How to show that $text{Hom}_R(Atimes B ,M)cong text{Hom}_R(A,M)times text{Hom}_R(B,M) $ when $A, B$, and $M$...











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I am working on the problem below.




Let $A,B$ and $M$ be $R-$mudules. Show that



(1) $text{Hom }_R(Atimes B,M)cong text{Hom }_R(A,M)times text{Hom }_R(B,M)$.




For $(1)$, I built a homomorphism $F:operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)rightarrow operatorname{Hom}_R(Atimes B,M)$ defined by $F(varphi_1,varphi_2)=varphi_1+varphi_2$.



It is well defined since $varphi_1+varphi_2=psi_1+psi_2$ whenever $(varphi_1,varphi_2)=(psi_1,psi_2)$.



Also, it is homomorphism since, $forall rin R$ $forall (varphi_1,varphi_2),(psi_1,psi_2)in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$,



begin{align*}
F((varphi_1(a),varphi_2(b))+r(psi_1(a),psi_2(b)))&=(varphi_1(a)+rpsi_1(a))+(varphi_2(b)+rpsi_2(b))\ &=(varphi_1(a)+varphi_2(b))+r(psi_1(a)+psi_2(b))\ &=F(varphi_1(a),varphi_2(b))+rF(psi_1(a),psi_2(b)).
end{align*}



$forall (a,b)in Atimes B$.



Let $Phiin operatorname{Hom}_R(Atimes B,M) $ be given and note that $Phi(cdot,0)in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)$ and $Phi(0,cdot)in operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$, and that for any $(a,b)in Atimes B$,



begin{align*}
F(Phi(a,0),Phi(0,b))=Phi(a,0)+Phi(0,b)=Phi(a,b).
end{align*}



Thus, $F$ is surjective.



Therefore, I only need to show that it is an injection. But I am having trouble in there. I just want to show that $ker(F)=0$ but it seems there are so many $varphiin operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)$ and $psiin operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$ such that $varphi+psi=0$. Should I change the homomorphism I have built? It seems this $F$ is only reasonable one...



I thank for any help in advance.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    You are making an assumption about what homomorphisms look like from $Atimes B$. Use your surjectivity argument to show that $Atimes B$ is the coproduct of $A$ and $B$. Then, given any pair of homomorphisms from $Ato M$ and $Bto M$ there will be a unique homomorphism from the coproduct to $M$.
    – John Douma
    Nov 21 at 17:27















up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I am working on the problem below.




Let $A,B$ and $M$ be $R-$mudules. Show that



(1) $text{Hom }_R(Atimes B,M)cong text{Hom }_R(A,M)times text{Hom }_R(B,M)$.




For $(1)$, I built a homomorphism $F:operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)rightarrow operatorname{Hom}_R(Atimes B,M)$ defined by $F(varphi_1,varphi_2)=varphi_1+varphi_2$.



It is well defined since $varphi_1+varphi_2=psi_1+psi_2$ whenever $(varphi_1,varphi_2)=(psi_1,psi_2)$.



Also, it is homomorphism since, $forall rin R$ $forall (varphi_1,varphi_2),(psi_1,psi_2)in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$,



begin{align*}
F((varphi_1(a),varphi_2(b))+r(psi_1(a),psi_2(b)))&=(varphi_1(a)+rpsi_1(a))+(varphi_2(b)+rpsi_2(b))\ &=(varphi_1(a)+varphi_2(b))+r(psi_1(a)+psi_2(b))\ &=F(varphi_1(a),varphi_2(b))+rF(psi_1(a),psi_2(b)).
end{align*}



$forall (a,b)in Atimes B$.



Let $Phiin operatorname{Hom}_R(Atimes B,M) $ be given and note that $Phi(cdot,0)in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)$ and $Phi(0,cdot)in operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$, and that for any $(a,b)in Atimes B$,



begin{align*}
F(Phi(a,0),Phi(0,b))=Phi(a,0)+Phi(0,b)=Phi(a,b).
end{align*}



Thus, $F$ is surjective.



Therefore, I only need to show that it is an injection. But I am having trouble in there. I just want to show that $ker(F)=0$ but it seems there are so many $varphiin operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)$ and $psiin operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$ such that $varphi+psi=0$. Should I change the homomorphism I have built? It seems this $F$ is only reasonable one...



