5
$\begingroup$

I am thinking about the proof of the second isomorphism theorem, and something isn't very clear to me.

Let $R$ be a ring, $S\subset R$ a subring and $I\subset R$ an ideal. We have the natural homomorphism $f:R\rightarrow R/I$. The theorem states that $\mathrm{Im}(S)=(S+I)/I$. My question is why not simply $\mathrm{Im}(S)=S/I$?

I understand that it is not true (for starters, $S/I$ need not be a subring), but I cannot explain that to my self in a convincing way.

1 Answers 1

10

So you define $f : R \to R/I$ by $f(r) = r+I$. Then $f(S) = \{ s+I\, :\, s \in S \}$ It's tempting to say that this is just $S/I$, but that implicitly assumes that $I \subseteq S$. However, this may not be true: an ideal of a ring is not necessarily contained in all subrings of the ring.

But calling it $(S+I)/I$ takes care of this, because we certainly have $I \subseteq S+I$ (because $0_R \in S$), and $S+I$ is a subring of $R$ (as [usually] shown in the proof).

That is, the problem isn't something like '$S/I$ not being a subring' as you suggest, but rather that the notation $S/I$ needn't make any sense!

  • 2
    Of course, we could also say $S / (I \cap S)$ instead, and the two are isomorphic.2012-09-10