4

$\mathcal{M}_2(\Bbb R)$ is the ring of $2\times2$ matrices with real entries. Define a map $\phi:\Bbb C \to \mathcal{M}_2(\Bbb R)$ by

$$\phi(a+bi) = \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ -b & a \end{pmatrix}$$

Prove that the mapping is a homomorphism and that it is injective.

Now, in order to show that it is a homomorphism is it enough if I simply show that $\phi(a)+\phi(b) = \phi(a+b)$ and $\phi(a)\phi(b) = \phi(ab)$?

Also, how do I show that it is injective? Does this have something to do with the kernel? If so, how do I find the kernel?

  • 1
    Yes, a ring homomorphism is injective iff its kernel is trivial. Do you know what the definition of the kernel of a homomorphism is? – Travis Willse Oct 05 '15 at 19:54
  • @user273301 : in the future, you may want to use LaTeX for formating your equations. Here a quick reference : http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference – Tryss Oct 05 '15 at 19:55

3 Answers3

1

A ring homomorphism from a field to any ring is necessarily injective (assuming that ring homomorphisms map $1$ to $1$), because its kernel is a proper ideal and a field has only $\{0\}$ as proper ideal.

In this case it's also easy to verify it directly, because if $\phi(a+bi)$ is the null matrix, then necessarily $a=b=0$.

The verification that $\phi$ is a homomorphism consists in showing that $$ \phi(x+y)=\phi(x)+\phi(y),\qquad \phi(xy)=\phi(x)\phi(y),\qquad \phi(1)=\begin{bmatrix}1 & 0\\0&1\end{bmatrix} $$ for all $x,y\in\mathbb{C}$. For multiplication, consider $x=a+bi$ and $y=c+di$; then $xy=(ac-bd)+(ad+bc)i$, so $$ \phi(xy)=\begin{bmatrix}ac-bd & ad+bc \\ -(ad+bc) & ac-bd \end{bmatrix} $$ whereas $$ \phi(x)\phi(y)= \begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ -b & a \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} c & d \\ -d & c \end{bmatrix} $$ Can you finish doing the matrix product? The check for the addition should be carried on similarly.

Note. In the definition of $\phi$ it is implicitly assumed that $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ and the same assumption is made in the check, also for $c$ and $d$.

egreg
  • 238,574
0

Hint:

This is a ''canonical '' isomorphism between $\mathbb{C}$ and a subring of $M_2(\mathbb{R})$ (here).

to show this fact the first step is to prove that the set $\mathcal{C}$ of matrices of the form $$ \begin{bmatrix} a&b\\ -b&a \end{bmatrix} \qquad a,b \in \mathbb{R} $$ is a field.

The associative and distributive properties of sum and product are inherited by the ring structure of $M_2(\mathbb{R}$, and so the existence of the neutral elements for the two operations. But we have to prove that any element of $\mathcal{C}$ has an inverse and that the product is commutative.

Commutativity is easy verified :

$$ \begin{bmatrix} a&b\\ -b&a \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x&y\\ -y&x \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} ax-by&ay+bx\\ -bx-ay&-by+ax \end{bmatrix}= \begin{bmatrix} x&y\\ -y&x \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} a&b\\ -b&a \end{bmatrix} $$

For the invertibility note that, for $A \in \mathcal{C} $, $\det(A)=a^2+b^2 \ne0 \forall a,b \in \mathbb{R} $ and $$ \begin{bmatrix} a&b\\ -b&a \end{bmatrix}^{-1}= \dfrac{1}{a^2+b^2} \begin{bmatrix} a&-b\\ b&a \end{bmatrix} $$

Now (second step) it is easy to see that for the given $\phi$ we have $$ \phi(1)=\begin{bmatrix} 1&0\\ 0&1 \end{bmatrix} $$ and $$ \phi(z)=A \Rightarrow \phi(\bar z)=A^T\Rightarrow \phi(z^{-1})=A^{-1}$$

and , obviously, $ \phi(z)=A \Rightarrow \phi(-z)=-A$.

The last step is to show that $ker (\phi)$ is trivial, but this is immediate since $$ \phi(a+ib)=\begin{bmatrix} 0&0\\ 0&0 \end{bmatrix} \iff a=b=0 $$

Finally: note that there are many (infinite) representations of $\mathbb{C}$ of this type, but is seems that there only two such that $\psi(\bar z)=A^T$ ( see the question: Matrix representation of $\mathbb{C}$ as $^*$Algebra.).

Emilio Novati
  • 62,675
0

Note that by the definition of $ \phi$, $ \phi(z)=0\iff z=0$. Moreover $ \phi$ is isomorphic to the restricted image set of $ \phi$. Hence we can conclude that we can always have a subring of $ \mathcal{M}_2(\Bbb R)$ that is isomorphic to $ \Bbb{C}$.

Now the only question appears in my mind that how to prove that $ \phi$ is only a monomorphism but may not be an epimorphism.

Manjoy Das
  • 1,006
  • 7
  • 21
  • An injective map is always a monomorphism. The map is also trivially an epimorphism since only the only homomorphism from the matrix ring into $\mathbb C$ is the zero homomorphism. Neither of these things seems very pertinent though. – rschwieb Apr 30 '20 at 11:22
  • as i wrote that $ \phi(z)=0\iff z=0$ showed that $ \phi$ was epimorphism. but i wanted to prove that by this definition, there is at least one matrix whose pre-image does not belong to $ \Bbb{C}$ to show that $ \phi$ is not a monomorphism. I wanted that matrix. – Manjoy Das Apr 30 '20 at 17:16
  • and here $ \phi$ being an epimorphism is not a monomorphism. because $ S= \begin{pmatrix} a & b \ -b & a \end{pmatrix}$ is a subring of $ \mathcal{M}_2(\Bbb R)$ – Manjoy Das Apr 30 '20 at 17:19
  • OK, at first I thought you might be using epimorphism and monomorphism in their category theory sense, since it makes a difference in the category of rings. But if I assume you are using them in the sense of "surjective" and "injective", then it is plain that you simply have the two mixed up. It is clearly injective and clearly not surjective. Surjection corresponds to epi, not mono – rschwieb Apr 30 '20 at 17:50
  • oh yess... i totally mixed it up. So how should I prove $ \phi$ is not mono?? – Manjoy Das Apr 30 '20 at 18:14
  • @rschwieb i have edited my post. – Manjoy Das Apr 30 '20 at 18:16
  • It is a monomorphism, if by that you mean it is an injective homomorphism. – rschwieb Apr 30 '20 at 18:19
  • i just want to prove that this homomorphism is not surjective on $ \mathcal{M}_2{\Bbb{R}}$ – Manjoy Das Apr 30 '20 at 18:24
  • yes i got it. $ A= \begin{pmatrix} a & b \ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in \mathcal{M}_2({\Bbb{R}})$ but $ A$ has no pre-image in $ \Bbb{C}$ – Manjoy Das Apr 30 '20 at 18:40