Categorical characterizations of ring properties

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
6
down vote

favorite

3

Looking at the interesting list of ring properties that are inherited from a ring $mathcal{R}$ by its polynomial ring $mathcal{R}$[X] and remembering a question I once asked I want to repeat the latter in a more general way:

Can you give ring properties with catchy categorical
characterizations like these:

  • A ring $mathcal{R}$ has the structure of $mathbb{Z}$ iff it is an initial object in the category of rings.

  • A ring $mathcal{R}$ has characteristic $0$ iff the morphism from $mathbb{Z}$ is a monomorphism.

What about being commutative, factorial, Noetherian, Abelian, or an integral domain?

[Note that the property of having a multiplicative identity (i.e. of being unital) doesn’t have to be defined, because it’s presupposed in the category of rings.]


List of characterizations from the answers below:

  • A ring $mathcal{R}$ is Noetherian iff every ascending chain of strong epimorphisms is stationary.

  • A ring $mathcal{R}$ is finitely presented iff it is a compact object.

share|cite|improve this question

    up vote
    6
    down vote

    favorite

    3

    Looking at the interesting list of ring properties that are inherited from a ring $mathcal{R}$ by its polynomial ring $mathcal{R}$[X] and remembering a question I once asked I want to repeat the latter in a more general way:

    Can you give ring properties with catchy categorical
    characterizations like these:

    • A ring $mathcal{R}$ has the structure of $mathbb{Z}$ iff it is an initial object in the category of rings.

    • A ring $mathcal{R}$ has characteristic $0$ iff the morphism from $mathbb{Z}$ is a monomorphism.

    What about being commutative, factorial, Noetherian, Abelian, or an integral domain?

    [Note that the property of having a multiplicative identity (i.e. of being unital) doesn’t have to be defined, because it’s presupposed in the category of rings.]


    List of characterizations from the answers below:

    • A ring $mathcal{R}$ is Noetherian iff every ascending chain of strong epimorphisms is stationary.

    • A ring $mathcal{R}$ is finitely presented iff it is a compact object.

    share|cite|improve this question

      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite

      3

      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite

      3
      3

      Looking at the interesting list of ring properties that are inherited from a ring $mathcal{R}$ by its polynomial ring $mathcal{R}$[X] and remembering a question I once asked I want to repeat the latter in a more general way:

      Can you give ring properties with catchy categorical
      characterizations like these:

      • A ring $mathcal{R}$ has the structure of $mathbb{Z}$ iff it is an initial object in the category of rings.

      • A ring $mathcal{R}$ has characteristic $0$ iff the morphism from $mathbb{Z}$ is a monomorphism.

      What about being commutative, factorial, Noetherian, Abelian, or an integral domain?

      [Note that the property of having a multiplicative identity (i.e. of being unital) doesn’t have to be defined, because it’s presupposed in the category of rings.]


      List of characterizations from the answers below:

      • A ring $mathcal{R}$ is Noetherian iff every ascending chain of strong epimorphisms is stationary.

      • A ring $mathcal{R}$ is finitely presented iff it is a compact object.

      share|cite|improve this question

      Looking at the interesting list of ring properties that are inherited from a ring $mathcal{R}$ by its polynomial ring $mathcal{R}$[X] and remembering a question I once asked I want to repeat the latter in a more general way:

      Can you give ring properties with catchy categorical
      characterizations like these:

      • A ring $mathcal{R}$ has the structure of $mathbb{Z}$ iff it is an initial object in the category of rings.

      • A ring $mathcal{R}$ has characteristic $0$ iff the morphism from $mathbb{Z}$ is a monomorphism.

      What about being commutative, factorial, Noetherian, Abelian, or an integral domain?

      [Note that the property of having a multiplicative identity (i.e. of being unital) doesn’t have to be defined, because it’s presupposed in the category of rings.]


      List of characterizations from the answers below:

      • A ring $mathcal{R}$ is Noetherian iff every ascending chain of strong epimorphisms is stationary.

      • A ring $mathcal{R}$ is finitely presented iff it is a compact object.

      ring-theory category-theory definition big-list

      share|cite|improve this question

      share|cite|improve this question

      share|cite|improve this question

      share|cite|improve this question

      edited 19 mins ago

      asked 3 hours ago

      Hans Stricker

      4,91113881

      4,91113881

          2 Answers
          2

          active

          oldest

          votes

          up vote
          4
          down vote

          There is a notion of noetherian object in any category, which is simply that every ascending chain of subobjects is stationnary. With this definition, noetherian objects in the category of modules over a ring are simply noetherian modules; however, ideals are not subrings (since in general they do not contain the identity element), so noetherian objects in the category of unital rings are not noetherian rings.

