Set of zero divisors and the set of units of the ring of functions from $X$ to $R$

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Hope this isn't a duplicate.



I was trying to answer the following question: Let $X$ be a non-empty set and $R$ be a ring. Then define $F(X,R)$ to be the ring of functions from $X$ to $R$. Then what is the set of zero divisors and the set of units of $F(X,R)$?



My attempt:



Let $A$ and $B$ be the set of units and set of zero divisors of $R$, respectively.



Set of units of $F(X,R)$ : $fin F(X,R) : f(x)in A;forall xin X$.



Set of zero divisors of $F(X,R)$ : $fin F(X,R) : f(x)in B;forall xin X$.



Are the answers correct? Please suggest answers if this isn't correct.







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    Hope this isn't a duplicate.



    I was trying to answer the following question: Let $X$ be a non-empty set and $R$ be a ring. Then define $F(X,R)$ to be the ring of functions from $X$ to $R$. Then what is the set of zero divisors and the set of units of $F(X,R)$?



    My attempt:



    Let $A$ and $B$ be the set of units and set of zero divisors of $R$, respectively.



    Set of units of $F(X,R)$ : $fin F(X,R) : f(x)in A;forall xin X$.



    Set of zero divisors of $F(X,R)$ : $fin F(X,R) : f(x)in B;forall xin X$.



    Are the answers correct? Please suggest answers if this isn't correct.







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      Hope this isn't a duplicate.



      I was trying to answer the following question: Let $X$ be a non-empty set and $R$ be a ring. Then define $F(X,R)$ to be the ring of functions from $X$ to $R$. Then what is the set of zero divisors and the set of units of $F(X,R)$?



      My attempt:



      Let $A$ and $B$ be the set of units and set of zero divisors of $R$, respectively.



      Set of units of $F(X,R)$ : $fin F(X,R) : f(x)in A;forall xin X$.



      Set of zero divisors of $F(X,R)$ : $fin F(X,R) : f(x)in B;forall xin X$.



      Are the answers correct? Please suggest answers if this isn't correct.







      share|cite|improve this question














      Hope this isn't a duplicate.



      I was trying to answer the following question: Let $X$ be a non-empty set and $R$ be a ring. Then define $F(X,R)$ to be the ring of functions from $X$ to $R$. Then what is the set of zero divisors and the set of units of $F(X,R)$?



      My attempt:



      Let $A$ and $B$ be the set of units and set of zero divisors of $R$, respectively.



      Set of units of $F(X,R)$ : $fin F(X,R) : f(x)in A;forall xin X$.



      Set of zero divisors of $F(X,R)$ : $fin F(X,R) : f(x)in B;forall xin X$.



      Are the answers correct? Please suggest answers if this isn't correct.









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Aug 19 at 4:16









      zipirovich

      10.1k11630




      10.1k11630










      asked Aug 19 at 3:06









      ThatIs

      1,052423




      1,052423




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Your answer for the units of $F(X,R)$ is correct. But your answer for the zero divisors isn't.



          By definition, $fin F(X,R)$ is a zero divisor iff there exists some function $gin F(X,R)$, $gneq0$ (as a function!) such that $fg$ is the identically zero function, i.e. $f(x)g(x)=0$ for all $xin X$. Note that the condition that $g$ is not the zero function does NOT preclude it from having some zero values — as long as it has at least one non-zero value, it's a non-zero function. For example, if we pick some specific $ain X$ and $rin R$, $rneq0$, then the function defined as
          $$g(a)=r, quad g(x)=0 text for all xneq a$$
          is a non-zero function, isn't it? So your answer to the zero divisors question needs to be corrected, because the $forall$ quantifier there is wrong.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • The definition I follow for zero divisors is the following : an element a of a ring R is a zero divisor if there exists $b in R 0 $ such that ab=0 or ba=0. Hence I include 0 to be a zero divisor and hence following this convention, I think my answer is complete, right?
            – ThatIs
            Aug 19 at 4:48










          • @ThatIs: The issue is not whether your answer is complete or not. The issue is that your answer (to the second question) is wrong. The definition you stated here is correct, of course. But you need to find zero divisors in the ring of functions $F(X,R)$, so you need to understand what makes a function a zero divisor, i.e. what this definition says when the ring is $F(X,R)$.
            – zipirovich
            Aug 19 at 5:21










          • I think I got your point. So it should be the collection of all functions that map at least one point in X to a zero divisor in R?
            – ThatIs
            Aug 19 at 5:54










          • @ThatIs: Yes, exactly!
            – zipirovich
            Aug 19 at 13:03

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          Your answer is correct $f$ is a divisor of zero if and only if there exists a function $g$ such that $f(x)g(x)=0$ this is equivalent that the image of $f$ is contained in the set of zero divisors of $R$.



          A similar argument shows that $f$ is a unit ($f(x)g(x)=1$) if and only if the image of $f$ is contained in the set of units of $R$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );








             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2887317%2fset-of-zero-divisors-and-the-set-of-units-of-the-ring-of-functions-from-x-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            Your answer for the units of $F(X,R)$ is correct. But your answer for the zero divisors isn't.



            By definition, $fin F(X,R)$ is a zero divisor iff there exists some function $gin F(X,R)$, $gneq0$ (as a function!) such that $fg$ is the identically zero function, i.e. $f(x)g(x)=0$ for all $xin X$. Note that the condition that $g$ is not the zero function does NOT preclude it from having some zero values — as long as it has at least one non-zero value, it's a non-zero function. For example, if we pick some specific $ain X$ and $rin R$, $rneq0$, then the function defined as
            $$g(a)=r, quad g(x)=0 text for all xneq a$$
            is a non-zero function, isn't it? So your answer to the zero divisors question needs to be corrected, because the $forall$ quantifier there is wrong.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • The definition I follow for zero divisors is the following : an element a of a ring R is a zero divisor if there exists $b in R 0 $ such that ab=0 or ba=0. Hence I include 0 to be a zero divisor and hence following this convention, I think my answer is complete, right?
              – ThatIs
              Aug 19 at 4:48










            • @ThatIs: The issue is not whether your answer is complete or not. The issue is that your answer (to the second question) is wrong. The definition you stated here is correct, of course. But you need to find zero divisors in the ring of functions $F(X,R)$, so you need to understand what makes a function a zero divisor, i.e. what this definition says when the ring is $F(X,R)$.
              – zipirovich
              Aug 19 at 5:21










            • I think I got your point. So it should be the collection of all functions that map at least one point in X to a zero divisor in R?
              – ThatIs
              Aug 19 at 5:54










            • @ThatIs: Yes, exactly!
              – zipirovich
              Aug 19 at 13:03














            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            Your answer for the units of $F(X,R)$ is correct. But your answer for the zero divisors isn't.



            By definition, $fin F(X,R)$ is a zero divisor iff there exists some function $gin F(X,R)$, $gneq0$ (as a function!) such that $fg$ is the identically zero function, i.e. $f(x)g(x)=0$ for all $xin X$. Note that the condition that $g$ is not the zero function does NOT preclude it from having some zero values — as long as it has at least one non-zero value, it's a non-zero function. For example, if we pick some specific $ain X$ and $rin R$, $rneq0$, then the function defined as
            $$g(a)=r, quad g(x)=0 text for all xneq a$$
            is a non-zero function, isn't it? So your answer to the zero divisors question needs to be corrected, because the $forall$ quantifier there is wrong.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • The definition I follow for zero divisors is the following : an element a of a ring R is a zero divisor if there exists $b in R 0 $ such that ab=0 or ba=0. Hence I include 0 to be a zero divisor and hence following this convention, I think my answer is complete, right?
              – ThatIs
              Aug 19 at 4:48










            • @ThatIs: The issue is not whether your answer is complete or not. The issue is that your answer (to the second question) is wrong. The definition you stated here is correct, of course. But you need to find zero divisors in the ring of functions $F(X,R)$, so you need to understand what makes a function a zero divisor, i.e. what this definition says when the ring is $F(X,R)$.
              – zipirovich
              Aug 19 at 5:21










            • I think I got your point. So it should be the collection of all functions that map at least one point in X to a zero divisor in R?
              – ThatIs
              Aug 19 at 5:54










            • @ThatIs: Yes, exactly!
              – zipirovich
              Aug 19 at 13:03












            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted






            Your answer for the units of $F(X,R)$ is correct. But your answer for the zero divisors isn't.



            By definition, $fin F(X,R)$ is a zero divisor iff there exists some function $gin F(X,R)$, $gneq0$ (as a function!) such that $fg$ is the identically zero function, i.e. $f(x)g(x)=0$ for all $xin X$. Note that the condition that $g$ is not the zero function does NOT preclude it from having some zero values — as long as it has at least one non-zero value, it's a non-zero function. For example, if we pick some specific $ain X$ and $rin R$, $rneq0$, then the function defined as
            $$g(a)=r, quad g(x)=0 text for all xneq a$$
            is a non-zero function, isn't it? So your answer to the zero divisors question needs to be corrected, because the $forall$ quantifier there is wrong.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Your answer for the units of $F(X,R)$ is correct. But your answer for the zero divisors isn't.



            By definition, $fin F(X,R)$ is a zero divisor iff there exists some function $gin F(X,R)$, $gneq0$ (as a function!) such that $fg$ is the identically zero function, i.e. $f(x)g(x)=0$ for all $xin X$. Note that the condition that $g$ is not the zero function does NOT preclude it from having some zero values — as long as it has at least one non-zero value, it's a non-zero function. For example, if we pick some specific $ain X$ and $rin R$, $rneq0$, then the function defined as
            $$g(a)=r, quad g(x)=0 text for all xneq a$$
            is a non-zero function, isn't it? So your answer to the zero divisors question needs to be corrected, because the $forall$ quantifier there is wrong.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Aug 19 at 4:26









            zipirovich

            10.1k11630




            10.1k11630











            • The definition I follow for zero divisors is the following : an element a of a ring R is a zero divisor if there exists $b in R 0 $ such that ab=0 or ba=0. Hence I include 0 to be a zero divisor and hence following this convention, I think my answer is complete, right?
              – ThatIs
              Aug 19 at 4:48










