MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

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?

share|cite|improve this question
If I understand the link to the Stacks Project blog correctly, they rewrote this here :… – Matthieu Romagny Nov 1 '11 at 20:54
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. – George Lowther Nov 1 '11 at 20:57
@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). – Matthieu Romagny Nov 1 '11 at 21:22
@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). – George Lowther Nov 1 '11 at 22:33
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, – Matthieu Romagny Nov 2 '11 at 13:12
up vote 2 down vote accepted

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.

share|cite|improve this answer
@Boris: I don't think ring epimorphisms can be described so easily. See this question – George Lowther Nov 1 '11 at 22:36
@George: I tried to explain roughly. Nevertheless Anton Geraschenko in his answer said just about zig-zags. – Boris Novikov Nov 1 '11 at 23:11
@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 – George Lowther Nov 2 '11 at 0:21
@George:Thank you – Boris Novikov Nov 2 '11 at 1:33
What do you mean by "behaves like" a ring of fractions? That every elemente of $S$ is a quotient of elements from $T$? – Andrej Bauer Nov 2 '11 at 8:45

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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