I thank for any help in advance.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    You are making an assumption about what homomorphisms look like from $Atimes B$. Use your surjectivity argument to show that $Atimes B$ is the coproduct of $A$ and $B$. Then, given any pair of homomorphisms from $Ato M$ and $Bto M$ there will be a unique homomorphism from the coproduct to $M$.
    – John Douma
    Nov 21 at 17:27













up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











I am working on the problem below.




Let $A,B$ and $M$ be $R-$mudules. Show that



(1) $text{Hom }_R(Atimes B,M)cong text{Hom }_R(A,M)times text{Hom }_R(B,M)$.




For $(1)$, I built a homomorphism $F:operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)rightarrow operatorname{Hom}_R(Atimes B,M)$ defined by $F(varphi_1,varphi_2)=varphi_1+varphi_2$.



It is well defined since $varphi_1+varphi_2=psi_1+psi_2$ whenever $(varphi_1,varphi_2)=(psi_1,psi_2)$.



Also, it is homomorphism since, $forall rin R$ $forall (varphi_1,varphi_2),(psi_1,psi_2)in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$,



begin{align*}
F((varphi_1(a),varphi_2(b))+r(psi_1(a),psi_2(b)))&=(varphi_1(a)+rpsi_1(a))+(varphi_2(b)+rpsi_2(b))\ &=(varphi_1(a)+varphi_2(b))+r(psi_1(a)+psi_2(b))\ &=F(varphi_1(a),varphi_2(b))+rF(psi_1(a),psi_2(b)).
end{align*}



$forall (a,b)in Atimes B$.



Let $Phiin operatorname{Hom}_R(Atimes B,M) $ be given and note that $Phi(cdot,0)in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)$ and $Phi(0,cdot)in operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$, and that for any $(a,b)in Atimes B$,



begin{align*}
F(Phi(a,0),Phi(0,b))=Phi(a,0)+Phi(0,b)=Phi(a,b).
end{align*}



Thus, $F$ is surjective.



Therefore, I only need to show that it is an injection. But I am having trouble in there. I just want to show that $ker(F)=0$ but it seems there are so many $varphiin operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)$ and $psiin operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$ such that $varphi+psi=0$. Should I change the homomorphism I have built? It seems this $F$ is only reasonable one...



I thank for any help in advance.










share|cite|improve this question















I am working on the problem below.




Let $A,B$ and $M$ be $R-$mudules. Show that



(1) $text{Hom }_R(Atimes B,M)cong text{Hom }_R(A,M)times text{Hom }_R(B,M)$.




For $(1)$, I built a homomorphism $F:operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)rightarrow operatorname{Hom}_R(Atimes B,M)$ defined by $F(varphi_1,varphi_2)=varphi_1+varphi_2$.



It is well defined since $varphi_1+varphi_2=psi_1+psi_2$ whenever $(varphi_1,varphi_2)=(psi_1,psi_2)$.



Also, it is homomorphism since, $forall rin R$ $forall (varphi_1,varphi_2),(psi_1,psi_2)in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$,



begin{align*}
F((varphi_1(a),varphi_2(b))+r(psi_1(a),psi_2(b)))&=(varphi_1(a)+rpsi_1(a))+(varphi_2(b)+rpsi_2(b))\ &=(varphi_1(a)+varphi_2(b))+r(psi_1(a)+psi_2(b))\ &=F(varphi_1(a),varphi_2(b))+rF(psi_1(a),psi_2(b)).
end{align*}



$forall (a,b)in Atimes B$.



Let $Phiin operatorname{Hom}_R(Atimes B,M) $ be given and note that $Phi(cdot,0)in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)$ and $Phi(0,cdot)in operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$, and that for any $(a,b)in Atimes B$,



begin{align*}
F(Phi(a,0),Phi(0,b))=Phi(a,0)+Phi(0,b)=Phi(a,b).
end{align*}



Thus, $F$ is surjective.



Therefore, I only need to show that it is an injection. But I am having trouble in there. I just want to show that $ker(F)=0$ but it seems there are so many $varphiin operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M)$ and $psiin operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$ such that $varphi+psi=0$. Should I change the homomorphism I have built? It seems this $F$ is only reasonable one...



