How to construct polynomial ring $K[x]$ over commutative ring $K$ by making use of universal arrows.

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
In CWM of Mac Lane I encounter:
the construction of a polynomial ring
$Kleft[xright]$ in an indeterminate $x$ over a commutative ring
$K$ is a universal construction.
Unfortunately this as an exercise (on pg 59) and I don't manage to
solve it. Can someone help me with this?
ring-theory category-theory
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
In CWM of Mac Lane I encounter:
the construction of a polynomial ring
$Kleft[xright]$ in an indeterminate $x$ over a commutative ring
$K$ is a universal construction.
Unfortunately this as an exercise (on pg 59) and I don't manage to
solve it. Can someone help me with this?
ring-theory category-theory
1
If someone downvotes this question (just happened) then please tell me why.
â drhab
Oct 29 '13 at 11:40
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
In CWM of Mac Lane I encounter:
the construction of a polynomial ring
$Kleft[xright]$ in an indeterminate $x$ over a commutative ring
$K$ is a universal construction.
Unfortunately this as an exercise (on pg 59) and I don't manage to
solve it. Can someone help me with this?
ring-theory category-theory
In CWM of Mac Lane I encounter:
the construction of a polynomial ring
$Kleft[xright]$ in an indeterminate $x$ over a commutative ring
$K$ is a universal construction.
Unfortunately this as an exercise (on pg 59) and I don't manage to
solve it. Can someone help me with this?
ring-theory category-theory
asked Oct 18 '13 at 14:42
drhab
88.3k541120
88.3k541120
1
If someone downvotes this question (just happened) then please tell me why.
â drhab
Oct 29 '13 at 11:40
add a comment |Â
1
If someone downvotes this question (just happened) then please tell me why.
â drhab
Oct 29 '13 at 11:40
1
1
If someone downvotes this question (just happened) then please tell me why.
â drhab
Oct 29 '13 at 11:40
If someone downvotes this question (just happened) then please tell me why.
â drhab
Oct 29 '13 at 11:40
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
The universal property of the polynomial ring $K[x]$ is that
$$hom_K(K[x], R) simeq |R|,$$
where $hom$ is taken in the category of $K$-algebras, and $|R|$ is the underlying set of $R$. The bijection is determined by looking at the image of the free variable $x$. In other words, a free variable is free to go where it wants.
Another way to say this is that $K[x]$ represents the forgetful functor from $K$-algebras to sets.
In MacLane's language, the element $x in |K[x]|$ is the "universal element" for the forgetful functor.
Thank you. I will have a good look at this. My thinking is slow however.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
@drhab You're welcome. It's normal, these ideas take time to get used to. Take a few examples that you understand well, and cherish them. It's the only way to learn!
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 15:30
2
It also has a universal property in the category of rings: $hom(K[x],R) cong hom(K,R) times |R|$.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 18 '13 at 20:01
@MartinBrandenburg Indeed! Thank you for the extra precision.
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 20:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Strictly speaking, the question in the title differs from the quote in Mac Lane's book. It is stronger. So let me explain how to construct $K[x]$ using category theory.
Consider the forgetful functor $U : KmathsfAlg to mathsfSet$. I claim that $U$ has a left adjoint, i.e. that for every set $X$ the free $K$-algebra $K[X]$ on $X$ exists. We use the general adjoint functor theorem. Clearly $KmathsfAlg$ is complete and $U$ is continuous, this just comes from the usual construction of limits of $K$-algebras. For the solution set condition, let $X to U(A)$ be a map. Let $B$ be the subalgebra of $A$ generated by the image of $X$. Then every element of $B$ is a $K$-linear combination of elements of the form $x_1^alpha_1 cdot dotsc cdot x_n^alpha_n$. Cardinal arithmetic tells us that $B$ has at most $aleph_0 cdot |K| cdot |X|$ elements. This does not depend on $A$, and there is only set of such algebras up to isomorphism. QED
This argument carries over from $KmathsfAlg$ to any variety. For example it produces free modules, free Lie algebras, and so on.
When you go through the details of the proof above, you also get a construction of $K[X]$: Take the solution set of all $B$ discussed above, and take their product. Then $K[X]$ is the equalizer of all endomorphisms of this product. Of course this construction is not useful at all. One needs the explicit structure of the elements of $K[X]$. Actually this can be derived from the universal property:
Let $B$ be the subalgebra of $K[X]$ generated by the image of $X$. Then $X to U(B)$ extends to $K[X] to B$, and $K[X] to B to K[X]$ is the identity, since this is the case on $X$. Thus, $B to K[X]$ is surjective, i.e. $K[X]$ is generated by the image of $X$. Thus, every element can be written as $sum_alpha lambda_alpha x^alpha$; here $alpha$ is a multiindex, and $x^alpha$ is the product of all $x^alpha_x$. I claim that this representation is unique. For simplicitly let us assume $X=x$, i.e. that we have just one variable, and $sum_n lambda_n x^n = 0$. By the universal property there is a homomorphism $K[x] to K$ mapping $x mapsto 0$. Applying this to the equation, we get $lambda_0=0$. It follows $x cdot sum_n geq 1 lambda_n x^n-1 = 0$. So we only have to prove that $x$ is regular. I don't have a proof for this, yet (which doesn't just use the explicit construction of $K[x]$).
Thank you allready, though I am not ready with this yet. Would you be so kind to extend you answer with a description (or a link to a description) of (the category) of K-algebras? Uptil now I 'refused' looking at them because I could do without them, and the stuff was complicated enough allready. But I think this is time to have a good look at them. I just want certainty that I will examine exactly the concept that you are referring to. Thanks in advance.
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 13:11
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-algebra ?
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 18:39
If I understand well then $K$ is a field in the context of $K$-algebras. Is that right? If so then it causes confusion. What I met in CWM was about commutative rings, so not necessarily fields. I had seen the site that you mention allready and especially that restriction (only fields) was the reason for my request here. Can you enlighten this?
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 19:54
1
In the usual definition of $K$-algebras, $K$ is an arbitrary commutative ring. Open any book on (commutative) algebra. A (commutative) $K$-algebra is a (commutative) monoid object in the symmetric monoidal category of $K$-modules. Thus, it is a $K$-module $A$ equipped with a $K$-bilinear multiplication $A times A to A$ which is associative and which has a unit.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 22:06
1
This opens the door and wipes away my doubts and hesitation. I will go in and have a look there. Thank you.
â drhab
Oct 21 '13 at 14:04
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
This might be a bit abstract, but I thought it might be useful to see how the polynomial algebra functor is related to various other constructions you come across in algebra, such as the tensor algebra and symmetric algebra.
The polynomial algebra of a commutative ring $K$ is a special case of the "free commutative $K$-algebra functor" $K[-]: mathsfSets to KmathsfComAlg$ whose right adjoint is the obvious forgetful functor. In particular, the polynomial algebra on one indeterminate, $K[x]$, is just the free commutative $K$-algebra on the set $x$ with one element.
There are several equivalent ways of constructing the free commutative algebra, as shown in the diagram below, where every square and triangle is commutative when you compose adjoints with the correct handedness (left with left; right with right). As long as you start in the bottom right corner and compose left adjoints until you get to the top left, no matter which way you go you will get the free commutative algebra functor.

