I was doing some practice abstract algebra questions off the internet since I have a quiz coming up soon. However, I am not very skilled at abstract algebra. In fact, I did very average in my group theory class, so I am struggling in my ring theory one. Can someone please help explain what is happening in this proof? I'm very sorry if it's extremely straightforward, I just think I need some time to get used to the way of thinking that's required to solve these questions.
Let $R_1$ and $R_2$ be commutative rings with identities and let $R = R_1 × R_2$. The question asks to show that every ideal $I$ of $R$ is of the form $I = I_1 × I_2$ with $I_1$ an ideal of $R_1$ and $I_2$ an ideal of $R_2$.
The proof/solution given goes like this:
Let $I$ be an ideal of $R$, and let $(a, b) ∈ I$. Then $(a, b)·(1, 0) = (a, 0)$, and $(a, b)·(0, 1) = (0, b)$, so $I = I_1 × I_2$, where $I_1$ is the set of $x ∈ R_1$ such that $(x, y) ∈ I$ for some $y$. Similar for $I_2$.Then it is easy to show that these sets are ideals.
I don't completely understand this though. Not even just a specific part, but I guess how $I = I_1 \times I_2$ is implied from what comes before it. In my head, I keep (kind of) feeling like this means that $a \in I_1$ and $b \in I_2$, but I don't get how/why? Or if I'm wrong, could someone correct that too? :/
Again, really sorry if this is too basic. I genuinely feel dumb in this class sitting with people I can't compete with, so I can't even ask them for help, and I couldn't think of anywhere else I could find an explanation :/