I thank for any help in advance.







abstract-algebra modules






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 21 at 19:44









Monstrous Moonshiner

2,25511337




2,25511337










asked Nov 21 at 16:46









LeB

953217




953217








  • 1




    You are making an assumption about what homomorphisms look like from $Atimes B$. Use your surjectivity argument to show that $Atimes B$ is the coproduct of $A$ and $B$. Then, given any pair of homomorphisms from $Ato M$ and $Bto M$ there will be a unique homomorphism from the coproduct to $M$.
    – John Douma
    Nov 21 at 17:27














  • 1




    You are making an assumption about what homomorphisms look like from $Atimes B$. Use your surjectivity argument to show that $Atimes B$ is the coproduct of $A$ and $B$. Then, given any pair of homomorphisms from $Ato M$ and $Bto M$ there will be a unique homomorphism from the coproduct to $M$.
    – John Douma
    Nov 21 at 17:27








1




1




You are making an assumption about what homomorphisms look like from $Atimes B$. Use your surjectivity argument to show that $Atimes B$ is the coproduct of $A$ and $B$. Then, given any pair of homomorphisms from $Ato M$ and $Bto M$ there will be a unique homomorphism from the coproduct to $M$.
– John Douma
Nov 21 at 17:27




You are making an assumption about what homomorphisms look like from $Atimes B$. Use your surjectivity argument to show that $Atimes B$ is the coproduct of $A$ and $B$. Then, given any pair of homomorphisms from $Ato M$ and $Bto M$ there will be a unique homomorphism from the coproduct to $M$.
– John Douma
Nov 21 at 17:27










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










The map you are defining doesn't make sense. You don't need to worry about well-defined-ness of the map as there aren't any equivalence relations around to muck things up. Whatever you define that map to be at an element, will be fine because it not like there are a whole bunch of representatives of that element that could change the expression depending on which ones you pick.



More to the point however, it doesn't make sense to form the sum $varphi_1 + varphi_2$ when the domain of $varphi_1$ is $A$ and the domain of $varphi_2$ is $B$. Remember that addition of functions is typically defined pointwise, which can only make sense if those functions share the same domain. If you want to combine those two functions in a different manner than pointwise addition, then you need to indicate that by not using the addition symbol.



I'm not going to spend a lot of time reviewing that argument because it's a bit confusing and hard to read. But I can help guide you through the right process to show the necessary bijection. Given two functions $phi_1: A to M$ and $phi_2: B to M$, define $f(phi_1,phi_2)$ to be the function from $A times B$ to $M$ defined by $f(phi_1,phi_2)(a,b) = phi_1(a)+phi_2(b)$. Note that this is not a pointwise sum, and there is no need to argue about well-definedness.



Now we just need to exhibit an inverse map for $f$. In this case, this will be slicker than trying to argue for injectivity and surjectivity of $f$ directly. Given a function $phi: A times B to M$, we define $phi_1(a) = phi(a,0)$ and $phi_2(b) = phi(0,b)$ for all $a in A$, $b in B$. Then we define $g(phi)$ to be the ordered pair $(phi_1,phi_2) in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M) times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$. Then we have that $g(f(phi_1,phi_2) = g(phi) = (phi_1,phi_2)$ and $f(g(phi)) = f(phi_1,phi_2) = phi$ and so these maps really are inverses of each other. Therefore we are done.






share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Showing injectivity amounts to showing that the inverse map is well defined.



    Let $F^{-1}$ be the inverse with $F(phi) = (phi_1, phi_2)$ with $phi_1(x)=phi(x, 0)$ and $phi_2(y) = phi(0,y)$. This map is obviousy well-defined, so $F$ is injective.



    Edit: I realize that assuming $F^{-1}$ exists is begging the question. However, the proposition is easier to prove, in my opinion, starting with what I called $F^{-1}$.






    share|cite|improve this answer






























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      Define the inclusion maps $i_A:Ato Atimes B$ by $i_A(a)=(a,0)$ and $i_B:Bto M$ by $i_B(b)=(0,b)$.



      As you mentioned, these are module homomorphisms.



      Given $fin Hom(Atimes B,M)$, Let $F(f)=(fcirc i_A, fcirc i_B)$. Since both components are the composition of homomorphisms, each component is a homomorphism.



