## Subrings

**Point of Post: **In this post we define subrings and prove some basic properties (transitivity, intersections, etc.)

*Motivation*

As always, soon after one defines a new structure one is morally bound to define the correlated substructure. I doubt that anyone reading this (if there is anyone) would even need to be told what the definition is. That said, there is an interesting phenomenon concerning subrings. Namely, while it turned out that normal subgroups were nicer than general subgroups they weren’t the only thing that was important. For ring theory, while a slight overstatement, the analogous statement is true. Namely, it turns out that subrings are, in many ways, unimportant and the notion of ‘normal subring’ (kernels of ring morphisms–called ideals) are what really matters. That said, it is still useful to define them for a later date.

*Subrings*

**Let be a ring and . We say that is a ***subring *of if is a subgroup of the group structure of and it’s closed under multiplication. Said more concretely, is a subring if the addition and multiplication of , when restricted to , make into a ring. Natural examples are sitting inside , the ring of continuously differentiable functions sitting inside , etc.

To get an idea of these subrings let’s define the analogous idea of the center of a group for a ring and show it’s a subring. Namely, if is a ring then we define the *center *of to be the set .

**Theorem: ***Let be any ring. Then, is a subring of .*

**Proof: **Evidently if then for all and so and so . To see it’s closed under multiplication we merely note that if then for any we have that and so . The conclusion follows.

We finish off this post by proving that the intersection of subrings is a subring. Indeed:

**Theorem: ***Let be a collection of subrings of a ring . Then, is a subring of .*

**Proof: **Since each we know from group theory that . Thus, it suffices to prove that is closed under multiplication. That said, this is clear since if is in the intersection then for each and since is a subring we have that for every and so is in the intersection.

**References:**

1. Dummit, David Steven., and Richard M. Foote. *Abstract Algebra*. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. Print.

[…] As is standard in math, especially in algebra after defining a structure and its subobjects we define the morphisms between the two objects. In particular, we would now like to define the […]

Pingback by Ring Homomorphisms (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | June 18, 2011 |

[…] is involved in the notion of smallest unital subring. In particular, a unital subring is a subring of a unital ring which contains the unity of the ambient ring (e.g. while is a subring of the […]

Pingback by Characteristic of a Ring (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | June 19, 2011 |

[…] was alluded to when we discussed subrings, subrings themselves aren’t the important thing when discussing […]

Pingback by Definition and Basics of Ideals « Abstract Nonsense | June 21, 2011 |

[…] We know that the intersection of subrings are subrings, and so it suffices to prove that has the […]

Pingback by Generated Ideals and the Lattice of Ideals (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | June 22, 2011 |

[…] motivates the following definition: let be a ring (not necessarily unital) and be a collection of subrings we define then the sum of to be the […]

Pingback by Generated Ideals and the Lattice of Ideals (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | June 23, 2011 |

[…] we obviously see that is a subring of (a unital subring if is). Moreover, is a morphism, and since it’s evidently bijective we […]

Pingback by Matrix Rings (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | July 12, 2011 |

[…] any left or right -module can be given the structure of a -bimodule (where, of course, is the center of ) defined, as usual, by –once again we note that this is practically equivalent to […]

Pingback by The Construction of the Tensor Product of Modules (Pt. IV) « Abstract Nonsense | January 3, 2012 |

[…] up to scaling, so that (where we have proven before this last equality, where the stands for the center of a ring) and thus we have that where the stands for the projective linear […]

Pingback by Automorphisms of k(t)/k « Abstract Nonsense | February 28, 2012 |