Question regarding localization of polynomial ring












3












$begingroup$


I made an exercise that went as follows:
Suppose $R = frac{mathbb{R}[x,y]}{(xy)}$. Define the multiplicative set $$ S = left{ 1 + (xy), x + (xy), x^2 + (xy), ldots right}.$$
In the exercise, I showed that $S^{-1}R cong mathbb{R}[x,x^{-1}].$
My question is as follows: Why don't we just define $R = mathbb{R}[x]$ and consider the multiplicative set $S = left{ 1,x,x^2, ldotsright}$? Wouldn't we also then get $S^{-1}R cong mathbb{R}[x,x^{-1}]$? If so, what is the advantage one gets with the definition used in the exercise, if any?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No advantage. It's an exercise where you have to notice that $x$ becomes invertible in the ring of fractions, and therefore the ideal generated by $xy$ equals the ideal generated by $y$ (which eventually goes to $0$).
    $endgroup$
    – user26857
    Dec 22 '18 at 21:40












  • $begingroup$
    That's what I assumed. Just thought it was strange (and thus perhaps useful) to throw in something that gets annihilated later on. Thanks !
    $endgroup$
    – Greg
    Dec 22 '18 at 21:42






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If the problem is geometric in origin, you might have been originally dealing with functions on two-dimensional real affine space, and then wanted to restrict to only the axis (this corresponds to taking the quotient $Bbb R[x,y]to R$). Then, you might have been interested in functions on these spaces which are invertible on a particular locus (this would correspond to localizing). In the end you have a simpler description of the ring you're working with, but you may want to remember the original perspective when thinking about what the ring "means."
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 22 '18 at 22:05
















3












$begingroup$


I made an exercise that went as follows:
Suppose $R = frac{mathbb{R}[x,y]}{(xy)}$. Define the multiplicative set $$ S = left{ 1 + (xy), x + (xy), x^2 + (xy), ldots right}.$$
In the exercise, I showed that $S^{-1}R cong mathbb{R}[x,x^{-1}].$
My question is as follows: Why don't we just define $R = mathbb{R}[x]$ and consider the multiplicative set $S = left{ 1,x,x^2, ldotsright}$? Wouldn't we also then get $S^{-1}R cong mathbb{R}[x,x^{-1}]$? If so, what is the advantage one gets with the definition used in the exercise, if any?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No advantage. It's an exercise where you have to notice that $x$ becomes invertible in the ring of fractions, and therefore the ideal generated by $xy$ equals the ideal generated by $y$ (which eventually goes to $0$).
    $endgroup$
    – user26857
    Dec 22 '18 at 21:40












  • $begingroup$
    That's what I assumed. Just thought it was strange (and thus perhaps useful) to throw in something that gets annihilated later on. Thanks !
    $endgroup$
    – Greg
    Dec 22 '18 at 21:42






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If the problem is geometric in origin, you might have been originally dealing with functions on two-dimensional real affine space, and then wanted to restrict to only the axis (this corresponds to taking the quotient $Bbb R[x,y]to R$). Then, you might have been interested in functions on these spaces which are invertible on a particular locus (this would correspond to localizing). In the end you have a simpler description of the ring you're working with, but you may want to remember the original perspective when thinking about what the ring "means."
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 22 '18 at 22:05














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


I made an exercise that went as follows:
Suppose $R = frac{mathbb{R}[x,y]}{(xy)}$. Define the multiplicative set $$ S = left{ 1 + (xy), x + (xy), x^2 + (xy), ldots right}.$$
In the exercise, I showed that $S^{-1}R cong mathbb{R}[x,x^{-1}].$
My question is as follows: Why don't we just define $R = mathbb{R}[x]$ and consider the multiplicative set $S = left{ 1,x,x^2, ldotsright}$? Wouldn't we also then get $S^{-1}R cong mathbb{R}[x,x^{-1}]$? If so, what is the advantage one gets with the definition used in the exercise, if any?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I made an exercise that went as follows:
Suppose $R = frac{mathbb{R}[x,y]}{(xy)}$. Define the multiplicative set $$ S = left{ 1 + (xy), x + (xy), x^2 + (xy), ldots right}.$$
In the exercise, I showed that $S^{-1}R cong mathbb{R}[x,x^{-1}].$
My question is as follows: Why don't we just define $R = mathbb{R}[x]$ and consider the multiplicative set $S = left{ 1,x,x^2, ldotsright}$? Wouldn't we also then get $S^{-1}R cong mathbb{R}[x,x^{-1}]$? If so, what is the advantage one gets with the definition used in the exercise, if any?







