8
$\begingroup$

According to this page and thence linked text, if $e : R \to S$ is an epimorphism of rings, then the cardinality of $S$ cannot exceed the cardinality of $R$. This is a non-trivial observation because epimorphisms of rings need not be surjective. Is there a "layman's" explanation of this fact, one that does not require me to learn French?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If I understand the link to the Stacks Project blog correctly, they rewrote this here : math.columbia.edu/algebraic_geometry/stacks-git/… $\endgroup$ Nov 1, 2011 at 20:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ So...if $R$ if is an integral domain and $S$ is its field of fractions, then $e$ is automatically an isomorphism. That gives an interesting proof that a finite integral domain is a field. Or, maybe, the statement in the question should be regarded as a generalization of this fact. $\endgroup$ Nov 1, 2011 at 20:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @George Lowther : I don't think you are right. Indeed, the injection of an integral domain into its field of fractions is always a ring epimorphism (direct check). $\endgroup$ Nov 1, 2011 at 21:22
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Matthieu: Yes, that's what I was getting at. It is always an epimorphism and, if it is an integral domain, it is one-to-one. If $R$ is also finite then $|R|\ge|S|$ is equivalent to e being onto (hence, an isomorphism). $\endgroup$ Nov 1, 2011 at 22:33
  • $\begingroup$ George, I agree if R is finite, but that assumption was neither in the original question nor in your first comment. In other words : you should really write "if R is a finite integral domain etc". Best, $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2011 at 13:12

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

An explanation of a layman to a layman. Let $T={\rm Im}\ e$. Then embedding $T\to S$ is again an epimorphism. With respect to $T$ the ring $S$ behaves like the ring (not necessarily the field!) of fractions (compare $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$), so it has the same cardinality. It is enough? :-) I think it is possible to give a rigorous proof by so-called "zigzag-theorem" from Theory of semigroups.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ @Boris: I don't think ring epimorphisms can be described so easily. See this question mathoverflow.net/questions/109 $\endgroup$ Nov 1, 2011 at 22:36
  • $\begingroup$ @George: I tried to explain roughly. Nevertheless Anton Geraschenko in his answer said just about zig-zags. $\endgroup$ Nov 1, 2011 at 23:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Boris: I see. In fact, lemma 95.11 in the paper linked in Matthieu's comment looks like the zigzag theorem, and is used in the proof of the result asked for here (Lemma 95.13 of math.columbia.edu/algebraic_geometry/stacks-git/algebra.pdf). $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2011 at 0:21
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "behaves like" a ring of fractions? That every elemente of $S$ is a quotient of elements from $T$? $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2011 at 8:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Andrej Bauer: No,I mean that the elements of $S$ "must" be algebraic expressions of elements from $T$. Don't ask me what means "must" if you want "a layman's explanation"! :-) $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2011 at 11:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.