Is this a correct solution to show that the ring $mathbb{R}[x]$ does not embed in $mathbb{C}$
$begingroup$
I know this is not a typical question and I will delete it later.
Here is a question together my answer. Please let me know if my answer is correct. The reason that I am posting this is that I believe my answer is correct but my professor refuses to accept that as a correct answer (with no explanation).
Question: Is it possible to embed the ring $mathbb{R}[x]$ in $mathbb{C}$ ?
My Answer: No. Every element of $mathbb{C}$ is algebraic over $mathbb{R}$ so there is no copy of $mathbb{R}[x]$ in $mathbb{C}$ because $x$ is not algebraic over $mathbb{R}$.
abstract-algebra commutative-algebra extension-field
asked Dec 9 '18 at 14:26
Sara.TSara.T
17610
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I know this is not a typical question and I will delete it later.
Here is a question together my answer. Please let me know if my answer is correct. The reason that I am posting this is that I believe my answer is correct but my professor refuses to accept that as a correct answer (with no explanation).
Question: Is it possible to embed the ring $mathbb{R}[x]$ in $mathbb{C}$ ?
My Answer: No. Every element of $mathbb{C}$ is algebraic over $mathbb{R}$ so there is no copy of $mathbb{R}[x]$ in $mathbb{C}$ because $x$ is not algebraic over $mathbb{R}$.
abstract-algebra commutative-algebra extension-field
asked Dec 9 '18 at 14:26
Sara.TSara.T
17610
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You need to be more precise. Your argument shows that there is no embedding as an $mathbb{R}$-algebra. Actually I think there is an embedding as rings if you assume axiom of choice.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
3
$begingroup$
Why do you intend to delete this question?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 '18 at 14:51
$begingroup$
@JoséCarlosSantos I thought the moderators will close or delete it anyway. Otherwise I would not.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@TobiasKildetoft I see, so my answer is not correct even if there is no embeding.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:03
$begingroup$
@Sara.T As rings, no, as $Bbb{R}$-algebras, yes. So as you've written your question, no.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 15:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I know this is not a typical question and I will delete it later.
Here is a question together my answer. Please let me know if my answer is correct. The reason that I am posting this is that I believe my answer is correct but my professor refuses to accept that as a correct answer (with no explanation).
Question: Is it possible to embed the ring $mathbb{R}[x]$ in $mathbb{C}$ ?
My Answer: No. Every element of $mathbb{C}$ is algebraic over $mathbb{R}$ so there is no copy of $mathbb{R}[x]$ in $mathbb{C}$ because $x$ is not algebraic over $mathbb{R}$.
abstract-algebra commutative-algebra extension-field
asked Dec 9 '18 at 14:26
Sara.TSara.T
17610
$endgroup$
I know this is not a typical question and I will delete it later.
Here is a question together my answer. Please let me know if my answer is correct. The reason that I am posting this is that I believe my answer is correct but my professor refuses to accept that as a correct answer (with no explanation).
Question: Is it possible to embed the ring $mathbb{R}[x]$ in $mathbb{C}$ ?
My Answer: No. Every element of $mathbb{C}$ is algebraic over $mathbb{R}$ so there is no copy of $mathbb{R}[x]$ in $mathbb{C}$ because $x$ is not algebraic over $mathbb{R}$.
abstract-algebra commutative-algebra extension-field
abstract-algebra commutative-algebra extension-field
asked Dec 9 '18 at 14:26
Sara.TSara.T
17610
asked Dec 9 '18 at 14:26
Sara.TSara.T
17610
asked Dec 9 '18 at 14:26
Sara.TSara.T
17610
asked Dec 9 '18 at 14:26
Sara.TSara.T
17610
asked Dec 9 '18 at 14:26
Sara.TSara.T
17610
17610
1
$begingroup$
You need to be more precise. Your argument shows that there is no embedding as an $mathbb{R}$-algebra. Actually I think there is an embedding as rings if you assume axiom of choice.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
3
$begingroup$
Why do you intend to delete this question?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 '18 at 14:51
$begingroup$
@JoséCarlosSantos I thought the moderators will close or delete it anyway. Otherwise I would not.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@TobiasKildetoft I see, so my answer is not correct even if there is no embeding.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:03
$begingroup$
@Sara.T As rings, no, as $Bbb{R}$-algebras, yes. So as you've written your question, no.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 15:06
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
You need to be more precise. Your argument shows that there is no embedding as an $mathbb{R}$-algebra. Actually I think there is an embedding as rings if you assume axiom of choice.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
3
$begingroup$
Why do you intend to delete this question?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 '18 at 14:51
$begingroup$
@JoséCarlosSantos I thought the moderators will close or delete it anyway. Otherwise I would not.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@TobiasKildetoft I see, so my answer is not correct even if there is no embeding.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:03
$begingroup$
@Sara.T As rings, no, as $Bbb{R}$-algebras, yes. So as you've written your question, no.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 15:06
1
1
$begingroup$
You need to be more precise. Your argument shows that there is no embedding as an $mathbb{R}$-algebra. Actually I think there is an embedding as rings if you assume axiom of choice.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
$begingroup$
You need to be more precise. Your argument shows that there is no embedding as an $mathbb{R}$-algebra. Actually I think there is an embedding as rings if you assume axiom of choice.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
3
3
$begingroup$
Why do you intend to delete this question?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 '18 at 14:51
$begingroup$
Why do you intend to delete this question?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 '18 at 14:51
$begingroup$
@JoséCarlosSantos I thought the moderators will close or delete it anyway. Otherwise I would not.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@JoséCarlosSantos I thought the moderators will close or delete it anyway. Otherwise I would not.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@TobiasKildetoft I see, so my answer is not correct even if there is no embeding.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:03
$begingroup$
@TobiasKildetoft I see, so my answer is not correct even if there is no embeding.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:03
$begingroup$
@Sara.T As rings, no, as $Bbb{R}$-algebras, yes. So as you've written your question, no.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 15:06
$begingroup$
@Sara.T As rings, no, as $Bbb{R}$-algebras, yes. So as you've written your question, no.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 15:06
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Just to fill in the details of Tobias Kildetoft's comment. Not sure if they'll be useful to you, but I thought it was interesting.
Let's construct an embedding of $Bbb{R}[x]$ into $Bbb{C}$.
Step 1 Observe that the transcendence degree of $Bbb{C}$ over $Bbb{Q}$ is $mathfrak{c}$ (though note that for our argument, it doesn't matter exactly what it is as long as it's infinite).
This follows from simple cardinality arguments. Any field algebraic over a field with an infinite cardinality has the same cardinality. If a field has cardinality $alpha$ and we adjoin a cardinality $beta$'s worth of indeterminates, the result will have cardinality $max{alpha,beta}$.
Step 2 Let $T$ be a transcendence basis for $Bbb{C}$ over $Bbb{Q}$. Since $Bbb{C}$ is algebraically closed and is algebraic over the subfield to $Bbb{Q}(T)$, it is isomorphic to the algebraic closure of $Bbb{Q}(T)$. Choose a proper subset $S$ of $T$ of the same cardinality as $T$. Then the algebraic closure of $Bbb{Q}(S)$ in $Bbb{C}$ is clearly isomorphic to $Bbb{C}$ as rings, since $Bbb{Q}(S)cong Bbb{Q}(T)$, but it is necessarily a proper subset of $Bbb{C}$, and doesn't contain any of the elements in $Tsetminus S$.
Step 3 By step 2, we have a (necessarily injective) ring homomorphism $phi :Bbb{C}toBbb{C}$ which isn't surjective. Let $t in Tsetminus S$. The ring homomorphism $phi$ extends to an injective ring homomorphism
$psi : Bbb{C}[x]to Bbb{C}$ sending $x$ to $t$. Restricting to the obvious subset $Bbb{R}[x]subset Bbb{C}[x]$ we have found an embedding of $Bbb{R}[x]$ into $Bbb{C}$.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 18:07
jgonjgon
15.7k32143
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thanks. How about $mathbb{R}[[x]]$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 20:00
1
$begingroup$
@Sara.T Interesting question, but I'm not sure. You could ask a new question. Since you're still somewhat new to the site, I'll just advise you that if you do ask a new question, it's a good idea to explain that it's a follow up question to this one.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 21:04
add a comment |
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',
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032421%2fis-this-a-correct-solution-to-show-that-the-ring-mathbbrx-does-not-embed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Just to fill in the details of Tobias Kildetoft's comment. Not sure if they'll be useful to you, but I thought it was interesting.
Let's construct an embedding of $Bbb{R}[x]$ into $Bbb{C}$.
Step 1 Observe that the transcendence degree of $Bbb{C}$ over $Bbb{Q}$ is $mathfrak{c}$ (though note that for our argument, it doesn't matter exactly what it is as long as it's infinite).
This follows from simple cardinality arguments. Any field algebraic over a field with an infinite cardinality has the same cardinality. If a field has cardinality $alpha$ and we adjoin a cardinality $beta$'s worth of indeterminates, the result will have cardinality $max{alpha,beta}$.
Step 2 Let $T$ be a transcendence basis for $Bbb{C}$ over $Bbb{Q}$. Since $Bbb{C}$ is algebraically closed and is algebraic over the subfield to $Bbb{Q}(T)$, it is isomorphic to the algebraic closure of $Bbb{Q}(T)$. Choose a proper subset $S$ of $T$ of the same cardinality as $T$. Then the algebraic closure of $Bbb{Q}(S)$ in $Bbb{C}$ is clearly isomorphic to $Bbb{C}$ as rings, since $Bbb{Q}(S)cong Bbb{Q}(T)$, but it is necessarily a proper subset of $Bbb{C}$, and doesn't contain any of the elements in $Tsetminus S$.
Step 3 By step 2, we have a (necessarily injective) ring homomorphism $phi :Bbb{C}toBbb{C}$ which isn't surjective. Let $t in Tsetminus S$. The ring homomorphism $phi$ extends to an injective ring homomorphism
$psi : Bbb{C}[x]to Bbb{C}$ sending $x$ to $t$. Restricting to the obvious subset $Bbb{R}[x]subset Bbb{C}[x]$ we have found an embedding of $Bbb{R}[x]$ into $Bbb{C}$.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 18:07
jgonjgon
15.7k32143
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thanks. How about $mathbb{R}[[x]]$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 20:00
1
$begingroup$
@Sara.T Interesting question, but I'm not sure. You could ask a new question. Since you're still somewhat new to the site, I'll just advise you that if you do ask a new question, it's a good idea to explain that it's a follow up question to this one.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 21:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just to fill in the details of Tobias Kildetoft's comment. Not sure if they'll be useful to you, but I thought it was interesting.
Let's construct an embedding of $Bbb{R}[x]$ into $Bbb{C}$.
Step 1 Observe that the transcendence degree of $Bbb{C}$ over $Bbb{Q}$ is $mathfrak{c}$ (though note that for our argument, it doesn't matter exactly what it is as long as it's infinite).
This follows from simple cardinality arguments. Any field algebraic over a field with an infinite cardinality has the same cardinality. If a field has cardinality $alpha$ and we adjoin a cardinality $beta$'s worth of indeterminates, the result will have cardinality $max{alpha,beta}$.
Step 2 Let $T$ be a transcendence basis for $Bbb{C}$ over $Bbb{Q}$. Since $Bbb{C}$ is algebraically closed and is algebraic over the subfield to $Bbb{Q}(T)$, it is isomorphic to the algebraic closure of $Bbb{Q}(T)$. Choose a proper subset $S$ of $T$ of the same cardinality as $T$. Then the algebraic closure of $Bbb{Q}(S)$ in $Bbb{C}$ is clearly isomorphic to $Bbb{C}$ as rings, since $Bbb{Q}(S)cong Bbb{Q}(T)$, but it is necessarily a proper subset of $Bbb{C}$, and doesn't contain any of the elements in $Tsetminus S$.
Step 3 By step 2, we have a (necessarily injective) ring homomorphism $phi :Bbb{C}toBbb{C}$ which isn't surjective. Let $t in Tsetminus S$. The ring homomorphism $phi$ extends to an injective ring homomorphism
$psi : Bbb{C}[x]to Bbb{C}$ sending $x$ to $t$. Restricting to the obvious subset $Bbb{R}[x]subset Bbb{C}[x]$ we have found an embedding of $Bbb{R}[x]$ into $Bbb{C}$.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 18:07
jgonjgon
15.7k32143
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thanks. How about $mathbb{R}[[x]]$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 20:00
1
$begingroup$
@Sara.T Interesting question, but I'm not sure. You could ask a new question. Since you're still somewhat new to the site, I'll just advise you that if you do ask a new question, it's a good idea to explain that it's a follow up question to this one.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 21:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just to fill in the details of Tobias Kildetoft's comment. Not sure if they'll be useful to you, but I thought it was interesting.
Let's construct an embedding of $Bbb{R}[x]$ into $Bbb{C}$.
Step 1 Observe that the transcendence degree of $Bbb{C}$ over $Bbb{Q}$ is $mathfrak{c}$ (though note that for our argument, it doesn't matter exactly what it is as long as it's infinite).
This follows from simple cardinality arguments. Any field algebraic over a field with an infinite cardinality has the same cardinality. If a field has cardinality $alpha$ and we adjoin a cardinality $beta$'s worth of indeterminates, the result will have cardinality $max{alpha,beta}$.
Step 2 Let $T$ be a transcendence basis for $Bbb{C}$ over $Bbb{Q}$. Since $Bbb{C}$ is algebraically closed and is algebraic over the subfield to $Bbb{Q}(T)$, it is isomorphic to the algebraic closure of $Bbb{Q}(T)$. Choose a proper subset $S$ of $T$ of the same cardinality as $T$. Then the algebraic closure of $Bbb{Q}(S)$ in $Bbb{C}$ is clearly isomorphic to $Bbb{C}$ as rings, since $Bbb{Q}(S)cong Bbb{Q}(T)$, but it is necessarily a proper subset of $Bbb{C}$, and doesn't contain any of the elements in $Tsetminus S$.
Step 3 By step 2, we have a (necessarily injective) ring homomorphism $phi :Bbb{C}toBbb{C}$ which isn't surjective. Let $t in Tsetminus S$. The ring homomorphism $phi$ extends to an injective ring homomorphism
$psi : Bbb{C}[x]to Bbb{C}$ sending $x$ to $t$. Restricting to the obvious subset $Bbb{R}[x]subset Bbb{C}[x]$ we have found an embedding of $Bbb{R}[x]$ into $Bbb{C}$.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 18:07
jgonjgon
15.7k32143
$endgroup$
Just to fill in the details of Tobias Kildetoft's comment. Not sure if they'll be useful to you, but I thought it was interesting.
Let's construct an embedding of $Bbb{R}[x]$ into $Bbb{C}$.
Step 1 Observe that the transcendence degree of $Bbb{C}$ over $Bbb{Q}$ is $mathfrak{c}$ (though note that for our argument, it doesn't matter exactly what it is as long as it's infinite).
This follows from simple cardinality arguments. Any field algebraic over a field with an infinite cardinality has the same cardinality. If a field has cardinality $alpha$ and we adjoin a cardinality $beta$'s worth of indeterminates, the result will have cardinality $max{alpha,beta}$.
Step 2 Let $T$ be a transcendence basis for $Bbb{C}$ over $Bbb{Q}$. Since $Bbb{C}$ is algebraically closed and is algebraic over the subfield to $Bbb{Q}(T)$, it is isomorphic to the algebraic closure of $Bbb{Q}(T)$. Choose a proper subset $S$ of $T$ of the same cardinality as $T$. Then the algebraic closure of $Bbb{Q}(S)$ in $Bbb{C}$ is clearly isomorphic to $Bbb{C}$ as rings, since $Bbb{Q}(S)cong Bbb{Q}(T)$, but it is necessarily a proper subset of $Bbb{C}$, and doesn't contain any of the elements in $Tsetminus S$.
Step 3 By step 2, we have a (necessarily injective) ring homomorphism $phi :Bbb{C}toBbb{C}$ which isn't surjective. Let $t in Tsetminus S$. The ring homomorphism $phi$ extends to an injective ring homomorphism
$psi : Bbb{C}[x]to Bbb{C}$ sending $x$ to $t$. Restricting to the obvious subset $Bbb{R}[x]subset Bbb{C}[x]$ we have found an embedding of $Bbb{R}[x]$ into $Bbb{C}$.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 18:07
jgonjgon
15.7k32143
edited Dec 9 '18 at 18:12
answered Dec 9 '18 at 18:07
jgonjgon
15.7k32143
answered Dec 9 '18 at 18:07
jgonjgon
15.7k32143
answered Dec 9 '18 at 18:07
jgonjgon
15.7k32143
15.7k32143
$begingroup$
thanks. How about $mathbb{R}[[x]]$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 20:00
1
$begingroup$
@Sara.T Interesting question, but I'm not sure. You could ask a new question. Since you're still somewhat new to the site, I'll just advise you that if you do ask a new question, it's a good idea to explain that it's a follow up question to this one.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 21:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
thanks. How about $mathbb{R}[[x]]$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 20:00
1
$begingroup$
@Sara.T Interesting question, but I'm not sure. You could ask a new question. Since you're still somewhat new to the site, I'll just advise you that if you do ask a new question, it's a good idea to explain that it's a follow up question to this one.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 21:04
$begingroup$
thanks. How about $mathbb{R}[[x]]$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 20:00
$begingroup$
thanks. How about $mathbb{R}[[x]]$ ?
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 20:00
1
1
$begingroup$
@Sara.T Interesting question, but I'm not sure. You could ask a new question. Since you're still somewhat new to the site, I'll just advise you that if you do ask a new question, it's a good idea to explain that it's a follow up question to this one.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 21:04
$begingroup$
@Sara.T Interesting question, but I'm not sure. You could ask a new question. Since you're still somewhat new to the site, I'll just advise you that if you do ask a new question, it's a good idea to explain that it's a follow up question to this one.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 21:04
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032421%2fis-this-a-correct-solution-to-show-that-the-ring-mathbbrx-does-not-embed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
$begingroup$
You need to be more precise. Your argument shows that there is no embedding as an $mathbb{R}$-algebra. Actually I think there is an embedding as rings if you assume axiom of choice.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 9 '18 at 14:42
3
$begingroup$
Why do you intend to delete this question?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 9 '18 at 14:51
$begingroup$
@JoséCarlosSantos I thought the moderators will close or delete it anyway. Otherwise I would not.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:01
$begingroup$
@TobiasKildetoft I see, so my answer is not correct even if there is no embeding.
$endgroup$
– Sara.T
Dec 9 '18 at 15:03
$begingroup$
@Sara.T As rings, no, as $Bbb{R}$-algebras, yes. So as you've written your question, no.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Dec 9 '18 at 15:06