Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2543504bf05b1bb

Jump to content

Talk:Fixed-point subring

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 years ago by D.Lazard in topic "More general" definition

"More general" definition

[edit]

For the definition given in the article,

"More generally, if G is a group acting on R, then the subring of R
is called the fixed subring or the ring of invariants",

the group action property (i.e. the properties (gh).r = g.(h.r) and 1.r = r) is not needed for RG to be a subring – indeed, the fact that G is a group isn't even used (the multiplication in G is never used, at least not in proving that RG is a ring); all that is used is that for each g in G, the map rg.r is a ring homomorphism. Therefore the more appropriate context would seem to be that the group G acting on R should be replaced by just a set S of ring automorphisms/endomorphisms of R, so I have added a {citation needed} tag requesting a reference to the definition given in the article.

My guess would be that although the group structure and group action structure are not needed in the definition of RG, they are useful beyond this – e.g., in the situations that rings of invariants arise we probably almost always have such a group action. However I am not familiar with invariant theory so I'm mentioning this just in case the definition in the article is faulty or is given at the incorrect level of generality. Joel Brennan (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

As one considers only the action of automorphisms, a set S acting on R is a subset of the automorphism group of R. So, the fixed points of S are exactly the fixed points of the group generated by S. It follows that restricting the theory to group actions is not really a restriction. D.Lazard (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

(D.Lazard has already answered the question). Somehow tangentially related matter: shouldn't the article called "ring of invariants" instead of fixed-point subring. While accurate and less ambiguous, "fixed-point subring" is less common a term. -- Taku (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article consider two related concepts: the "fixed subring" of a ring automorphism, and the "ring of invariants" of a group of ring automorphisms. The use of "point" in the title is (at least) astonishing, as there is no point in the article, unless one call point every element of every ring. So, I agree with the sugggested move, and suggest also to replace "fixed-point subring" with "fixed subring" everywhere in the article. D.Lazard (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply