Skip to main content

Timeline for Skew fraction fields of *-algebras

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 3, 2012 at 20:25 comment added Tobias Fritz Abstract nonsense also gives you a canonical isomorphism between $R^{op}S^{-1}$ and $(RS^{-1})^{op}$. I have expanded my answer to include this, and also switched my notation to yours.
Nov 3, 2012 at 20:21 history edited Tobias Fritz CC BY-SA 3.0
added 695 characters in body; added 4 characters in body; deleted 10 characters in body
Nov 3, 2012 at 10:37 comment added Joakim Arnlind Yes, I do know about the universal property, and that an $S$-inverting homomorphism between to rings give rise to a (unique) homomorphism between the corresponding fraction fields. But, I can't straighten out the details of your last comment; i.e. why $R^{op}S^{-1}$ is isomorphic to $(RS^{-1})^{op}$. I guess that one argues that $(RS^{-1})^{op}$ is a fraction field of $R^{op}$ and then uses universality to equate it to $R^{op}S^{-1}$. But why is $(RS^{-1})^{op}$ is a fraction field of $R^{op}$? Explicit check?
Nov 2, 2012 at 19:49 comment added Tobias Fritz Do you know the universal property of localization? It states that if $T$ is any ring and $f:R\to T$ any ring homomorphism which sends every element of $S$ to an invertible element in $T$, then $f$ induces a unique homomorphism $R[S^{-1}]\to T$ which reproduces $f$ after composing with $R\to R[S^{-1}]$. In the case at hand, I have applied this to $R^{op}$ instead of $R$ itself, and also identified $R^{op}[S^{-1}]$ with $R[S^{-1}]^{op}$. (That these two are canonically isomorphic is again a consequence of the universal property.)
Nov 2, 2012 at 11:29 comment added Joakim Arnlind Thanks! How is it that *:R^{op}->RS^{-1} induces *:(RS^{-1})^{op} -> RS^{-1} in your argument?
Nov 2, 2012 at 9:21 vote accept Joakim Arnlind
Nov 2, 2012 at 9:21
Nov 1, 2012 at 21:28 history answered Tobias Fritz CC BY-SA 3.0