Since the free $K$-module functor $K(-): mathsfSets to KmathsfMod$ is strong monoidal, (i.e. $K(X times Y) cong K(X) otimes_K K(Y)$) it sends monoids in $mathsfSets$ to monoids ($K$-algebras!) in $KmathsfMod$. The induced functor
$$K(-): mathsfMon to mathsfMon(KmathsfMod)=KmathsfAlg$$ is the monoid algebra functor. It obviously sends commutative monoids to commutative monoids in $KmathsfMod$ (commutative $K$-algebras), and hence also restricts to a functor
$$K(-): mathsfComMon to mathsfComMon(KmathsfMod)=KmathsfComAlg.$$
The functors denoted $mathrmab$ are abelianization functors, which take a monoid object and make the free commutative monoid object.
The functor $mathcalT: KmathsfMod to KmathsfAlg$ is the tensor algebra functor, and the functor $mathrmSym: KmathsfMod to KmathsfComAlg$ is the symmetric algebra functor.
The functor $mathrmLib: mathsfSets to mathsfMon$ is the free monoid functor on a set. The word "libre" is the French word for "free".
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It seems to me that there are (at least) two universal properties which one might cite, because the polynomial ring construction is "functorial in both arguments".
To see this, first let $Ucolon mathbfCRingto mathbfSet$ be the forgetful functor. There's a functor $$operatornamePolycolon mathbfCRingtimesmathbfSetto(1_mathbfSet downarrow U)$$
(by $(1_mathbfSet downarrow U)$ I mean the comma category) defined by
$$
(K,X)mapsto (X,,Xxrightarrowiota_K,X U(K[X]),,K[X])$$
(where $iota_K,X$ is a fixed embedding of $X$ into $K[X]$) for any (unital) commutative ring $K$ and any set $X$ and
$$
left(Kxrightarrowvarphi L, Xxrightarrowf Yright)mapsto
left(Xxrightarrowf Y,,K[X]xrightarrowoperatornamePoly(varphi,f)L[Y]right)
$$
for any ring homomorphism $varphi$ and any function $f$ as above, where $operatornamePoly(varphi,f):K[X]to L[Y]$ is the unique ring homomorphism from $K[X]$ to $L[Y]$ such that $operatornamePoly(varphi,f)(c) = varphi(c)$ for $cin K$ and $operatornamePoly(varphi,f)(iota_K,X(x)) = iota_L,Y(f(x))$ for $xin X$. Note that for any such pair $(varphi,f)$, the square
$requireAMScd$
beginCD
X @>iota_K,X>>U(K[X])\
@VfVV @VVoperatornamePoly(varphi,f)V\
Y @>iota_L,Y>>U(L[Y])\
endCD
commutes by definition, so $operatornamePoly$ really is a functor into the comma category (preservation of composition and identity are easy to verify).
If we fix the ring $K$, we get a functor $K[cdot]colonmathbfSetto KmathbfAlg$, left adjoint to the forgetful functor $KmathbfAlgtomathbfSet$, as in the previous answers.
On the other hand, if we fix the set $X$, we get a functor $Fcolon mathbfCRingto (X downarrow U)$ given by
$$
Kmapsto (Xxrightarrowiota_X,KU(K[X]), , K[X])
$$
and
$$
left(KxrightarrowvarphiLright)mapsto left(K[X]xrightarrowtildevarphi L[X]right),
$$
where $tildevarphicolon K[X]to L[X]$ is the unique ring homomorphism from $K[X]$ to $L[X]$ with $tildevarphi(c) = varphi(c)$ for $cin K$ and $tildevarphi(iota_K,X(x)) = iota_L,X(x)$.
The category $(X downarrow U)$ has as objects distinguished mappings of $X$ into commutative rings, and as morphisms the ring homomorphisms which preserve the respective distinguished mappings of $X$; in a sense, $(X downarrow U)$ is a precise way of generalizing the category of pointed rings to a category of rings with multiple distinguished elements. If I'm not mistaken, the functor $F$ is left adjoint to the forgetful functor $G$ from $( X downarrow U)$ to $mathbfCRing$, and $Khookrightarrow K[X]$ is a universal arrow to the functor $G$.
In the case when $|X| = 1$, this turns into the statement that the functor $Kmapsto (K[x],x)$ is left-adjoint to the forgetful functor from pointed commutative rings to commutative rings, which aligns (pleasantly?) with the intuition that the adjoining an indeterminate $x$ to a ring is the most general way of picking a "distinguished element".
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
See S. Lang, Algebra, 1st edition (1965), Chapter V, Section 2, Theorem 1.
Is this chapter V sec. 2 entitled 'Algebraic Closure' that you are referring to? I cannot find a theorem 1. there. Or do you just mean 'the first theorem in that section'? I am talking about revised 3d edition of Algebra.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:05
Sorry, I also don't find this topic in 3rd edition! I have the translation into Russian of 1st edition (1965).
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:17
Don't mind. Thank you anyway. I suggest that you edit your answer to mention the fact that you're talking here about the 1st edition. Then confusion is avoided.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:22
OK, I corrected the answer.
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
The universal property of the polynomial ring $K[x]$ is that
$$hom_K(K[x], R) simeq |R|,$$
where $hom$ is taken in the category of $K$-algebras, and $|R|$ is the underlying set of $R$. The bijection is determined by looking at the image of the free variable $x$. In other words, a free variable is free to go where it wants.
Another way to say this is that $K[x]$ represents the forgetful functor from $K$-algebras to sets.
In MacLane's language, the element $x in |K[x]|$ is the "universal element" for the forgetful functor.
Thank you. I will have a good look at this. My thinking is slow however.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
@drhab You're welcome. It's normal, these ideas take time to get used to. Take a few examples that you understand well, and cherish them. It's the only way to learn!
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 15:30
2
It also has a universal property in the category of rings: $hom(K[x],R) cong hom(K,R) times |R|$.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 18 '13 at 20:01
@MartinBrandenburg Indeed! Thank you for the extra precision.
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 20:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
The universal property of the polynomial ring $K[x]$ is that
$$hom_K(K[x], R) simeq |R|,$$
where $hom$ is taken in the category of $K$-algebras, and $|R|$ is the underlying set of $R$. The bijection is determined by looking at the image of the free variable $x$. In other words, a free variable is free to go where it wants.
Another way to say this is that $K[x]$ represents the forgetful functor from $K$-algebras to sets.
In MacLane's language, the element $x in |K[x]|$ is the "universal element" for the forgetful functor.
Thank you. I will have a good look at this. My thinking is slow however.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
@drhab You're welcome. It's normal, these ideas take time to get used to. Take a few examples that you understand well, and cherish them. It's the only way to learn!
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 15:30
2
It also has a universal property in the category of rings: $hom(K[x],R) cong hom(K,R) times |R|$.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 18 '13 at 20:01
@MartinBrandenburg Indeed! Thank you for the extra precision.
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 20:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
The universal property of the polynomial ring $K[x]$ is that
$$hom_K(K[x], R) simeq |R|,$$
where $hom$ is taken in the category of $K$-algebras, and $|R|$ is the underlying set of $R$. The bijection is determined by looking at the image of the free variable $x$. In other words, a free variable is free to go where it wants.
Another way to say this is that $K[x]$ represents the forgetful functor from $K$-algebras to sets.
In MacLane's language, the element $x in |K[x]|$ is the "universal element" for the forgetful functor.
The universal property of the polynomial ring $K[x]$ is that
$$hom_K(K[x], R) simeq |R|,$$
where $hom$ is taken in the category of $K$-algebras, and $|R|$ is the underlying set of $R$. The bijection is determined by looking at the image of the free variable $x$. In other words, a free variable is free to go where it wants.
Another way to say this is that $K[x]$ represents the forgetful functor from $K$-algebras to sets.
In MacLane's language, the element $x in |K[x]|$ is the "universal element" for the forgetful functor.
answered Oct 18 '13 at 14:51
Bruno Joyal
41.9k693181
41.9k693181
Thank you. I will have a good look at this. My thinking is slow however.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
@drhab You're welcome. It's normal, these ideas take time to get used to. Take a few examples that you understand well, and cherish them. It's the only way to learn!
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 15:30
2
It also has a universal property in the category of rings: $hom(K[x],R) cong hom(K,R) times |R|$.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 18 '13 at 20:01
@MartinBrandenburg Indeed! Thank you for the extra precision.
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 20:49
add a comment |Â
Thank you. I will have a good look at this. My thinking is slow however.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
@drhab You're welcome. It's normal, these ideas take time to get used to. Take a few examples that you understand well, and cherish them. It's the only way to learn!
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 15:30
2
It also has a universal property in the category of rings: $hom(K[x],R) cong hom(K,R) times |R|$.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 18 '13 at 20:01
@MartinBrandenburg Indeed! Thank you for the extra precision.
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 20:49
Thank you. I will have a good look at this. My thinking is slow however.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
Thank you. I will have a good look at this. My thinking is slow however.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
@drhab You're welcome. It's normal, these ideas take time to get used to. Take a few examples that you understand well, and cherish them. It's the only way to learn!
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 15:30
@drhab You're welcome. It's normal, these ideas take time to get used to. Take a few examples that you understand well, and cherish them. It's the only way to learn!
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 15:30
2
2
It also has a universal property in the category of rings: $hom(K[x],R) cong hom(K,R) times |R|$.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 18 '13 at 20:01
It also has a universal property in the category of rings: $hom(K[x],R) cong hom(K,R) times |R|$.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 18 '13 at 20:01
@MartinBrandenburg Indeed! Thank you for the extra precision.
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 20:49
@MartinBrandenburg Indeed! Thank you for the extra precision.
â Bruno Joyal
Oct 18 '13 at 20:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Strictly speaking, the question in the title differs from the quote in Mac Lane's book. It is stronger. So let me explain how to construct $K[x]$ using category theory.
Consider the forgetful functor $U : KmathsfAlg to mathsfSet$. I claim that $U$ has a left adjoint, i.e. that for every set $X$ the free $K$-algebra $K[X]$ on $X$ exists. We use the general adjoint functor theorem. Clearly $KmathsfAlg$ is complete and $U$ is continuous, this just comes from the usual construction of limits of $K$-algebras. For the solution set condition, let $X to U(A)$ be a map. Let $B$ be the subalgebra of $A$ generated by the image of $X$. Then every element of $B$ is a $K$-linear combination of elements of the form $x_1^alpha_1 cdot dotsc cdot x_n^alpha_n$. Cardinal arithmetic tells us that $B$ has at most $aleph_0 cdot |K| cdot |X|$ elements. This does not depend on $A$, and there is only set of such algebras up to isomorphism. QED
This argument carries over from $KmathsfAlg$ to any variety. For example it produces free modules, free Lie algebras, and so on.
When you go through the details of the proof above, you also get a construction of $K[X]$: Take the solution set of all $B$ discussed above, and take their product. Then $K[X]$ is the equalizer of all endomorphisms of this product. Of course this construction is not useful at all. One needs the explicit structure of the elements of $K[X]$. Actually this can be derived from the universal property:
Let $B$ be the subalgebra of $K[X]$ generated by the image of $X$. Then $X to U(B)$ extends to $K[X] to B$, and $K[X] to B to K[X]$ is the identity, since this is the case on $X$. Thus, $B to K[X]$ is surjective, i.e. $K[X]$ is generated by the image of $X$. Thus, every element can be written as $sum_alpha lambda_alpha x^alpha$; here $alpha$ is a multiindex, and $x^alpha$ is the product of all $x^alpha_x$. I claim that this representation is unique. For simplicitly let us assume $X=x$, i.e. that we have just one variable, and $sum_n lambda_n x^n = 0$. By the universal property there is a homomorphism $K[x] to K$ mapping $x mapsto 0$. Applying this to the equation, we get $lambda_0=0$. It follows $x cdot sum_n geq 1 lambda_n x^n-1 = 0$. So we only have to prove that $x$ is regular. I don't have a proof for this, yet (which doesn't just use the explicit construction of $K[x]$).
Thank you allready, though I am not ready with this yet. Would you be so kind to extend you answer with a description (or a link to a description) of (the category) of K-algebras? Uptil now I 'refused' looking at them because I could do without them, and the stuff was complicated enough allready. But I think this is time to have a good look at them. I just want certainty that I will examine exactly the concept that you are referring to. Thanks in advance.
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 13:11
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-algebra ?
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 18:39
If I understand well then $K$ is a field in the context of $K$-algebras. Is that right? If so then it causes confusion. What I met in CWM was about commutative rings, so not necessarily fields. I had seen the site that you mention allready and especially that restriction (only fields) was the reason for my request here. Can you enlighten this?
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 19:54
1
In the usual definition of $K$-algebras, $K$ is an arbitrary commutative ring. Open any book on (commutative) algebra. A (commutative) $K$-algebra is a (commutative) monoid object in the symmetric monoidal category of $K$-modules. Thus, it is a $K$-module $A$ equipped with a $K$-bilinear multiplication $A times A to A$ which is associative and which has a unit.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 22:06
1
This opens the door and wipes away my doubts and hesitation. I will go in and have a look there. Thank you.
â drhab
Oct 21 '13 at 14:04
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Strictly speaking, the question in the title differs from the quote in Mac Lane's book. It is stronger. So let me explain how to construct $K[x]$ using category theory.
Consider the forgetful functor $U : KmathsfAlg to mathsfSet$. I claim that $U$ has a left adjoint, i.e. that for every set $X$ the free $K$-algebra $K[X]$ on $X$ exists. We use the general adjoint functor theorem. Clearly $KmathsfAlg$ is complete and $U$ is continuous, this just comes from the usual construction of limits of $K$-algebras. For the solution set condition, let $X to U(A)$ be a map. Let $B$ be the subalgebra of $A$ generated by the image of $X$. Then every element of $B$ is a $K$-linear combination of elements of the form $x_1^alpha_1 cdot dotsc cdot x_n^alpha_n$. Cardinal arithmetic tells us that $B$ has at most $aleph_0 cdot |K| cdot |X|$ elements. This does not depend on $A$, and there is only set of such algebras up to isomorphism. QED
This argument carries over from $KmathsfAlg$ to any variety. For example it produces free modules, free Lie algebras, and so on.
When you go through the details of the proof above, you also get a construction of $K[X]$: Take the solution set of all $B$ discussed above, and take their product. Then $K[X]$ is the equalizer of all endomorphisms of this product. Of course this construction is not useful at all. One needs the explicit structure of the elements of $K[X]$. Actually this can be derived from the universal property:
Let $B$ be the subalgebra of $K[X]$ generated by the image of $X$. Then $X to U(B)$ extends to $K[X] to B$, and $K[X] to B to K[X]$ is the identity, since this is the case on $X$. Thus, $B to K[X]$ is surjective, i.e. $K[X]$ is generated by the image of $X$. Thus, every element can be written as $sum_alpha lambda_alpha x^alpha$; here $alpha$ is a multiindex, and $x^alpha$ is the product of all $x^alpha_x$. I claim that this representation is unique. For simplicitly let us assume $X=x$, i.e. that we have just one variable, and $sum_n lambda_n x^n = 0$. By the universal property there is a homomorphism $K[x] to K$ mapping $x mapsto 0$. Applying this to the equation, we get $lambda_0=0$. It follows $x cdot sum_n geq 1 lambda_n x^n-1 = 0$. So we only have to prove that $x$ is regular. I don't have a proof for this, yet (which doesn't just use the explicit construction of $K[x]$).
Thank you allready, though I am not ready with this yet. Would you be so kind to extend you answer with a description (or a link to a description) of (the category) of K-algebras? Uptil now I 'refused' looking at them because I could do without them, and the stuff was complicated enough allready. But I think this is time to have a good look at them. I just want certainty that I will examine exactly the concept that you are referring to. Thanks in advance.
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 13:11
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-algebra ?
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 18:39
If I understand well then $K$ is a field in the context of $K$-algebras. Is that right? If so then it causes confusion. What I met in CWM was about commutative rings, so not necessarily fields. I had seen the site that you mention allready and especially that restriction (only fields) was the reason for my request here. Can you enlighten this?
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 19:54
1
In the usual definition of $K$-algebras, $K$ is an arbitrary commutative ring. Open any book on (commutative) algebra. A (commutative) $K$-algebra is a (commutative) monoid object in the symmetric monoidal category of $K$-modules. Thus, it is a $K$-module $A$ equipped with a $K$-bilinear multiplication $A times A to A$ which is associative and which has a unit.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 22:06
1
This opens the door and wipes away my doubts and hesitation. I will go in and have a look there. Thank you.
â drhab
Oct 21 '13 at 14:04
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Strictly speaking, the question in the title differs from the quote in Mac Lane's book. It is stronger. So let me explain how to construct $K[x]$ using category theory.
Consider the forgetful functor $U : KmathsfAlg to mathsfSet$. I claim that $U$ has a left adjoint, i.e. that for every set $X$ the free $K$-algebra $K[X]$ on $X$ exists. We use the general adjoint functor theorem. Clearly $KmathsfAlg$ is complete and $U$ is continuous, this just comes from the usual construction of limits of $K$-algebras. For the solution set condition, let $X to U(A)$ be a map. Let $B$ be the subalgebra of $A$ generated by the image of $X$. Then every element of $B$ is a $K$-linear combination of elements of the form $x_1^alpha_1 cdot dotsc cdot x_n^alpha_n$. Cardinal arithmetic tells us that $B$ has at most $aleph_0 cdot |K| cdot |X|$ elements. This does not depend on $A$, and there is only set of such algebras up to isomorphism. QED
This argument carries over from $KmathsfAlg$ to any variety. For example it produces free modules, free Lie algebras, and so on.
When you go through the details of the proof above, you also get a construction of $K[X]$: Take the solution set of all $B$ discussed above, and take their product. Then $K[X]$ is the equalizer of all endomorphisms of this product. Of course this construction is not useful at all. One needs the explicit structure of the elements of $K[X]$. Actually this can be derived from the universal property:
Let $B$ be the subalgebra of $K[X]$ generated by the image of $X$. Then $X to U(B)$ extends to $K[X] to B$, and $K[X] to B to K[X]$ is the identity, since this is the case on $X$. Thus, $B to K[X]$ is surjective, i.e. $K[X]$ is generated by the image of $X$. Thus, every element can be written as $sum_alpha lambda_alpha x^alpha$; here $alpha$ is a multiindex, and $x^alpha$ is the product of all $x^alpha_x$. I claim that this representation is unique. For simplicitly let us assume $X=x$, i.e. that we have just one variable, and $sum_n lambda_n x^n = 0$. By the universal property there is a homomorphism $K[x] to K$ mapping $x mapsto 0$. Applying this to the equation, we get $lambda_0=0$. It follows $x cdot sum_n geq 1 lambda_n x^n-1 = 0$. So we only have to prove that $x$ is regular. I don't have a proof for this, yet (which doesn't just use the explicit construction of $K[x]$).
Strictly speaking, the question in the title differs from the quote in Mac Lane's book. It is stronger. So let me explain how to construct $K[x]$ using category theory.
Consider the forgetful functor $U : KmathsfAlg to mathsfSet$. I claim that $U$ has a left adjoint, i.e. that for every set $X$ the free $K$-algebra $K[X]$ on $X$ exists. We use the general adjoint functor theorem. Clearly $KmathsfAlg$ is complete and $U$ is continuous, this just comes from the usual construction of limits of $K$-algebras. For the solution set condition, let $X to U(A)$ be a map. Let $B$ be the subalgebra of $A$ generated by the image of $X$. Then every element of $B$ is a $K$-linear combination of elements of the form $x_1^alpha_1 cdot dotsc cdot x_n^alpha_n$. Cardinal arithmetic tells us that $B$ has at most $aleph_0 cdot |K| cdot |X|$ elements. This does not depend on $A$, and there is only set of such algebras up to isomorphism. QED
This argument carries over from $KmathsfAlg$ to any variety. For example it produces free modules, free Lie algebras, and so on.
When you go through the details of the proof above, you also get a construction of $K[X]$: Take the solution set of all $B$ discussed above, and take their product. Then $K[X]$ is the equalizer of all endomorphisms of this product. Of course this construction is not useful at all. One needs the explicit structure of the elements of $K[X]$. Actually this can be derived from the universal property:
Let $B$ be the subalgebra of $K[X]$ generated by the image of $X$. Then $X to U(B)$ extends to $K[X] to B$, and $K[X] to B to K[X]$ is the identity, since this is the case on $X$. Thus, $B to K[X]$ is surjective, i.e. $K[X]$ is generated by the image of $X$. Thus, every element can be written as $sum_alpha lambda_alpha x^alpha$; here $alpha$ is a multiindex, and $x^alpha$ is the product of all $x^alpha_x$. I claim that this representation is unique. For simplicitly let us assume $X=x$, i.e. that we have just one variable, and $sum_n lambda_n x^n = 0$. By the universal property there is a homomorphism $K[x] to K$ mapping $x mapsto 0$. Applying this to the equation, we get $lambda_0=0$. It follows $x cdot sum_n geq 1 lambda_n x^n-1 = 0$. So we only have to prove that $x$ is regular. I don't have a proof for this, yet (which doesn't just use the explicit construction of $K[x]$).
answered Oct 20 '13 at 11:46
Martin Brandenburg
106k13151318
106k13151318
Thank you allready, though I am not ready with this yet. Would you be so kind to extend you answer with a description (or a link to a description) of (the category) of K-algebras? Uptil now I 'refused' looking at them because I could do without them, and the stuff was complicated enough allready. But I think this is time to have a good look at them. I just want certainty that I will examine exactly the concept that you are referring to. Thanks in advance.
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 13:11
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-algebra ?
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 18:39
If I understand well then $K$ is a field in the context of $K$-algebras. Is that right? If so then it causes confusion. What I met in CWM was about commutative rings, so not necessarily fields. I had seen the site that you mention allready and especially that restriction (only fields) was the reason for my request here. Can you enlighten this?
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 19:54
1
In the usual definition of $K$-algebras, $K$ is an arbitrary commutative ring. Open any book on (commutative) algebra. A (commutative) $K$-algebra is a (commutative) monoid object in the symmetric monoidal category of $K$-modules. Thus, it is a $K$-module $A$ equipped with a $K$-bilinear multiplication $A times A to A$ which is associative and which has a unit.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 22:06
1
This opens the door and wipes away my doubts and hesitation. I will go in and have a look there. Thank you.
â drhab
Oct 21 '13 at 14:04
add a comment |Â
Thank you allready, though I am not ready with this yet. Would you be so kind to extend you answer with a description (or a link to a description) of (the category) of K-algebras? Uptil now I 'refused' looking at them because I could do without them, and the stuff was complicated enough allready. But I think this is time to have a good look at them. I just want certainty that I will examine exactly the concept that you are referring to. Thanks in advance.
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 13:11
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-algebra ?
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 18:39
If I understand well then $K$ is a field in the context of $K$-algebras. Is that right? If so then it causes confusion. What I met in CWM was about commutative rings, so not necessarily fields. I had seen the site that you mention allready and especially that restriction (only fields) was the reason for my request here. Can you enlighten this?
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 19:54
1
In the usual definition of $K$-algebras, $K$ is an arbitrary commutative ring. Open any book on (commutative) algebra. A (commutative) $K$-algebra is a (commutative) monoid object in the symmetric monoidal category of $K$-modules. Thus, it is a $K$-module $A$ equipped with a $K$-bilinear multiplication $A times A to A$ which is associative and which has a unit.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 22:06
1
This opens the door and wipes away my doubts and hesitation. I will go in and have a look there. Thank you.
â drhab
Oct 21 '13 at 14:04
Thank you allready, though I am not ready with this yet. Would you be so kind to extend you answer with a description (or a link to a description) of (the category) of K-algebras? Uptil now I 'refused' looking at them because I could do without them, and the stuff was complicated enough allready. But I think this is time to have a good look at them. I just want certainty that I will examine exactly the concept that you are referring to. Thanks in advance.
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 13:11
Thank you allready, though I am not ready with this yet. Would you be so kind to extend you answer with a description (or a link to a description) of (the category) of K-algebras? Uptil now I 'refused' looking at them because I could do without them, and the stuff was complicated enough allready. But I think this is time to have a good look at them. I just want certainty that I will examine exactly the concept that you are referring to. Thanks in advance.
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 13:11
2
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-algebra ?
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 18:39
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-algebra ?
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 18:39
If I understand well then $K$ is a field in the context of $K$-algebras. Is that right? If so then it causes confusion. What I met in CWM was about commutative rings, so not necessarily fields. I had seen the site that you mention allready and especially that restriction (only fields) was the reason for my request here. Can you enlighten this?
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 19:54
If I understand well then $K$ is a field in the context of $K$-algebras. Is that right? If so then it causes confusion. What I met in CWM was about commutative rings, so not necessarily fields. I had seen the site that you mention allready and especially that restriction (only fields) was the reason for my request here. Can you enlighten this?
â drhab
Oct 20 '13 at 19:54
1
1
In the usual definition of $K$-algebras, $K$ is an arbitrary commutative ring. Open any book on (commutative) algebra. A (commutative) $K$-algebra is a (commutative) monoid object in the symmetric monoidal category of $K$-modules. Thus, it is a $K$-module $A$ equipped with a $K$-bilinear multiplication $A times A to A$ which is associative and which has a unit.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 22:06
In the usual definition of $K$-algebras, $K$ is an arbitrary commutative ring. Open any book on (commutative) algebra. A (commutative) $K$-algebra is a (commutative) monoid object in the symmetric monoidal category of $K$-modules. Thus, it is a $K$-module $A$ equipped with a $K$-bilinear multiplication $A times A to A$ which is associative and which has a unit.
â Martin Brandenburg
Oct 20 '13 at 22:06
1
1
This opens the door and wipes away my doubts and hesitation. I will go in and have a look there. Thank you.
â drhab
Oct 21 '13 at 14:04
This opens the door and wipes away my doubts and hesitation. I will go in and have a look there. Thank you.
â drhab
Oct 21 '13 at 14:04
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
This might be a bit abstract, but I thought it might be useful to see how the polynomial algebra functor is related to various other constructions you come across in algebra, such as the tensor algebra and symmetric algebra.
The polynomial algebra of a commutative ring $K$ is a special case of the "free commutative $K$-algebra functor" $K[-]: mathsfSets to KmathsfComAlg$ whose right adjoint is the obvious forgetful functor. In particular, the polynomial algebra on one indeterminate, $K[x]$, is just the free commutative $K$-algebra on the set $x$ with one element.
There are several equivalent ways of constructing the free commutative algebra, as shown in the diagram below, where every square and triangle is commutative when you compose adjoints with the correct handedness (left with left; right with right). As long as you start in the bottom right corner and compose left adjoints until you get to the top left, no matter which way you go you will get the free commutative algebra functor.

Since the free $K$-module functor $K(-): mathsfSets to KmathsfMod$ is strong monoidal, (i.e. $K(X times Y) cong K(X) otimes_K K(Y)$) it sends monoids in $mathsfSets$ to monoids ($K$-algebras!) in $KmathsfMod$. The induced functor
$$K(-): mathsfMon to mathsfMon(KmathsfMod)=KmathsfAlg$$ is the monoid algebra functor. It obviously sends commutative monoids to commutative monoids in $KmathsfMod$ (commutative $K$-algebras), and hence also restricts to a functor
$$K(-): mathsfComMon to mathsfComMon(KmathsfMod)=KmathsfComAlg.$$
The functors denoted $mathrmab$ are abelianization functors, which take a monoid object and make the free commutative monoid object.
The functor $mathcalT: KmathsfMod to KmathsfAlg$ is the tensor algebra functor, and the functor $mathrmSym: KmathsfMod to KmathsfComAlg$ is the symmetric algebra functor.
The functor $mathrmLib: mathsfSets to mathsfMon$ is the free monoid functor on a set. The word "libre" is the French word for "free".
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
This might be a bit abstract, but I thought it might be useful to see how the polynomial algebra functor is related to various other constructions you come across in algebra, such as the tensor algebra and symmetric algebra.
The polynomial algebra of a commutative ring $K$ is a special case of the "free commutative $K$-algebra functor" $K[-]: mathsfSets to KmathsfComAlg$ whose right adjoint is the obvious forgetful functor. In particular, the polynomial algebra on one indeterminate, $K[x]$, is just the free commutative $K$-algebra on the set $x$ with one element.
There are several equivalent ways of constructing the free commutative algebra, as shown in the diagram below, where every square and triangle is commutative when you compose adjoints with the correct handedness (left with left; right with right). As long as you start in the bottom right corner and compose left adjoints until you get to the top left, no matter which way you go you will get the free commutative algebra functor.