            • @ThatIs: The issue is not whether your answer is complete or not. The issue is that your answer (to the second question) is wrong. The definition you stated here is correct, of course. But you need to find zero divisors in the ring of functions $F(X,R)$, so you need to understand what makes a function a zero divisor, i.e. what this definition says when the ring is $F(X,R)$.
              – zipirovich
              Aug 19 at 5:21










            • I think I got your point. So it should be the collection of all functions that map at least one point in X to a zero divisor in R?
              – ThatIs
              Aug 19 at 5:54










            • @ThatIs: Yes, exactly!
              – zipirovich
              Aug 19 at 13:03
















            • The definition I follow for zero divisors is the following : an element a of a ring R is a zero divisor if there exists $b in R 0 $ such that ab=0 or ba=0. Hence I include 0 to be a zero divisor and hence following this convention, I think my answer is complete, right?
              – ThatIs
              Aug 19 at 4:48










            • @ThatIs: The issue is not whether your answer is complete or not. The issue is that your answer (to the second question) is wrong. The definition you stated here is correct, of course. But you need to find zero divisors in the ring of functions $F(X,R)$, so you need to understand what makes a function a zero divisor, i.e. what this definition says when the ring is $F(X,R)$.
              – zipirovich
              Aug 19 at 5:21










            • I think I got your point. So it should be the collection of all functions that map at least one point in X to a zero divisor in R?
              – ThatIs
              Aug 19 at 5:54










            • @ThatIs: Yes, exactly!
              – zipirovich
              Aug 19 at 13:03















            The definition I follow for zero divisors is the following : an element a of a ring R is a zero divisor if there exists $b in R 0 $ such that ab=0 or ba=0. Hence I include 0 to be a zero divisor and hence following this convention, I think my answer is complete, right?
            – ThatIs
            Aug 19 at 4:48




            The definition I follow for zero divisors is the following : an element a of a ring R is a zero divisor if there exists $b in R 0 $ such that ab=0 or ba=0. Hence I include 0 to be a zero divisor and hence following this convention, I think my answer is complete, right?
            – ThatIs
            Aug 19 at 4:48












            @ThatIs: The issue is not whether your answer is complete or not. The issue is that your answer (to the second question) is wrong. The definition you stated here is correct, of course. But you need to find zero divisors in the ring of functions $F(X,R)$, so you need to understand what makes a function a zero divisor, i.e. what this definition says when the ring is $F(X,R)$.
            – zipirovich
            Aug 19 at 5:21




            @ThatIs: The issue is not whether your answer is complete or not. The issue is that your answer (to the second question) is wrong. The definition you stated here is correct, of course. But you need to find zero divisors in the ring of functions $F(X,R)$, so you need to understand what makes a function a zero divisor, i.e. what this definition says when the ring is $F(X,R)$.
            – zipirovich
            Aug 19 at 5:21












            I think I got your point. So it should be the collection of all functions that map at least one point in X to a zero divisor in R?
            – ThatIs
            Aug 19 at 5:54




            I think I got your point. So it should be the collection of all functions that map at least one point in X to a zero divisor in R?
            – ThatIs
            Aug 19 at 5:54












            @ThatIs: Yes, exactly!
            – zipirovich
            Aug 19 at 13:03




            @ThatIs: Yes, exactly!
            – zipirovich
            Aug 19 at 13:03










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Your answer is correct $f$ is a divisor of zero if and only if there exists a function $g$ such that $f(x)g(x)=0$ this is equivalent that the image of $f$ is contained in the set of zero divisors of $R$.



            A similar argument shows that $f$ is a unit ($f(x)g(x)=1$) if and only if the image of $f$ is contained in the set of units of $R$.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Your answer is correct $f$ is a divisor of zero if and only if there exists a function $g$ such that $f(x)g(x)=0$ this is equivalent that the image of $f$ is contained in the set of zero divisors of $R$.



              A similar argument shows that $f$ is a unit ($f(x)g(x)=1$) if and only if the image of $f$ is contained in the set of units of $R$.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                Your answer is correct $f$ is a divisor of zero if and only if there exists a function $g$ such that $f(x)g(x)=0$ this is equivalent that the image of $f$ is contained in the set of zero divisors of $R$.



                A similar argument shows that $f$ is a unit ($f(x)g(x)=1$) if and only if the image of $f$ is contained in the set of units of $R$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Your answer is correct $f$ is a divisor of zero if and only if there exists a function $g$ such that $f(x)g(x)=0$ this is equivalent that the image of $f$ is contained in the set of zero divisors of $R$.



                A similar argument shows that $f$ is a unit ($f(x)g(x)=1$) if and only if the image of $f$ is contained in the set of units of $R$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Aug 19 at 3:08









                Tsemo Aristide

                51.8k11244




                51.8k11244






















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded


























                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2887317%2fset-of-zero-divisors-and-the-set-of-units-of-the-ring-of-functions-from-x-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    這個網誌中的熱門文章

                    tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

                    How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                    1st Magritte Awards