abstract-algebra commutative-algebra localization






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 22 '18 at 20:54







Greg

















asked Dec 22 '18 at 20:41









GregGreg

183112




183112








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No advantage. It's an exercise where you have to notice that $x$ becomes invertible in the ring of fractions, and therefore the ideal generated by $xy$ equals the ideal generated by $y$ (which eventually goes to $0$).
    $endgroup$
    – user26857
    Dec 22 '18 at 21:40












  • $begingroup$
    That's what I assumed. Just thought it was strange (and thus perhaps useful) to throw in something that gets annihilated later on. Thanks !
    $endgroup$
    – Greg
    Dec 22 '18 at 21:42






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If the problem is geometric in origin, you might have been originally dealing with functions on two-dimensional real affine space, and then wanted to restrict to only the axis (this corresponds to taking the quotient $Bbb R[x,y]to R$). Then, you might have been interested in functions on these spaces which are invertible on a particular locus (this would correspond to localizing). In the end you have a simpler description of the ring you're working with, but you may want to remember the original perspective when thinking about what the ring "means."
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 22 '18 at 22:05














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No advantage. It's an exercise where you have to notice that $x$ becomes invertible in the ring of fractions, and therefore the ideal generated by $xy$ equals the ideal generated by $y$ (which eventually goes to $0$).
    $endgroup$
    – user26857
    Dec 22 '18 at 21:40












  • $begingroup$
    That's what I assumed. Just thought it was strange (and thus perhaps useful) to throw in something that gets annihilated later on. Thanks !
    $endgroup$
    – Greg
    Dec 22 '18 at 21:42






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If the problem is geometric in origin, you might have been originally dealing with functions on two-dimensional real affine space, and then wanted to restrict to only the axis (this corresponds to taking the quotient $Bbb R[x,y]to R$). Then, you might have been interested in functions on these spaces which are invertible on a particular locus (this would correspond to localizing). In the end you have a simpler description of the ring you're working with, but you may want to remember the original perspective when thinking about what the ring "means."
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Dec 22 '18 at 22:05








1




1




$begingroup$
No advantage. It's an exercise where you have to notice that $x$ becomes invertible in the ring of fractions, and therefore the ideal generated by $xy$ equals the ideal generated by $y$ (which eventually goes to $0$).
$endgroup$
– user26857
Dec 22 '18 at 21:40






$begingroup$
No advantage. It's an exercise where you have to notice that $x$ becomes invertible in the ring of fractions, and therefore the ideal generated by $xy$ equals the ideal generated by $y$ (which eventually goes to $0$).
$endgroup$
– user26857
Dec 22 '18 at 21:40














$begingroup$
That's what I assumed. Just thought it was strange (and thus perhaps useful) to throw in something that gets annihilated later on. Thanks !
$endgroup$
– Greg
Dec 22 '18 at 21:42




$begingroup$
That's what I assumed. Just thought it was strange (and thus perhaps useful) to throw in something that gets annihilated later on. Thanks !
$endgroup$
– Greg
Dec 22 '18 at 21:42




2




2




$begingroup$
If the problem is geometric in origin, you might have been originally dealing with functions on two-dimensional real affine space, and then wanted to restrict to only the axis (this corresponds to taking the quotient $Bbb R[x,y]to R$). Then, you might have been interested in functions on these spaces which are invertible on a particular locus (this would correspond to localizing). In the end you have a simpler description of the ring you're working with, but you may want to remember the original perspective when thinking about what the ring "means."
$endgroup$
– Stahl
Dec 22 '18 at 22:05




$begingroup$
If the problem is geometric in origin, you might have been originally dealing with functions on two-dimensional real affine space, and then wanted to restrict to only the axis (this corresponds to taking the quotient $Bbb R[x,y]to R$). Then, you might have been interested in functions on these spaces which are invertible on a particular locus (this would correspond to localizing). In the end you have a simpler description of the ring you're working with, but you may want to remember the original perspective when thinking about what the ring "means."
$endgroup$
– Stahl
Dec 22 '18 at 22:05










0






active

oldest

votes












Your Answer








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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f3049829%2fquestion-regarding-localization-of-polynomial-ring%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3049829%2fquestion-regarding-localization-of-polynomial-ring%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

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa