Abstract Algebra

Abstract Algebra
Question 1
Io prove that the relation defined on the set of objects Ob(G) of a small groupord G is an
equivalence relation, we need to show that it satisfies the three properties of reflexivity,
symmetry, and transitivity.
1. Reflexivity:
For any object X in Ob(G), there exists the identity morphism id_X: X → X in G , which
shows that X is equivalent to itself. Therefore, ∼ is reflexive.
2. Symmetry:
If X ∼ Y , then there exists a morphism X → Y in G . Since every morphism in a groupoid
has an inverse, there also exists a morphism Y → X . Thus, Y ∼ X , showing that ∼ is
symmetric.
3. Transitivity:
If X ∼ Y and Y ∼ Z , then there exist morphisms X → Y and Y → Z in G . The composition
of these morphisms gives a morphism X → Z , demonstrating that X ∼ Z . Therefore, ∼ is
transitive.
Verifying that G is a category:
1. Identity morphisms: For any object t in T , f (t)=f (t ), so (t ,t ) is a morphism, and

it satisfies the identity property.
2. Associativity: Given three morphisms ( t 1 , t 2 ¿, (t 2 , t 3), and ( t 3 , t 4 ¿, their

composition is associative because function composition is associative.
Proving that G is a groupoid:
Every morphism ( t 1 , t 2 ) in G has an inverse morphism ( t 2 , t 1 ¿, as f (t 1)=f (t 2)

implies f (t 2) ¿ f (t 1), and the composition of these morphisms yields the identity
morphism for each object. Thus, G is indeed a groupoid.
Proving π 0 (G) ≅ S :
The equivalence classes in π 0 (G) correspond to the elements of S because for each s ∈ S,
the equivalence class [s] contains all the objects in T that map to s under the function f .
Therefore, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the equivalence classes and the
elements of S, implying π 0 (G) ≅ S .
Proving that every equivalence relation on a set T arises in this way:

Given any equivalence relation ∼ on T , we can define a category G with objects as
elements of T and morphisms as pairs (t 1 , t 2) such that t 1 ∼ t 2. The surjective function
f : T → T /∼, where each element is mapped to its equivalence class, induces this
category, and the composition of morphisms is well-defined based on the properties of
the equivalence relation. Thus, every equivalence relation on T arises from a category G
constructed in this way.
Question 5
By the Chinese Remainder Theorem, since x 2−4 and y 2− y are coprime polynomials,
R[ x ]/ ( x 2−4 ) ≅ R [x ]/( x−2)× R [x ]/(x+ 2) ≅ R and similarly for R[ y ]/ ( y 2 − y ), hence
R[ x ]/ ( x 2−4 ) ≅ R [ y ]/ ( y 2− y ) as rings.
Define the map f : R [x ]/ ( x 2−4 ) → R[ y ]/ ( y 2− y ) by f ( p ( x)+ ( x 2−4 ) )= p( y)+ ( y 2 − y ). This

map is well-defined, bijective, and preserves addition and multiplication, hence it's an
isomorphism between the two rings.
Question 6
To prove that φ is onto if and only if for all R -module homomorphisms α : R , there exists
an R-module homomorphism β : R → M such that α =φ∘ β , we need to establish two
implications.
1. → ) Assume φ is onto.
If φ is onto, then for every element n in N , there exists an element m in M such that
φ (m)=n. Now consider any R-module homomorphism α : R → N . For each r in R, let
β (r ) be such that φ (β (r ))=α (r). Such a β (r ) exists because φ is onto. Thus, α =φ∘ β .
2. (←) Assume for all R-module homomorphisms α : R → N , there exists an R-module

homomorphism β : R → M such that α =φ∘ β .
Suppose φ is not onto. Then there exists an element n in N such that no element m in M
maps to n under φ . Define α : R → N such that α (r )=n for all r in R . By the assumption,
there exists a homomorphism β : R → M such that α =φ∘ β . But this implies
φ (β (r ))=α (r)=n for all r in R, which contradicts the assumption that there is no
element in M mapping to n under φ . Therefore, φ must be onto.
Thus, φ is onto if and only if for all R-module homomorphisms α : R → N , there exists an
R -module homomorphism β : R → M such that α =φ∘ β , establishing the projectivity of
R as an R -module.
Now, to prove that Z /2 Z is not projective as a Z -module:

Consider the onto homomorphism φ : Z → Z /2 Z defined by φ (n)=n+2 Z . Now, let α :
Z /2 Z → Z /2 Z be the identity map. We want to find a lift β : Z → Z /2 Z such that φ ∘ β=α
.
However, such a lift does not exist because there are only two elements in Z /2 Z , namely
0 and 1 , and their pre-images under φ are 0 and 1∈Z , respectively. But no
homomorphism β : Z → Z /2 Z can map both 0 and 1 in Z to the same element in Z /2 Z .
Therefore, Z /2 Z is not projective as a Z -module.
Question 7
To prove that M i is Noetherian given that M i−1 and M i+1 are Noetherian, let's utilize the
exact sequence property and the fact that Noetherianness is preserved under
homomorphic images and submodules.
Given the exact sequence:
⋯ → M i+2 → M i+ 1 → M i → M i−1 → M i−2 → ⋯
Since M i−1 is Noetherian, every submodule of M i−1 is finitely generated.
Now, consider any submodule N ⊆ M i. By the exactness of the sequence, we have the
following exact sequence:
0 → ker ⁡( M i → M i−1 ) → M i → M i−1 → 0
This implies that N ∩ker ⁡( M i → M i−1 )=ker ⁡( N → M i−1 ). Since M i−1 is Noetherian,
ker ⁡( N → M i−1 ) is finitely generated.
Now, we have a surjective homomorphism from a finitely generated module (namely M i

) onto N /ker ⁡( N → M i−1 ), which implies that N is also finitely generated.
Hence, M i is Noetherian.
Since ∼ satisfies all three properties, it is indeed an equivalence relation.
Now, let's address the question of whether the set of equivalence classes Ob(G)/∼
determines the groupoid G . The answer is no. The set of equivalence classes only
captures the "connected components" of the groupoid, but it doesn't provide information
about the morphisms within each component or the structure of the groupoid itself. Two
different groupoids could have the same set of equivalence classes, but the morphisms
within those classes might be entirely different.
Moving on to the category G defined with sets S and T and a surjective function f :T →
S:
Composition of morphisms in G:
Given morphisms (t1, t2) and (t2, t3) in G, where f (t 1)=f (t 2) and f (t 2)=f (t 3), we can
define their composition as follows: (t 1 , t 2)∘(t 2, t 3)=(t 1 , t 3), because f (t 1)=f (t 3).
This composition is well-defined since f is surjective, ensuring that for any t 1 , t 2, and t 3
satisfying the conditions, there exists an appropriate morphism.

Abstract Algebra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abstract Algebra

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abstract Algebra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abstract Algebra

1. Identity morphisms: For any object t in T , f (t)=f (t ), so (t ,t ) is a morphism, and

2. Associativity: Given three morphisms ( t 1 , t 2 ¿, (t 2 , t 3), and ( t 3 , t 4 ¿, their

Proving that G is a groupoid:

Every morphism ( t 1 , t 2 ) in G has an inverse morphism ( t 2 , t 1 ¿, as f (t 1)=f (t 2)

Proving that every equivalence relation on a set T arises in this way:

Define the map f : R [x ]/ ( x 2−4 ) → R[ y ]/ ( y 2− y ) by f ( p ( x)+ ( x 2−4 ) )= p( y)+ ( y 2 − y ). This

2. (←) Assume for all R-module homomorphisms α : R → N , there exists an R-module

Now, to prove that Z /2 Z is not projective as a Z -module:

Therefore, Z /2 Z is not projective as a Z -module.

Given the exact sequence:

⋯ → M i+2 → M i+ 1 → M i → M i−1 → M i−2 → ⋯

Since M i−1 is Noetherian, every submodule of M i−1 is finitely generated.

0 → ker ⁡( M i → M i−1 ) → M i → M i−1 → 0

Now, we have a surjective homomorphism from a finitely generated module (namely M i

Since ∼ satisfies all three properties, it is indeed an equivalence relation.

You might also like