Given the polynomial ring in 2 variables, how do we prove the following: $k[x,y]/(y-x^2) \cong k[x,x^2]$ ? In one variable I can follow the argument. Also in case the ideal we take the quotient with is generated by monomials for which we can perform a polynomial division. Thanks for your comment or explanation.
Asked
Active
Viewed 33 times
0
-
1Well the relation tells you $y = x^2$. So the explicit bijection to use should be clear hopefully – Shuri2060 Aug 03 '23 at 23:46
-
1The fundamental isomorphism theorems still apply. – Ted Shifrin Aug 03 '23 at 23:52
-
1Please search for answers before posting questions. – Bill Dubuque Aug 04 '23 at 00:44
1 Answers
1
Intuitively you 'divide out' any factors of $(y-x^2)$ just as you would with modular arithmetic. In the same way (if we denote the the reduction Mod $(y-x^2)$ by a bar) we have that $\overline{y-x^2} = \overline{0}$ so $\overline{y} = \overline{x^2}$.
Now to prove that $k[x,y]/(y-x^2) \cong k[x,x^2]$ we need the first Isomorphism theorem which states that if $\xi:R \to S$ is a ring homomorphism, then $R/\ker{\xi} \cong \xi(R)$.
We can construct this homomorphism as follows: \begin{align*} \xi: k[x,y] &\to k[x,x^2]\\ (x,y) &\mapsto (x,x^2) \end{align*}
(this is an evaluation map).
Now you only need to prove that the kernel is the ideal generated by $y-x^2$

Josef K.
- 415
-
Please strive not to post more (dupe) answers to dupes of FAQs, cf. recent site policy announcement here. – Bill Dubuque Aug 04 '23 at 00:44
-
@BillDubuque, to be fair, the answer was posted before you marked this question as a duplicate. – Ennar Aug 04 '23 at 00:55
-
@Ennar Please do read the linked meta post. Users are expected to help organize the site - which means not posting (dupe) answers to common exercises that have surely been answered many times already over the past 13 years. – Bill Dubuque Aug 04 '23 at 01:03
-
1@BillDubuque Josef K. is a member for whole 44 days. I think taking care about the site should also include caring about its member without which the site wouldn't exist. – Ennar Aug 04 '23 at 01:07
-
@Ennar I don't follow your logic. You think that informing new members about site policy is "uncaring"??? – Bill Dubuque Aug 04 '23 at 01:12
-
@BillDubuque the point is that posting impersonal copy-paste comments is probably not the best way to teach new users the policies of the site, at least in cases like this. To you and me, this was clear to be duplicate, but why expect a new user to recognize it? Surely, if you believe that all users should search for duplicates before answering, you can also take time to customize your message according to circumstances to make it more friendly, and less bot-like. – Ennar Aug 04 '23 at 01:21
-
@Ennar I post a huge number of such comments, There is generally no time for customization. – Bill Dubuque Aug 04 '23 at 01:27
-
@BillDubuque well, people may also not find time to check for duplicates. I'm grateful that you are doing the boring administrative work, but I think we should all appreciate the work people do when they write answers. Perhaps add another c/p comment of this type to be able to appreciate subtlety of the situation. – Ennar Aug 04 '23 at 01:33
-
1@Ennar Actually organizing the site is far from boring, In many cases it can be more interesting than repeating the same old answers ad infinitum - since it forces one to think about how various proofs are related to one another as one iteratively refines prior answers. – Bill Dubuque Aug 04 '23 at 01:39
-
@BillDubuque to me it's interesting to find out what exactly does someone asking a question not understand and to address that, even when it's a question asked many times before. This is a subtlety I think the site policy doesn't recognize: even when it's the same exercise, people might actually be asking different questions about it. I think it's useful to link these as duplicates, but I don't think there is no value in answering anyway, since the specific misunderstanding askers may have might differ, and addressing that might make no sense at all in different thread. – Ennar Aug 04 '23 at 01:57