      Given $(phi, psi)in Hom(A,M)times Hom(B,M)$, define $G(phi,psi)$ by $G(phi,psi)(a,b)=phi(a)+psi(b)$.



      Then $(Gcirc F)(f)=G(fcirc i_A, fcirc i_B)=fcirc i_A + fcirc i_B$.



      $(fcirc i_A + fcirc i_B)(a,b)=fcirc i_A(a)+fcirc i_B(b)=f(a,0)+f(0,b)=f(a,b)$.



      Therefore, $(Gcirc F)(f)=f$.



      $(Fcirc G)(phi,psi)=F(phi+psi)=((phi+psi)i_A, ((phi+psi)i_B)$.



      $(phi+psi)i_A(a)=(phi+psi)(a,0)=phi(a)$.



      Likewise,$(phi+psi)i_B(b)=(phi+psi)(0,b)=psi(b)$.



      Therefor, $(Fcirc G)(phi,psi)=(phi, psi)$.



      Therefore, $F$ and $G$ are inverses of each other so they are isomorphisms.






      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%2f3007992%2fhow-to-show-that-texthom-ra-times-b-m-cong-texthom-ra-m-times-text%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted










        The map you are defining doesn't make sense. You don't need to worry about well-defined-ness of the map as there aren't any equivalence relations around to muck things up. Whatever you define that map to be at an element, will be fine because it not like there are a whole bunch of representatives of that element that could change the expression depending on which ones you pick.



        More to the point however, it doesn't make sense to form the sum $varphi_1 + varphi_2$ when the domain of $varphi_1$ is $A$ and the domain of $varphi_2$ is $B$. Remember that addition of functions is typically defined pointwise, which can only make sense if those functions share the same domain. If you want to combine those two functions in a different manner than pointwise addition, then you need to indicate that by not using the addition symbol.



        I'm not going to spend a lot of time reviewing that argument because it's a bit confusing and hard to read. But I can help guide you through the right process to show the necessary bijection. Given two functions $phi_1: A to M$ and $phi_2: B to M$, define $f(phi_1,phi_2)$ to be the function from $A times B$ to $M$ defined by $f(phi_1,phi_2)(a,b) = phi_1(a)+phi_2(b)$. Note that this is not a pointwise sum, and there is no need to argue about well-definedness.



        Now we just need to exhibit an inverse map for $f$. In this case, this will be slicker than trying to argue for injectivity and surjectivity of $f$ directly. Given a function $phi: A times B to M$, we define $phi_1(a) = phi(a,0)$ and $phi_2(b) = phi(0,b)$ for all $a in A$, $b in B$. Then we define $g(phi)$ to be the ordered pair $(phi_1,phi_2) in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M) times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$. Then we have that $g(f(phi_1,phi_2) = g(phi) = (phi_1,phi_2)$ and $f(g(phi)) = f(phi_1,phi_2) = phi$ and so these maps really are inverses of each other. Therefore we are done.






        share|cite|improve this answer



























          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          The map you are defining doesn't make sense. You don't need to worry about well-defined-ness of the map as there aren't any equivalence relations around to muck things up. Whatever you define that map to be at an element, will be fine because it not like there are a whole bunch of representatives of that element that could change the expression depending on which ones you pick.



          More to the point however, it doesn't make sense to form the sum $varphi_1 + varphi_2$ when the domain of $varphi_1$ is $A$ and the domain of $varphi_2$ is $B$. Remember that addition of functions is typically defined pointwise, which can only make sense if those functions share the same domain. If you want to combine those two functions in a different manner than pointwise addition, then you need to indicate that by not using the addition symbol.



          I'm not going to spend a lot of time reviewing that argument because it's a bit confusing and hard to read. But I can help guide you through the right process to show the necessary bijection. Given two functions $phi_1: A to M$ and $phi_2: B to M$, define $f(phi_1,phi_2)$ to be the function from $A times B$ to $M$ defined by $f(phi_1,phi_2)(a,b) = phi_1(a)+phi_2(b)$. Note that this is not a pointwise sum, and there is no need to argue about well-definedness.