Since the free $K$-module functor $K(-): mathsfSets to KmathsfMod$ is strong monoidal, (i.e. $K(X times Y) cong K(X) otimes_K K(Y)$) it sends monoids in $mathsfSets$ to monoids ($K$-algebras!) in $KmathsfMod$. The induced functor
$$K(-): mathsfMon to mathsfMon(KmathsfMod)=KmathsfAlg$$ is the monoid algebra functor. It obviously sends commutative monoids to commutative monoids in $KmathsfMod$ (commutative $K$-algebras), and hence also restricts to a functor
$$K(-): mathsfComMon to mathsfComMon(KmathsfMod)=KmathsfComAlg.$$
The functors denoted $mathrmab$ are abelianization functors, which take a monoid object and make the free commutative monoid object.
The functor $mathcalT: KmathsfMod to KmathsfAlg$ is the tensor algebra functor, and the functor $mathrmSym: KmathsfMod to KmathsfComAlg$ is the symmetric algebra functor.
The functor $mathrmLib: mathsfSets to mathsfMon$ is the free monoid functor on a set. The word "libre" is the French word for "free".
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
This might be a bit abstract, but I thought it might be useful to see how the polynomial algebra functor is related to various other constructions you come across in algebra, such as the tensor algebra and symmetric algebra.
The polynomial algebra of a commutative ring $K$ is a special case of the "free commutative $K$-algebra functor" $K[-]: mathsfSets to KmathsfComAlg$ whose right adjoint is the obvious forgetful functor. In particular, the polynomial algebra on one indeterminate, $K[x]$, is just the free commutative $K$-algebra on the set $x$ with one element.
There are several equivalent ways of constructing the free commutative algebra, as shown in the diagram below, where every square and triangle is commutative when you compose adjoints with the correct handedness (left with left; right with right). As long as you start in the bottom right corner and compose left adjoints until you get to the top left, no matter which way you go you will get the free commutative algebra functor.

Since the free $K$-module functor $K(-): mathsfSets to KmathsfMod$ is strong monoidal, (i.e. $K(X times Y) cong K(X) otimes_K K(Y)$) it sends monoids in $mathsfSets$ to monoids ($K$-algebras!) in $KmathsfMod$. The induced functor
$$K(-): mathsfMon to mathsfMon(KmathsfMod)=KmathsfAlg$$ is the monoid algebra functor. It obviously sends commutative monoids to commutative monoids in $KmathsfMod$ (commutative $K$-algebras), and hence also restricts to a functor
$$K(-): mathsfComMon to mathsfComMon(KmathsfMod)=KmathsfComAlg.$$
The functors denoted $mathrmab$ are abelianization functors, which take a monoid object and make the free commutative monoid object.
The functor $mathcalT: KmathsfMod to KmathsfAlg$ is the tensor algebra functor, and the functor $mathrmSym: KmathsfMod to KmathsfComAlg$ is the symmetric algebra functor.
The functor $mathrmLib: mathsfSets to mathsfMon$ is the free monoid functor on a set. The word "libre" is the French word for "free".
This might be a bit abstract, but I thought it might be useful to see how the polynomial algebra functor is related to various other constructions you come across in algebra, such as the tensor algebra and symmetric algebra.
The polynomial algebra of a commutative ring $K$ is a special case of the "free commutative $K$-algebra functor" $K[-]: mathsfSets to KmathsfComAlg$ whose right adjoint is the obvious forgetful functor. In particular, the polynomial algebra on one indeterminate, $K[x]$, is just the free commutative $K$-algebra on the set $x$ with one element.
There are several equivalent ways of constructing the free commutative algebra, as shown in the diagram below, where every square and triangle is commutative when you compose adjoints with the correct handedness (left with left; right with right). As long as you start in the bottom right corner and compose left adjoints until you get to the top left, no matter which way you go you will get the free commutative algebra functor.

Since the free $K$-module functor $K(-): mathsfSets to KmathsfMod$ is strong monoidal, (i.e. $K(X times Y) cong K(X) otimes_K K(Y)$) it sends monoids in $mathsfSets$ to monoids ($K$-algebras!) in $KmathsfMod$. The induced functor
$$K(-): mathsfMon to mathsfMon(KmathsfMod)=KmathsfAlg$$ is the monoid algebra functor. It obviously sends commutative monoids to commutative monoids in $KmathsfMod$ (commutative $K$-algebras), and hence also restricts to a functor
$$K(-): mathsfComMon to mathsfComMon(KmathsfMod)=KmathsfComAlg.$$
The functors denoted $mathrmab$ are abelianization functors, which take a monoid object and make the free commutative monoid object.
The functor $mathcalT: KmathsfMod to KmathsfAlg$ is the tensor algebra functor, and the functor $mathrmSym: KmathsfMod to KmathsfComAlg$ is the symmetric algebra functor.
The functor $mathrmLib: mathsfSets to mathsfMon$ is the free monoid functor on a set. The word "libre" is the French word for "free".
edited Jul 9 '17 at 5:01
answered Jul 9 '17 at 4:55
à ² _à ²Â
5,29921242
5,29921242
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It seems to me that there are (at least) two universal properties which one might cite, because the polynomial ring construction is "functorial in both arguments".
To see this, first let $Ucolon mathbfCRingto mathbfSet$ be the forgetful functor. There's a functor $$operatornamePolycolon mathbfCRingtimesmathbfSetto(1_mathbfSet downarrow U)$$
(by $(1_mathbfSet downarrow U)$ I mean the comma category) defined by
$$
(K,X)mapsto (X,,Xxrightarrowiota_K,X U(K[X]),,K[X])$$
(where $iota_K,X$ is a fixed embedding of $X$ into $K[X]$) for any (unital) commutative ring $K$ and any set $X$ and
$$
left(Kxrightarrowvarphi L, Xxrightarrowf Yright)mapsto
left(Xxrightarrowf Y,,K[X]xrightarrowoperatornamePoly(varphi,f)L[Y]right)
$$
for any ring homomorphism $varphi$ and any function $f$ as above, where $operatornamePoly(varphi,f):K[X]to L[Y]$ is the unique ring homomorphism from $K[X]$ to $L[Y]$ such that $operatornamePoly(varphi,f)(c) = varphi(c)$ for $cin K$ and $operatornamePoly(varphi,f)(iota_K,X(x)) = iota_L,Y(f(x))$ for $xin X$. Note that for any such pair $(varphi,f)$, the square
$requireAMScd$
beginCD
X @>iota_K,X>>U(K[X])\
@VfVV @VVoperatornamePoly(varphi,f)V\
Y @>iota_L,Y>>U(L[Y])\
endCD
commutes by definition, so $operatornamePoly$ really is a functor into the comma category (preservation of composition and identity are easy to verify).
If we fix the ring $K$, we get a functor $K[cdot]colonmathbfSetto KmathbfAlg$, left adjoint to the forgetful functor $KmathbfAlgtomathbfSet$, as in the previous answers.
On the other hand, if we fix the set $X$, we get a functor $Fcolon mathbfCRingto (X downarrow U)$ given by
$$
Kmapsto (Xxrightarrowiota_X,KU(K[X]), , K[X])
$$
and
$$
left(KxrightarrowvarphiLright)mapsto left(K[X]xrightarrowtildevarphi L[X]right),
$$
where $tildevarphicolon K[X]to L[X]$ is the unique ring homomorphism from $K[X]$ to $L[X]$ with $tildevarphi(c) = varphi(c)$ for $cin K$ and $tildevarphi(iota_K,X(x)) = iota_L,X(x)$.
The category $(X downarrow U)$ has as objects distinguished mappings of $X$ into commutative rings, and as morphisms the ring homomorphisms which preserve the respective distinguished mappings of $X$; in a sense, $(X downarrow U)$ is a precise way of generalizing the category of pointed rings to a category of rings with multiple distinguished elements. If I'm not mistaken, the functor $F$ is left adjoint to the forgetful functor $G$ from $( X downarrow U)$ to $mathbfCRing$, and $Khookrightarrow K[X]$ is a universal arrow to the functor $G$.
In the case when $|X| = 1$, this turns into the statement that the functor $Kmapsto (K[x],x)$ is left-adjoint to the forgetful functor from pointed commutative rings to commutative rings, which aligns (pleasantly?) with the intuition that the adjoining an indeterminate $x$ to a ring is the most general way of picking a "distinguished element".
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It seems to me that there are (at least) two universal properties which one might cite, because the polynomial ring construction is "functorial in both arguments".
To see this, first let $Ucolon mathbfCRingto mathbfSet$ be the forgetful functor. There's a functor $$operatornamePolycolon mathbfCRingtimesmathbfSetto(1_mathbfSet downarrow U)$$
(by $(1_mathbfSet downarrow U)$ I mean the comma category) defined by
$$
(K,X)mapsto (X,,Xxrightarrowiota_K,X U(K[X]),,K[X])$$
(where $iota_K,X$ is a fixed embedding of $X$ into $K[X]$) for any (unital) commutative ring $K$ and any set $X$ and
$$
left(Kxrightarrowvarphi L, Xxrightarrowf Yright)mapsto
left(Xxrightarrowf Y,,K[X]xrightarrowoperatornamePoly(varphi,f)L[Y]right)
$$
for any ring homomorphism $varphi$ and any function $f$ as above, where $operatornamePoly(varphi,f):K[X]to L[Y]$ is the unique ring homomorphism from $K[X]$ to $L[Y]$ such that $operatornamePoly(varphi,f)(c) = varphi(c)$ for $cin K$ and $operatornamePoly(varphi,f)(iota_K,X(x)) = iota_L,Y(f(x))$ for $xin X$. Note that for any such pair $(varphi,f)$, the square
$requireAMScd$
beginCD
X @>iota_K,X>>U(K[X])\
@VfVV @VVoperatornamePoly(varphi,f)V\
Y @>iota_L,Y>>U(L[Y])\
endCD
commutes by definition, so $operatornamePoly$ really is a functor into the comma category (preservation of composition and identity are easy to verify).
If we fix the ring $K$, we get a functor $K[cdot]colonmathbfSetto KmathbfAlg$, left adjoint to the forgetful functor $KmathbfAlgtomathbfSet$, as in the previous answers.
On the other hand, if we fix the set $X$, we get a functor $Fcolon mathbfCRingto (X downarrow U)$ given by
$$
Kmapsto (Xxrightarrowiota_X,KU(K[X]), , K[X])
$$
and
$$
left(KxrightarrowvarphiLright)mapsto left(K[X]xrightarrowtildevarphi L[X]right),
$$
where $tildevarphicolon K[X]to L[X]$ is the unique ring homomorphism from $K[X]$ to $L[X]$ with $tildevarphi(c) = varphi(c)$ for $cin K$ and $tildevarphi(iota_K,X(x)) = iota_L,X(x)$.
The category $(X downarrow U)$ has as objects distinguished mappings of $X$ into commutative rings, and as morphisms the ring homomorphisms which preserve the respective distinguished mappings of $X$; in a sense, $(X downarrow U)$ is a precise way of generalizing the category of pointed rings to a category of rings with multiple distinguished elements. If I'm not mistaken, the functor $F$ is left adjoint to the forgetful functor $G$ from $( X downarrow U)$ to $mathbfCRing$, and $Khookrightarrow K[X]$ is a universal arrow to the functor $G$.
In the case when $|X| = 1$, this turns into the statement that the functor $Kmapsto (K[x],x)$ is left-adjoint to the forgetful functor from pointed commutative rings to commutative rings, which aligns (pleasantly?) with the intuition that the adjoining an indeterminate $x$ to a ring is the most general way of picking a "distinguished element".
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
It seems to me that there are (at least) two universal properties which one might cite, because the polynomial ring construction is "functorial in both arguments".
To see this, first let $Ucolon mathbfCRingto mathbfSet$ be the forgetful functor. There's a functor $$operatornamePolycolon mathbfCRingtimesmathbfSetto(1_mathbfSet downarrow U)$$
(by $(1_mathbfSet downarrow U)$ I mean the comma category) defined by
$$
(K,X)mapsto (X,,Xxrightarrowiota_K,X U(K[X]),,K[X])$$
(where $iota_K,X$ is a fixed embedding of $X$ into $K[X]$) for any (unital) commutative ring $K$ and any set $X$ and
$$
left(Kxrightarrowvarphi L, Xxrightarrowf Yright)mapsto
left(Xxrightarrowf Y,,K[X]xrightarrowoperatornamePoly(varphi,f)L[Y]right)
$$
for any ring homomorphism $varphi$ and any function $f$ as above, where $operatornamePoly(varphi,f):K[X]to L[Y]$ is the unique ring homomorphism from $K[X]$ to $L[Y]$ such that $operatornamePoly(varphi,f)(c) = varphi(c)$ for $cin K$ and $operatornamePoly(varphi,f)(iota_K,X(x)) = iota_L,Y(f(x))$ for $xin X$. Note that for any such pair $(varphi,f)$, the square
$requireAMScd$
beginCD
X @>iota_K,X>>U(K[X])\
@VfVV @VVoperatornamePoly(varphi,f)V\
Y @>iota_L,Y>>U(L[Y])\
endCD
commutes by definition, so $operatornamePoly$ really is a functor into the comma category (preservation of composition and identity are easy to verify).
If we fix the ring $K$, we get a functor $K[cdot]colonmathbfSetto KmathbfAlg$, left adjoint to the forgetful functor $KmathbfAlgtomathbfSet$, as in the previous answers.
On the other hand, if we fix the set $X$, we get a functor $Fcolon mathbfCRingto (X downarrow U)$ given by
$$
Kmapsto (Xxrightarrowiota_X,KU(K[X]), , K[X])
$$
and
$$
left(KxrightarrowvarphiLright)mapsto left(K[X]xrightarrowtildevarphi L[X]right),
$$
where $tildevarphicolon K[X]to L[X]$ is the unique ring homomorphism from $K[X]$ to $L[X]$ with $tildevarphi(c) = varphi(c)$ for $cin K$ and $tildevarphi(iota_K,X(x)) = iota_L,X(x)$.
The category $(X downarrow U)$ has as objects distinguished mappings of $X$ into commutative rings, and as morphisms the ring homomorphisms which preserve the respective distinguished mappings of $X$; in a sense, $(X downarrow U)$ is a precise way of generalizing the category of pointed rings to a category of rings with multiple distinguished elements. If I'm not mistaken, the functor $F$ is left adjoint to the forgetful functor $G$ from $( X downarrow U)$ to $mathbfCRing$, and $Khookrightarrow K[X]$ is a universal arrow to the functor $G$.
In the case when $|X| = 1$, this turns into the statement that the functor $Kmapsto (K[x],x)$ is left-adjoint to the forgetful functor from pointed commutative rings to commutative rings, which aligns (pleasantly?) with the intuition that the adjoining an indeterminate $x$ to a ring is the most general way of picking a "distinguished element".
It seems to me that there are (at least) two universal properties which one might cite, because the polynomial ring construction is "functorial in both arguments".
To see this, first let $Ucolon mathbfCRingto mathbfSet$ be the forgetful functor. There's a functor $$operatornamePolycolon mathbfCRingtimesmathbfSetto(1_mathbfSet downarrow U)$$
(by $(1_mathbfSet downarrow U)$ I mean the comma category) defined by
$$
(K,X)mapsto (X,,Xxrightarrowiota_K,X U(K[X]),,K[X])$$
(where $iota_K,X$ is a fixed embedding of $X$ into $K[X]$) for any (unital) commutative ring $K$ and any set $X$ and
$$
left(Kxrightarrowvarphi L, Xxrightarrowf Yright)mapsto
left(Xxrightarrowf Y,,K[X]xrightarrowoperatornamePoly(varphi,f)L[Y]right)
$$
for any ring homomorphism $varphi$ and any function $f$ as above, where $operatornamePoly(varphi,f):K[X]to L[Y]$ is the unique ring homomorphism from $K[X]$ to $L[Y]$ such that $operatornamePoly(varphi,f)(c) = varphi(c)$ for $cin K$ and $operatornamePoly(varphi,f)(iota_K,X(x)) = iota_L,Y(f(x))$ for $xin X$. Note that for any such pair $(varphi,f)$, the square
$requireAMScd$
beginCD
X @>iota_K,X>>U(K[X])\
@VfVV @VVoperatornamePoly(varphi,f)V\
Y @>iota_L,Y>>U(L[Y])\
endCD
commutes by definition, so $operatornamePoly$ really is a functor into the comma category (preservation of composition and identity are easy to verify).
If we fix the ring $K$, we get a functor $K[cdot]colonmathbfSetto KmathbfAlg$, left adjoint to the forgetful functor $KmathbfAlgtomathbfSet$, as in the previous answers.
On the other hand, if we fix the set $X$, we get a functor $Fcolon mathbfCRingto (X downarrow U)$ given by
$$
Kmapsto (Xxrightarrowiota_X,KU(K[X]), , K[X])
$$
and
$$
left(KxrightarrowvarphiLright)mapsto left(K[X]xrightarrowtildevarphi L[X]right),
$$
where $tildevarphicolon K[X]to L[X]$ is the unique ring homomorphism from $K[X]$ to $L[X]$ with $tildevarphi(c) = varphi(c)$ for $cin K$ and $tildevarphi(iota_K,X(x)) = iota_L,X(x)$.
The category $(X downarrow U)$ has as objects distinguished mappings of $X$ into commutative rings, and as morphisms the ring homomorphisms which preserve the respective distinguished mappings of $X$; in a sense, $(X downarrow U)$ is a precise way of generalizing the category of pointed rings to a category of rings with multiple distinguished elements. If I'm not mistaken, the functor $F$ is left adjoint to the forgetful functor $G$ from $( X downarrow U)$ to $mathbfCRing$, and $Khookrightarrow K[X]$ is a universal arrow to the functor $G$.
In the case when $|X| = 1$, this turns into the statement that the functor $Kmapsto (K[x],x)$ is left-adjoint to the forgetful functor from pointed commutative rings to commutative rings, which aligns (pleasantly?) with the intuition that the adjoining an indeterminate $x$ to a ring is the most general way of picking a "distinguished element".
answered Aug 24 at 0:27
Iohll
112
112
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
See S. Lang, Algebra, 1st edition (1965), Chapter V, Section 2, Theorem 1.
Is this chapter V sec. 2 entitled 'Algebraic Closure' that you are referring to? I cannot find a theorem 1. there. Or do you just mean 'the first theorem in that section'? I am talking about revised 3d edition of Algebra.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:05
Sorry, I also don't find this topic in 3rd edition! I have the translation into Russian of 1st edition (1965).
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:17
Don't mind. Thank you anyway. I suggest that you edit your answer to mention the fact that you're talking here about the 1st edition. Then confusion is avoided.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:22
OK, I corrected the answer.
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
See S. Lang, Algebra, 1st edition (1965), Chapter V, Section 2, Theorem 1.
Is this chapter V sec. 2 entitled 'Algebraic Closure' that you are referring to? I cannot find a theorem 1. there. Or do you just mean 'the first theorem in that section'? I am talking about revised 3d edition of Algebra.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:05
Sorry, I also don't find this topic in 3rd edition! I have the translation into Russian of 1st edition (1965).
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:17
Don't mind. Thank you anyway. I suggest that you edit your answer to mention the fact that you're talking here about the 1st edition. Then confusion is avoided.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:22
OK, I corrected the answer.
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
See S. Lang, Algebra, 1st edition (1965), Chapter V, Section 2, Theorem 1.
See S. Lang, Algebra, 1st edition (1965), Chapter V, Section 2, Theorem 1.
edited Oct 18 '13 at 15:23
answered Oct 18 '13 at 14:49
Boris Novikov
16k11428
16k11428
Is this chapter V sec. 2 entitled 'Algebraic Closure' that you are referring to? I cannot find a theorem 1. there. Or do you just mean 'the first theorem in that section'? I am talking about revised 3d edition of Algebra.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:05
Sorry, I also don't find this topic in 3rd edition! I have the translation into Russian of 1st edition (1965).
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:17
Don't mind. Thank you anyway. I suggest that you edit your answer to mention the fact that you're talking here about the 1st edition. Then confusion is avoided.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:22
OK, I corrected the answer.
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
add a comment |Â
Is this chapter V sec. 2 entitled 'Algebraic Closure' that you are referring to? I cannot find a theorem 1. there. Or do you just mean 'the first theorem in that section'? I am talking about revised 3d edition of Algebra.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:05
Sorry, I also don't find this topic in 3rd edition! I have the translation into Russian of 1st edition (1965).
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:17
Don't mind. Thank you anyway. I suggest that you edit your answer to mention the fact that you're talking here about the 1st edition. Then confusion is avoided.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:22
OK, I corrected the answer.
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
Is this chapter V sec. 2 entitled 'Algebraic Closure' that you are referring to? I cannot find a theorem 1. there. Or do you just mean 'the first theorem in that section'? I am talking about revised 3d edition of Algebra.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:05
Is this chapter V sec. 2 entitled 'Algebraic Closure' that you are referring to? I cannot find a theorem 1. there. Or do you just mean 'the first theorem in that section'? I am talking about revised 3d edition of Algebra.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:05
Sorry, I also don't find this topic in 3rd edition! I have the translation into Russian of 1st edition (1965).
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:17
Sorry, I also don't find this topic in 3rd edition! I have the translation into Russian of 1st edition (1965).
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:17
Don't mind. Thank you anyway. I suggest that you edit your answer to mention the fact that you're talking here about the 1st edition. Then confusion is avoided.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:22
Don't mind. Thank you anyway. I suggest that you edit your answer to mention the fact that you're talking here about the 1st edition. Then confusion is avoided.
â drhab
Oct 18 '13 at 15:22
OK, I corrected the answer.
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
OK, I corrected the answer.
â Boris Novikov
Oct 18 '13 at 15:24
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f531073%2fhow-to-construct-polynomial-ring-kx-over-commutative-ring-k-by-making-use%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
If someone downvotes this question (just happened) then please tell me why.
â drhab
Oct 29 '13 at 11:40