          This is easy to fix, however : every ascending chain of ideals
          $$I_0subset I_1subsetdots subset I_{n}subset I_{n+1}subset dots,$$
          in a ring $R$ induces an ascending chain of quotient rings
          $$R/I_0to R/I_1todotsto R/I_nto R/I_{n+1}to dots$$
          and the original chain of ideals is stationnary if and only if the chain of quotients is. Now quotient maps are just the surjective maps, which are the same thing as strong or regular epimorphisms in the category of rings (or in any “algebraic” category). Thus noetherian rings are precisely those for which every ascending chain of strong epimorphisms is stationnary, which one might call “strongly co-noetherian objects”.

          share|cite|improve this answer

            up vote
            1
            down vote

            The finitely presented rings are the compact objects of the category of rings.
            That is, those objects $R$ such that the functor $hom(R,-)colon mathrm{(Ring)}tomathrm{(Set)}$ preserves filtered colimits.
            In fact, this applies to any variety of algebras, e.g., by Jiří Adámek, Jiří Rosický, Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories, Corollary 3.13.

            share|cite|improve this answer

            • Also see qchu.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/compact-objects and replace modules by rings for a proof.
              – Ben
              22 mins ago

            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: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: “”,
            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%2f2949766%2fcategorical-characterizations-of-ring-properties%23new-answer’, ‘question_page’);
            }
            );

            Post as a guest

            2 Answers
            2

            active

            oldest

            votes

            2 Answers
            2

            active

            oldest

            votes

            active

            oldest

            votes

            active

            oldest

            votes

            up vote
            4
            down vote

            There is a notion of noetherian object in any category, which is simply that every ascending chain of subobjects is stationnary. With this definition, noetherian objects in the category of modules over a ring are simply noetherian modules; however, ideals are not subrings (since in general they do not contain the identity element), so noetherian objects in the category of unital rings are not noetherian rings.

            This is easy to fix, however : every ascending chain of ideals
            $$I_0subset I_1subsetdots subset I_{n}subset I_{n+1}subset dots,$$
            in a ring $R$ induces an ascending chain of quotient rings
            $$R/I_0to R/I_1todotsto R/I_nto R/I_{n+1}to dots$$
            and the original chain of ideals is stationnary if and only if the chain of quotients is. Now quotient maps are just the surjective maps, which are the same thing as strong or regular epimorphisms in the category of rings (or in any “algebraic” category). Thus noetherian rings are precisely those for which every ascending chain of strong epimorphisms is stationnary, which one might call “strongly co-noetherian objects”.

            share|cite|improve this answer

              up vote
              4
              down vote

              There is a notion of noetherian object in any category, which is simply that every ascending chain of subobjects is stationnary. With this definition, noetherian objects in the category of modules over a ring are simply noetherian modules; however, ideals are not subrings (since in general they do not contain the identity element), so noetherian objects in the category of unital rings are not noetherian rings.

              This is easy to fix, however : every ascending chain of ideals
              $$I_0subset I_1subsetdots subset I_{n}subset I_{n+1}subset dots,$$
              in a ring $R$ induces an ascending chain of quotient rings
              $$R/I_0to R/I_1todotsto R/I_nto R/I_{n+1}to dots$$
              and the original chain of ideals is stationnary if and only if the chain of quotients is. Now quotient maps are just the surjective maps, which are the same thing as strong or regular epimorphisms in the category of rings (or in any “algebraic” category). Thus noetherian rings are precisely those for which every ascending chain of strong epimorphisms is stationnary, which one might call “strongly co-noetherian objects”.

              share|cite|improve this answer

                up vote
                4
                down vote

                up vote
                4
                down vote

                There is a notion of noetherian object in any category, which is simply that every ascending chain of subobjects is stationnary. With this definition, noetherian objects in the category of modules over a ring are simply noetherian modules; however, ideals are not subrings (since in general they do not contain the identity element), so noetherian objects in the category of unital rings are not noetherian rings.

