- implies that
- and implies that
Note that sometimes we say it is a left ideal withen and a right ideal when
Let , then by definition for every ideal , therefore for every (because is an ideal itself), in otherwords .
Now suppose that and that , then we see that for every so that also since that's for every we can conclude that as needed.
Now we show the second property so let we must prove , this follows quickly because of associativity of , therefore the original expression equals and since is closed under
Finally so that but we know that as needed.
Firstly we know that and that is an ideal, clearly it contains because must be in it since it's an ideal.
is defined as \bigcap \mathcal{ I } _ \left\{ a \right\} ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as subscript at position 25: …mathcal{ I } _ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲\{ a \right\} where \mathcal{ I } _ \left\{ a \right\} ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as subscript at position 17: …mathcal{ I } _ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲\{ a \right\} is the family of all ideals in that contain . From this we can straight away see that \bigcap \mathcal{ I } _ \left\{ a \right\} \subseteq R \otimes \left\{ a \right\} ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as subscript at position 25: …mathcal{ I } _ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲\{ a \right\} \… since R \otimes \left\{ a \right\} \in \mathcal{ I } _ \left\{ a \right\} ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as subscript at position 50: …mathcal{ I } _ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲\{ a \right\} and the intersection can only get smaller. Thus we've just shown that
We'll now prove that , let thus for some , our goal is to show that r \otimes a \in \bigcap \mathcal{ I } _ \left\{ a \right\} ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as subscript at position 41: …mathcal{ I } _ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲\{ a \right\} , that is we must show that for any I \in \bigcap \mathcal{ I } _ \left\{ a \right\} ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as subscript at position 31: …mathcal{ I } _ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲\{ a \right\}.
Well if the above is true then is an ideal that contains , therefore by the second property of an ideal we can see that , which is what we needed to show, so we can see that x \in \bigcap \mathcal{ I } _ \left\{ a \right\} := \left( \left\{ a \right\} \right) ParseError: Got function '\left' with no arguments as subscript at position 31: …mathcal{ I } _ \̲l̲e̲f̲t̲\{ a \right\} :…. Thus we conclude that as needed.
Note is an ideal that contains , this is because we can systematically set a specific and for each have which turns the sum into , then we know that , this is because is the smallest ideal containing
Now we'll prove that let , to do so we recognize that so that we must show that for every .
This is an ideal that contains therefore note that is part of , therefore we can see that each ,
Since is an ideal then we know it's closed under finite addition meaning that for any , since we know each then by setting we have shown that as needed and thus
- Show that the set is a crone, and the set is an ideal of
- Is an ideal? What about ?
- Show that Hint: consider the map
We start by showing that is a crone, first recall that by first year calculus we know that the product and sum of two continous functions on a certain domain is still continuous on that domain, additionally we have defined but addition and multiplication commute in so it's easy to prove that and moreover we can also get associativity this way, all these facts together show that is closed with respect to and are both associative and commutative, we also have inverses with respect to this is because for any function , the function, which is defined as has the property that where on the right we have the constant function that maps everything to zero (which is the additive inverse). So it is a crone.
We need to prove that is an ideal, therefore suppose that , we want to show that , but we can see that , so we know that . Now let be any continuous function, and suppose that then , therefore as needed, so that is an ideal.
We see that is not an ideal, this is because they may vanish at different places, consider the following counter example: then perhaps but and and , then if we consider and then also so therefore so it cannot be an ideal.
We should have that is an ideal, this is because now an element would have two vanishing points and things would fallout like in our original verification that was an ideal, well anyway suppose that now note that because they both vanish at these points so . Now suppose that and then as needed, so we've shown this is an ideal.
We need to show that is ismorphic to , we take the hint and will do it through the function . Recall that . For two crones to be ismorophic it means that they form a crone homomorphism which is a bijection, so we have to verify a few things and also and suppose that is the constant function that sends every value to one, then therefore is a crone homomorphism, now we want to prove that it is bijective, let , then there is a constant function , so that , so we've shown that is surjective, now suppose that , then if we have and , we'd like to prove that , we can easily show that , for this suppose that so that where , then note that , if were to also be in that would mean that for some therefore which is a contradiction because , so we've just shown that so that is a bijection, therefore it is an isomorphism.