Would using the Subring test be good here?











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $R$ be a ring and $m$ be a fixed integer.



Let $S$ = {$r in R| mr = 0_R$}.



Prove that $S$ is a subring of $R$.



I'm fairly sure that I can show this using the Subring Test which says that I need to only show that the subset $S$ is closed under subtraction and multiplication, but I I'm not sure how to do that here.



Any help would be greatly appreciated.






abstract-algebra ring-theory







share|cite|improve this question






















  • For closure under addition, just notice that $mr + ms = m(r+s)$. Can you do something similar for multiplication?
    – Nick
    15 hours ago















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $R$ be a ring and $m$ be a fixed integer.



Let $S$ = {$r in R| mr = 0_R$}.



Prove that $S$ is a subring of $R$.



I'm fairly sure that I can show this using the Subring Test which says that I need to only show that the subset $S$ is closed under subtraction and multiplication, but I I'm not sure how to do that here.



Any help would be greatly appreciated.






abstract-algebra ring-theory







share|cite|improve this question






















  • For closure under addition, just notice that $mr + ms = m(r+s)$. Can you do something similar for multiplication?
    – Nick
    15 hours ago













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Let $R$ be a ring and $m$ be a fixed integer.



Let $S$ = {$r in R| mr = 0_R$}.



Prove that $S$ is a subring of $R$.



I'm fairly sure that I can show this using the Subring Test which says that I need to only show that the subset $S$ is closed under subtraction and multiplication, but I I'm not sure how to do that here.



Any help would be greatly appreciated.






abstract-algebra ring-theory







share|cite|improve this question













Let $R$ be a ring and $m$ be a fixed integer.



Let $S$ = {$r in R| mr = 0_R$}.



Prove that $S$ is a subring of $R$.



I'm fairly sure that I can show this using the Subring Test which says that I need to only show that the subset $S$ is closed under subtraction and multiplication, but I I'm not sure how to do that here.



Any help would be greatly appreciated.






abstract-algebra ring-theory




abstract-algebra ring-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 15 hours ago









Raul Quintanilla Jr.

442




442












  • For closure under addition, just notice that $mr + ms = m(r+s)$. Can you do something similar for multiplication?
    – Nick
    15 hours ago


















  • For closure under addition, just notice that $mr + ms = m(r+s)$. Can you do something similar for multiplication?
    – Nick
    15 hours ago
















For closure under addition, just notice that $mr + ms = m(r+s)$. Can you do something similar for multiplication?
– Nick
15 hours ago




For closure under addition, just notice that $mr + ms = m(r+s)$. Can you do something similar for multiplication?
– Nick
15 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote



accepted










You are indeed correct that the subring test applies here. For closure under subtraction, let $r,s in S$; we need to show $m(r-s)=0_R$. Now, $m(r-s)=mr-ms=0_R-0_R=0_R$ by the distributive property and the fact that $mr=0_R$ and $ms=0_R$ (since $r$ and $s$ are in $S$.) For closure under multiplication, we need to show $m(rs)=0_R$. For this note that $m(rs)=(mr)s=0_Rs=0_R$ (if you can't see why rearranging the brackets in the last step is justified, remember that $m$ is an integer, so in effect we are adding $rs$ to itself $m$ times, or $-m$ times, if $m<0$. So if we factor out an $s$ from the sum... you should be able to fill in the details!)






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: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    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%2f3004354%2fwould-using-the-subring-test-be-good-here%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote



    accepted










    You are indeed correct that the subring test applies here. For closure under subtraction, let $r,s in S$; we need to show $m(r-s)=0_R$. Now, $m(r-s)=mr-ms=0_R-0_R=0_R$ by the distributive property and the fact that $mr=0_R$ and $ms=0_R$ (since $r$ and $s$ are in $S$.) For closure under multiplication, we need to show $m(rs)=0_R$. For this note that $m(rs)=(mr)s=0_Rs=0_R$ (if you can't see why rearranging the brackets in the last step is justified, remember that $m$ is an integer, so in effect we are adding $rs$ to itself $m$ times, or $-m$ times, if $m<0$. So if we factor out an $s$ from the sum... you should be able to fill in the details!)






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote



      accepted










      You are indeed correct that the subring test applies here. For closure under subtraction, let $r,s in S$; we need to show $m(r-s)=0_R$. Now, $m(r-s)=mr-ms=0_R-0_R=0_R$ by the distributive property and the fact that $mr=0_R$ and $ms=0_R$ (since $r$ and $s$ are in $S$.) For closure under multiplication, we need to show $m(rs)=0_R$. For this note that $m(rs)=(mr)s=0_Rs=0_R$ (if you can't see why rearranging the brackets in the last step is justified, remember that $m$ is an integer, so in effect we are adding $rs$ to itself $m$ times, or $-m$ times, if $m<0$. So if we factor out an $s$ from the sum... you should be able to fill in the details!)






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        0
        down vote



        accepted






        You are indeed correct that the subring test applies here. For closure under subtraction, let $r,s in S$; we need to show $m(r-s)=0_R$. Now, $m(r-s)=mr-ms=0_R-0_R=0_R$ by the distributive property and the fact that $mr=0_R$ and $ms=0_R$ (since $r$ and $s$ are in $S$.) For closure under multiplication, we need to show $m(rs)=0_R$. For this note that $m(rs)=(mr)s=0_Rs=0_R$ (if you can't see why rearranging the brackets in the last step is justified, remember that $m$ is an integer, so in effect we are adding $rs$ to itself $m$ times, or $-m$ times, if $m<0$. So if we factor out an $s$ from the sum... you should be able to fill in the details!)






        share|cite|improve this answer












        You are indeed correct that the subring test applies here. For closure under subtraction, let $r,s in S$; we need to show $m(r-s)=0_R$. Now, $m(r-s)=mr-ms=0_R-0_R=0_R$ by the distributive property and the fact that $mr=0_R$ and $ms=0_R$ (since $r$ and $s$ are in $S$.) For closure under multiplication, we need to show $m(rs)=0_R$. For this note that $m(rs)=(mr)s=0_Rs=0_R$ (if you can't see why rearranging the brackets in the last step is justified, remember that $m$ is an integer, so in effect we are adding $rs$ to itself $m$ times, or $-m$ times, if $m<0$. So if we factor out an $s$ from the sum... you should be able to fill in the details!)







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 13 hours ago









        Alex Sanger

        474




        474






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004354%2fwould-using-the-subring-test-be-good-here%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            'app-layout' is not a known element: how to share Component with different Modules

            Image
            0 My application was working fine until I decided to go with lazy loading: So, my shared component looks like this: import { Component, Renderer2 } from '@angular/core'; export interface FormModel { captcha?: string; } @Component({ selector: 'app-layout', templateUrl: './app-layout.component.html', styleUrls: ['./app-layout.css'] }) export class FullLayoutComponent { } app-layout.component.ts I am using this component in my Another component say school-home.component.html like this: <app-layout> </app-layout> and it was working fine until I created a Module school-home.module.ts like this: import { NgModule } from '@angular/core'; import { CommonModule } from '@angular/common'; import { SchoolhomeRoutingModule ...
            Read more

            android studio warns about leanback feature tag usage required on manifest while using Unity exported app?

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 0 This is a simple project showing cubes on Unity, exported to android project and imported on Android studio. On maifest file it showed following warning: Expecting <uses-feature android:name="android.software.leanback" android:required="false" /> tag I have no information about it. And also on default emptyview android project does not use/mention this feature. I know it is required by TV's and such but why its not added by default? Why is this? And Should I concern about it? android unity3d ...
            Read more

            WPF add header to Image with URL pettitions [duplicate]

            Image
            up vote 0 down vote favorite This question already has an answer here: Image source URI requiring authorization 3 answers Add header to all* HTTP requests on a machine 1 answer first of all sorry for my english. Recently I added some security in the backend of my project, and now I need to send a validation code(apiKey) inside the headers to retrieve the images. I have a problem with ALL images in my project that I had attached in my UI. For example, before I had: <Image Height="90" Source="{Binding Video.Thumbnail}"/> Now I need to change my code to create a CUSTOM petition add the apiKey in the header:...
            Read more