          Now we just need to exhibit an inverse map for $f$. In this case, this will be slicker than trying to argue for injectivity and surjectivity of $f$ directly. Given a function $phi: A times B to M$, we define $phi_1(a) = phi(a,0)$ and $phi_2(b) = phi(0,b)$ for all $a in A$, $b in B$. Then we define $g(phi)$ to be the ordered pair $(phi_1,phi_2) in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M) times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$. Then we have that $g(f(phi_1,phi_2) = g(phi) = (phi_1,phi_2)$ and $f(g(phi)) = f(phi_1,phi_2) = phi$ and so these maps really are inverses of each other. Therefore we are done.






          share|cite|improve this answer

























            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted






            The map you are defining doesn't make sense. You don't need to worry about well-defined-ness of the map as there aren't any equivalence relations around to muck things up. Whatever you define that map to be at an element, will be fine because it not like there are a whole bunch of representatives of that element that could change the expression depending on which ones you pick.



            More to the point however, it doesn't make sense to form the sum $varphi_1 + varphi_2$ when the domain of $varphi_1$ is $A$ and the domain of $varphi_2$ is $B$. Remember that addition of functions is typically defined pointwise, which can only make sense if those functions share the same domain. If you want to combine those two functions in a different manner than pointwise addition, then you need to indicate that by not using the addition symbol.



            I'm not going to spend a lot of time reviewing that argument because it's a bit confusing and hard to read. But I can help guide you through the right process to show the necessary bijection. Given two functions $phi_1: A to M$ and $phi_2: B to M$, define $f(phi_1,phi_2)$ to be the function from $A times B$ to $M$ defined by $f(phi_1,phi_2)(a,b) = phi_1(a)+phi_2(b)$. Note that this is not a pointwise sum, and there is no need to argue about well-definedness.



            Now we just need to exhibit an inverse map for $f$. In this case, this will be slicker than trying to argue for injectivity and surjectivity of $f$ directly. Given a function $phi: A times B to M$, we define $phi_1(a) = phi(a,0)$ and $phi_2(b) = phi(0,b)$ for all $a in A$, $b in B$. Then we define $g(phi)$ to be the ordered pair $(phi_1,phi_2) in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M) times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$. Then we have that $g(f(phi_1,phi_2) = g(phi) = (phi_1,phi_2)$ and $f(g(phi)) = f(phi_1,phi_2) = phi$ and so these maps really are inverses of each other. Therefore we are done.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            The map you are defining doesn't make sense. You don't need to worry about well-defined-ness of the map as there aren't any equivalence relations around to muck things up. Whatever you define that map to be at an element, will be fine because it not like there are a whole bunch of representatives of that element that could change the expression depending on which ones you pick.



            More to the point however, it doesn't make sense to form the sum $varphi_1 + varphi_2$ when the domain of $varphi_1$ is $A$ and the domain of $varphi_2$ is $B$. Remember that addition of functions is typically defined pointwise, which can only make sense if those functions share the same domain. If you want to combine those two functions in a different manner than pointwise addition, then you need to indicate that by not using the addition symbol.



            I'm not going to spend a lot of time reviewing that argument because it's a bit confusing and hard to read. But I can help guide you through the right process to show the necessary bijection. Given two functions $phi_1: A to M$ and $phi_2: B to M$, define $f(phi_1,phi_2)$ to be the function from $A times B$ to $M$ defined by $f(phi_1,phi_2)(a,b) = phi_1(a)+phi_2(b)$. Note that this is not a pointwise sum, and there is no need to argue about well-definedness.



            Now we just need to exhibit an inverse map for $f$. In this case, this will be slicker than trying to argue for injectivity and surjectivity of $f$ directly. Given a function $phi: A times B to M$, we define $phi_1(a) = phi(a,0)$ and $phi_2(b) = phi(0,b)$ for all $a in A$, $b in B$. Then we define $g(phi)$ to be the ordered pair $(phi_1,phi_2) in operatorname{Hom}_R(A,M) times operatorname{Hom}_R(B,M)$. Then we have that $g(f(phi_1,phi_2) = g(phi) = (phi_1,phi_2)$ and $f(g(phi)) = f(phi_1,phi_2) = phi$ and so these maps really are inverses of each other. Therefore we are done.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Nov 21 at 20:48









            quid

            36.8k95093




            36.8k95093










            answered Nov 21 at 19:38









            Monstrous Moonshiner

            2,25511337




            2,25511337






















                up vote
                1
                down vote













                Showing injectivity amounts to showing that the inverse map is well defined.