                This is easy to fix, however : every ascending chain of ideals
                $$I_0subset I_1subsetdots subset I_{n}subset I_{n+1}subset dots,$$
                in a ring $R$ induces an ascending chain of quotient rings
                $$R/I_0to R/I_1todotsto R/I_nto R/I_{n+1}to dots$$
                and the original chain of ideals is stationnary if and only if the chain of quotients is. Now quotient maps are just the surjective maps, which are the same thing as strong or regular epimorphisms in the category of rings (or in any “algebraic” category). Thus noetherian rings are precisely those for which every ascending chain of strong epimorphisms is stationnary, which one might call “strongly co-noetherian objects”.

                share|cite|improve this answer

                There is a notion of noetherian object in any category, which is simply that every ascending chain of subobjects is stationnary. With this definition, noetherian objects in the category of modules over a ring are simply noetherian modules; however, ideals are not subrings (since in general they do not contain the identity element), so noetherian objects in the category of unital rings are not noetherian rings.

                This is easy to fix, however : every ascending chain of ideals
                $$I_0subset I_1subsetdots subset I_{n}subset I_{n+1}subset dots,$$
                in a ring $R$ induces an ascending chain of quotient rings
                $$R/I_0to R/I_1todotsto R/I_nto R/I_{n+1}to dots$$
                and the original chain of ideals is stationnary if and only if the chain of quotients is. Now quotient maps are just the surjective maps, which are the same thing as strong or regular epimorphisms in the category of rings (or in any “algebraic” category). Thus noetherian rings are precisely those for which every ascending chain of strong epimorphisms is stationnary, which one might call “strongly co-noetherian objects”.

                share|cite|improve this answer

                share|cite|improve this answer

                share|cite|improve this answer

                answered 2 hours ago

                Arnaud D.

                15k52242

                15k52242

                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote

                    The finitely presented rings are the compact objects of the category of rings.
                    That is, those objects $R$ such that the functor $hom(R,-)colon mathrm{(Ring)}tomathrm{(Set)}$ preserves filtered colimits.
                    In fact, this applies to any variety of algebras, e.g., by Jiří Adámek, Jiří Rosický, Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories, Corollary 3.13.

                    share|cite|improve this answer

                    • Also see qchu.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/compact-objects and replace modules by rings for a proof.
                      – Ben
                      22 mins ago

                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote

                    The finitely presented rings are the compact objects of the category of rings.
                    That is, those objects $R$ such that the functor $hom(R,-)colon mathrm{(Ring)}tomathrm{(Set)}$ preserves filtered colimits.
                    In fact, this applies to any variety of algebras, e.g., by Jiří Adámek, Jiří Rosický, Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories, Corollary 3.13.

                    share|cite|improve this answer

                    • Also see qchu.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/compact-objects and replace modules by rings for a proof.
                      – Ben
                      22 mins ago

                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote

                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote

                    The finitely presented rings are the compact objects of the category of rings.
                    That is, those objects $R$ such that the functor $hom(R,-)colon mathrm{(Ring)}tomathrm{(Set)}$ preserves filtered colimits.
                    In fact, this applies to any variety of algebras, e.g., by Jiří Adámek, Jiří Rosický, Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories, Corollary 3.13.

                    share|cite|improve this answer

                    The finitely presented rings are the compact objects of the category of rings.
                    That is, those objects $R$ such that the functor $hom(R,-)colon mathrm{(Ring)}tomathrm{(Set)}$ preserves filtered colimits.
                    In fact, this applies to any variety of algebras, e.g., by Jiří Adámek, Jiří Rosický, Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories, Corollary 3.13.

                    share|cite|improve this answer

                    share|cite|improve this answer

                    share|cite|improve this answer

                    answered 24 mins ago

                    Ben

                    4,03421332

                    4,03421332

                    • Also see qchu.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/compact-objects and replace modules by rings for a proof.
                      – Ben
                      22 mins ago

                    • Also see qchu.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/compact-objects and replace modules by rings for a proof.
                      – Ben
                      22 mins ago

                    Also see qchu.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/compact-objects and replace modules by rings for a proof.
                    – Ben
                    22 mins ago

                    Also see qchu.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/compact-objects and replace modules by rings for a proof.
                    – Ben
                    22 mins ago

                     
                    draft saved
                    draft discarded

                     

                    draft saved

                    draft discarded

                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin(‘.new-post-login’, ‘https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2949766%2fcategorical-characterizations-of-ring-properties%23new-answer’, ‘question_page’);
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest

                    Related Post

                    Leave a Reply

                    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *