R}/J \not\cong 0$. Done.

stressed out
  • 8,330
2

Why not take $(3)$ and $(10)$ in $\mathbb Z$ which are isomorphic and consider the quotients. One quotient is a PID, the other is not.

Andres Mejia
  • 21,467
  • Really, the "PI" part doesn't even matter. Good example. – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:36
  • @Randall that is indeed true. I guess the point is that $(3)$ is prime so the quotient is a domain. – Andres Mejia Jul 10 '18 at 02:37
  • 4
    Or that both quotients are finite, but have a different number of elements :P – Mike Pierce Jul 10 '18 at 02:38
  • 1
    @MikePierce what are you doing counting things 'round these parts of town – Andres Mejia Jul 10 '18 at 02:39
  • I have seen elsewhere that $mZ$ is isomorphic to $nZ$ iff. $m=n$, what is the difference? https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/433049/if-m-and-n-are-distinct-positive-integers-then-m-mathbbz-is-not-ring-is –  Jul 10 '18 at 02:41
  • @M.Nestor Oh, good point up there^. – Randall Jul 10 '18 at 02:43
  • I take ring to preserve identity so that neither of those are rings at all. I took ideal isomorphism to mean isomorphic as $\mathbf Z$-modules (in this case), i.e. abelian groups. – Andres Mejia Jul 10 '18 at 02:44
  • @M.Nestor: The word "isomorphic" is *ambiguous*; there are many different kinds of things between which we talk about isomorphisms, and you aren't paying attention to what kind of object we're treating these things as. –  Jul 10 '18 at 03:43
1

Here's another answer, and let me be clear: I don't think it's all that great. I think stressed out's answer has the actual good counterexample. I am going to cheat a lot by reducing the problem down to abelian groups, where it is plainly false. In this answer, I am assuming:

  • rings need not have identity, and
  • the isomorphism between the ideals was to be a ring iso.

The point will be that rings with trivial multiplication make your conjecture false, and there are tons of counterexamples. If you do not like this and you want a counterexample with a more "honest" ring and not so much cheating, then you have other answers in this thread. However, this answers a question stressed out and I had on the side about the existence of finite counterexamples.

Given any abelian group $K$, write $K^T$ for the ring with $K$ as the underlying abelian group and multiplication $xy=0$ for all $x, y \in K$ (upper $T$ for "trivial"). The following are easy to prove:

Claim: If $A$ is any subgroup of $K$, then $A^T$ is an ideal of $K^T$.

Proof: Subgroups must contain $0$.

Claim: Every isomorphism $\phi: K \to L$ of abelian groups is also a ring isomorphism $\phi: K^T \to L^T$.

Proof: Well sure, since $\phi(xy)=\phi(0)=0$ and $\phi(x)\phi(y)=0$.

This shows that you can reduce your question down to abelian groups: if we have an abelian group $K$ with isomorphic subgroups $A$ and $B$, must it be true that $K/A$ and $K/B$ are isomorphic? If not, then $K^T$ is a ring with ideals $A^T$ and $B^T$ giving a counterexample to your original question.

So, here's an abelian groups counterexample. Take $K =\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_4$ with subgroups $A= \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \{0\}$ and $B=\{0\} \times \{0,2\}$. Clearly $A$ and $B$ are subgroups and must be isomorphic since they are each groups of order $2$. However, $K/A \cong \mathbb{Z}_4$ yet $K/B \cong \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$. As the former is cyclic and the latter is not, the quotients cannot be isomorphic.

Randall
  • 20,548
  • 2
  • 32
  • 57
0

Let $R={\mathbb Z}\times 2{\mathbb Z}$, $I=2{\mathbb Z}\times\{0\}$ and $J=\{0\}\times 2{\mathbb Z}$. It is obvious that $I\simeq 2{\mathbb Z}\simeq J$.

Define $\varphi:R\to {\mathbb Z}_2\times 2{\mathbb Z}$ by $\varphi((a,2b))=([a]_2,2b)$, then we have $$ \begin{array}{cl} \varphi((a,2b)+(c,2d))&=\varphi((a+c,2(b+d)))=([a+c]_2,2(b+d)) \\ &=([a]_2+[c]_2,2b+2d)=([a]_2,2b)+([c]_2,2d) \\ &=\varphi((a,2b))+\varphi((c,2d)) \end{array}, $$ $$ \begin{array}{cl} \varphi((a,2b)(c,2d))&=\varphi((ac,4bd))=\varphi((ac,2(2bd))) \\ &=([ac]_2,2(2bd))=([a]_2[c]_2,(2b)(2d)) \\ &=([a]_2,2b)([c]_2,2d)\\ &=\varphi((a,2b))\varphi((c,2d)) \end{array}. $$ Thus, $\varphi$ is a ring epimorphism. Let $(x,2y)\in {\rm Ker}(\varphi)$, then $(0,0)=\varphi(x,2y)=([x]_2,2y)$ and so $x\in 2{\mathbb Z}, y=0$. We can conclude that ${\rm Ker}(\varphi)=2{\mathbb Z}\times\{0\}=I$. Therefore, $R/I\simeq {\mathbb Z}_2\times 2{\mathbb Z}$.

Define $\psi:R\to {\mathbb Z}$ by $\psi((a,2b))=a$, then we have $$ \begin{array}{cl} \psi((a,2b)+(c,2d))&=\psi((a+c,2(b+d))) \\ &=a+c \\ &=\psi((a,2b))+\psi((c,2d)) \end{array}, $$ $$ \begin{array}{cl} \psi((a,2b)(c,2d))&=\psi((ac,4bd)) \\ &=ac \\ &=\psi((a,2b))\psi((c,2d)) \end{array}. $$ Thus, $\psi$ is a ring epimorphism. Let $(x,2y)\in {\rm Ker}(\psi)$, then $0=\psi(x,2y)=x$ and so $x=0$, $2y\in 2{\mathbb Z}$. We can conclude that ${\rm Ker}(\psi)=\{0\}\times 2{\mathbb Z}=J$. Therefore, we have $R/J\simeq {\mathbb Z}$.

Hence, $R/I\simeq {\mathbb Z}_2\times 2{\mathbb Z}\not\simeq {\mathbb Z}\simeq R/J$.