                Let $F^{-1}$ be the inverse with $F(phi) = (phi_1, phi_2)$ with $phi_1(x)=phi(x, 0)$ and $phi_2(y) = phi(0,y)$. This map is obviousy well-defined, so $F$ is injective.



                Edit: I realize that assuming $F^{-1}$ exists is begging the question. However, the proposition is easier to prove, in my opinion, starting with what I called $F^{-1}$.






                share|cite|improve this answer



























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  Showing injectivity amounts to showing that the inverse map is well defined.



                  Let $F^{-1}$ be the inverse with $F(phi) = (phi_1, phi_2)$ with $phi_1(x)=phi(x, 0)$ and $phi_2(y) = phi(0,y)$. This map is obviousy well-defined, so $F$ is injective.



                  Edit: I realize that assuming $F^{-1}$ exists is begging the question. However, the proposition is easier to prove, in my opinion, starting with what I called $F^{-1}$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    Showing injectivity amounts to showing that the inverse map is well defined.



                    Let $F^{-1}$ be the inverse with $F(phi) = (phi_1, phi_2)$ with $phi_1(x)=phi(x, 0)$ and $phi_2(y) = phi(0,y)$. This map is obviousy well-defined, so $F$ is injective.



                    Edit: I realize that assuming $F^{-1}$ exists is begging the question. However, the proposition is easier to prove, in my opinion, starting with what I called $F^{-1}$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    Showing injectivity amounts to showing that the inverse map is well defined.



                    Let $F^{-1}$ be the inverse with $F(phi) = (phi_1, phi_2)$ with $phi_1(x)=phi(x, 0)$ and $phi_2(y) = phi(0,y)$. This map is obviousy well-defined, so $F$ is injective.



                    Edit: I realize that assuming $F^{-1}$ exists is begging the question. However, the proposition is easier to prove, in my opinion, starting with what I called $F^{-1}$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Nov 21 at 19:46

























                    answered Nov 21 at 19:28









                    Lukas Kofler

                    1,2902519




                    1,2902519






















                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        Define the inclusion maps $i_A:Ato Atimes B$ by $i_A(a)=(a,0)$ and $i_B:Bto M$ by $i_B(b)=(0,b)$.



                        As you mentioned, these are module homomorphisms.



                        Given $fin Hom(Atimes B,M)$, Let $F(f)=(fcirc i_A, fcirc i_B)$. Since both components are the composition of homomorphisms, each component is a homomorphism.



                        Given $(phi, psi)in Hom(A,M)times Hom(B,M)$, define $G(phi,psi)$ by $G(phi,psi)(a,b)=phi(a)+psi(b)$.



                        Then $(Gcirc F)(f)=G(fcirc i_A, fcirc i_B)=fcirc i_A + fcirc i_B$.



                        $(fcirc i_A + fcirc i_B)(a,b)=fcirc i_A(a)+fcirc i_B(b)=f(a,0)+f(0,b)=f(a,b)$.



                        Therefore, $(Gcirc F)(f)=f$.



                        $(Fcirc G)(phi,psi)=F(phi+psi)=((phi+psi)i_A, ((phi+psi)i_B)$.



                        $(phi+psi)i_A(a)=(phi+psi)(a,0)=phi(a)$.



                        Likewise,$(phi+psi)i_B(b)=(phi+psi)(0,b)=psi(b)$.



                        Therefor, $(Fcirc G)(phi,psi)=(phi, psi)$.



                        Therefore, $F$ and $G$ are inverses of each other so they are isomorphisms.






                        share|cite|improve this answer



























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          Define the inclusion maps $i_A:Ato Atimes B$ by $i_A(a)=(a,0)$ and $i_B:Bto M$ by $i_B(b)=(0,b)$.



                          As you mentioned, these are module homomorphisms.



                          Given $fin Hom(Atimes B,M)$, Let $F(f)=(fcirc i_A, fcirc i_B)$. Since both components are the composition of homomorphisms, each component is a homomorphism.



                          Given $(phi, psi)in Hom(A,M)times Hom(B,M)$, define $G(phi,psi)$ by $G(phi,psi)(a,b)=phi(a)+psi(b)$.



                          Then $(Gcirc F)(f)=G(fcirc i_A, fcirc i_B)=fcirc i_A + fcirc i_B$.



                          $(fcirc i_A + fcirc i_B)(a,b)=fcirc i_A(a)+fcirc i_B(b)=f(a,0)+f(0,b)=f(a,b)$.



                          Therefore, $(Gcirc F)(f)=f$.



                          $(Fcirc G)(phi,psi)=F(phi+psi)=((phi+psi)i_A, ((phi+psi)i_B)$.



                          $(phi+psi)i_A(a)=(phi+psi)(a,0)=phi(a)$.



                          Likewise,$(phi+psi)i_B(b)=(phi+psi)(0,b)=psi(b)$.



                          Therefor, $(Fcirc G)(phi,psi)=(phi, psi)$.



                          Therefore, $F$ and $G$ are inverses of each other so they are isomorphisms.






                          share|cite|improve this answer

























                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote









                            Define the inclusion maps $i_A:Ato Atimes B$ by $i_A(a)=(a,0)$ and $i_B:Bto M$ by $i_B(b)=(0,b)$.



                            As you mentioned, these are module homomorphisms.



                            Given $fin Hom(Atimes B,M)$, Let $F(f)=(fcirc i_A, fcirc i_B)$. Since both components are the composition of homomorphisms, each component is a homomorphism.



                            Given $(phi, psi)in Hom(A,M)times Hom(B,M)$, define $G(phi,psi)$ by $G(phi,psi)(a,b)=phi(a)+psi(b)$.



                            Then $(Gcirc F)(f)=G(fcirc i_A, fcirc i_B)=fcirc i_A + fcirc i_B$.



                            $(fcirc i_A + fcirc i_B)(a,b)=fcirc i_A(a)+fcirc i_B(b)=f(a,0)+f(0,b)=f(a,b)$.



                            Therefore, $(Gcirc F)(f)=f$.



                            $(Fcirc G)(phi,psi)=F(phi+psi)=((phi+psi)i_A, ((phi+psi)i_B)$.



                            $(phi+psi)i_A(a)=(phi+psi)(a,0)=phi(a)$.



                            Likewise,$(phi+psi)i_B(b)=(phi+psi)(0,b)=psi(b)$.



                            Therefor, $(Fcirc G)(phi,psi)=(phi, psi)$.



                            Therefore, $F$ and $G$ are inverses of each other so they are isomorphisms.






                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            Define the inclusion maps $i_A:Ato Atimes B$ by $i_A(a)=(a,0)$ and $i_B:Bto M$ by $i_B(b)=(0,b)$.



                            As you mentioned, these are module homomorphisms.



                            Given $fin Hom(Atimes B,M)$, Let $F(f)=(fcirc i_A, fcirc i_B)$. Since both components are the composition of homomorphisms, each component is a homomorphism.



                            Given $(phi, psi)in Hom(A,M)times Hom(B,M)$, define $G(phi,psi)$ by $G(phi,psi)(a,b)=phi(a)+psi(b)$.



                            Then $(Gcirc F)(f)=G(fcirc i_A, fcirc i_B)=fcirc i_A + fcirc i_B$.



                            $(fcirc i_A + fcirc i_B)(a,b)=fcirc i_A(a)+fcirc i_B(b)=f(a,0)+f(0,b)=f(a,b)$.



                            Therefore, $(Gcirc F)(f)=f$.



                            $(Fcirc G)(phi,psi)=F(phi+psi)=((phi+psi)i_A, ((phi+psi)i_B)$.



                            $(phi+psi)i_A(a)=(phi+psi)(a,0)=phi(a)$.



                            Likewise,$(phi+psi)i_B(b)=(phi+psi)(0,b)=psi(b)$.



                            Therefor, $(Fcirc G)(phi,psi)=(phi, psi)$.



                            Therefore, $F$ and $G$ are inverses of each other so they are isomorphisms.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Nov 21 at 20:45

























                            answered Nov 21 at 18:41









                            John Douma

                            5,13611319




                            5,13611319






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007992%2fhow-to-show-that-texthom-ra-times-b-m-cong-texthom-ra-m-times-text%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

                                Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

                                Aardman Animations

                                Are they similar matrix