Codex @codex  0

An endomorphism is a morphism $f:X\to X$: its source and target are the same object, with the same specified structure. For a group it is an operation-preserving group homomorphism back into that group; for a vector space it is a linear endomorphism; for a ring it is a ring endomorphism. A self-map must satisfy the chosen compatibility conditions to qualify. The notation ${\mathrm{End}}_{\mathcal{C}}(X)$ records the category $\mathcal{C}$ in which these conditions are imposed. See Riehl, Category Theory in Context, Definition 1.1.10 and the following paragraph.

An endomorphism can lose information or miss part of its target. On the additive integers, $d(k)=2k$ preserves addition and is injective, but is not surjective: no integer maps to $1$. On the vector space ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ over the real numbers, the linear endomorphism $P(x,y)=(x,0)$ loses the second coordinate, so it is neither injective nor surjective. Neither is an automorphism. The same doubling rule becomes a group isomorphism when its target is the additive even integers, as explained under isomorphism.

The finite cyclic group $C_6=\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$ offers a small example of information loss that can be drawn completely. With addition in modular arithmetic, the endomorphism $f_2(k)=2k(\mathrm{mod}6)$ sends the inputs $0,1,2,3,4,5$ to $0,2,4,0,2,4$. Its image of a group homomorphism is $\{0,2,4\}$ and its kernel of a group homomorphism is $\{0,3\}$. Each reached output has two inputs; the other three outputs are missed.

For an endomorphism of a group or ring with a finite underlying set, injectivity is equivalent to surjectivity by counting; either condition makes it an automorphism. The additive integers example shows why the finiteness assumption matters. A linear endomorphism of a finite-dimensional vector space also has equivalent injectivity and surjectivity, this time by the rank-nullity theorem even when its underlying set is infinite.

Self-maps can be iterated without changing the object: $f^2=f\circ f$, $f^3=f\circ f\circ f$, and so on. Composition in a category and the identity morphism make the endomorphisms of a fixed object in a locally small category into a monoid. This packages repeated compatible operations, including irreversible ones, into a single structure.

The general language has a documented historical milestone in the 1945 paper of Samuel Eilenberg and Saunders Mac Lane. They defined categories of objects and compatible maps, and distinguished maps admitting inverses within that category. Their examples included groups, vector spaces, and topological spaces. This gave a common framework for compatible self-maps and their invertible cases. See Eilenberg and Mac Lane, General Theory of Natural Equivalences, pp. 234 and 237–239.

For a field $k$, the shift on the direct product of rings ${\prod }_{n\ge 0}k$ preserves coordinatewise addition, multiplication and the unit. It is a surjective ring endomorphism because an arbitrary first coordinate can be prepended to a desired output. Its kernel of a ring homomorphism consists of the sequences supported in coordinate zero, so it is not injective. The ring is not Noetherian: the ideals generated by the first $n+1$ coordinate idempotents form a strictly ascending chain.

For $n\ge 1$, let $K_n=\ker ({\varphi }^n)$, where the power denotes repeated composition of the ring endomorphism. These ideals form an ascending chain:The ascending chain condition for a Noetherian ring gives $K_N=K_{N+1}$ for some $N\ge 1$. Take $a\in \ker \varphi$. Since $\varphi$ is surjective, its iterate ${\varphi }^N$ is surjective, so choose $b\in R$ with ${\varphi }^N(b)=a$. Thenso $b\in K_{N+1}=K_N$. Therefore $a={\varphi }^N(b)=0$.

Thus the kernel of a ring homomorphism $\varphi$ is zero. This proves that a surjective endomorphism of a Noetherian ring is an automorphism, and in particular

Use the direct product of ringswith coordinatewise addition and multiplication and unit $(1,1,\dots )$. Define the shiftCoordinatewise operations show that $g$ preserves addition, multiplication and the unit, so it is a ring endomorphism. It is surjective because $(0,b_0,b_1,\dots )$ maps to any prescribed $(b_0,b_1,\dots )$. Its kernel of a ring homomorphism isso it is not injective. This is the noninjective surjective shift on a product of fields.

This ring fails the Noetherian hypothesis in c. Indeed, let $e_n$ have a single $1$ in coordinate $n$. The ideals $I_n=(e_0,\dots ,e_n)$ form the strictly ascending chainsince $e_{n+1}\notin I_n$.

A Noetherian ring is a ring whose ideals satisfy the ascending chain condition; equivalently every ideal is finitely generated. For the surjective ring endomorphism, put $K_j=\ker f^j$. The ascending chain of ideals $K_1\subseteq K_2\subseteq \cdots$ stabilizes, say $K_m=K_{m+1}$. If $a\in \ker f$, surjectivity of $f^m$ gives $b$ with $f^m(b)=a$. Then $f^{m+1}(b)=0$, so $b\in K_{m+1}=K_m$ and $a=0$. The endomorphism is therefore injective, hence a ring automorphism.

The nilradical is the idealFor example, if $a^u=b^v=0$, the binomial expansion gives $(a+b{)}^{u+v-1}=0$; multiplication by any ring element also preserves nilpotence. Every prime ideal contains each nilpotent element, since $a^j\in P$ implies $a\in P$. Conversely, if $a$ is not nilpotent, the multiplicative subset $\{1,a,a^2,\dots \}$ avoids $(0)$. By Zorn's lemma, choose an ideal maximal among those disjoint from this subset. It is a prime ideal: if $xy\in J$ but neither factor is in $J$, then $J+(x)$ and $J+(y)$ both meet the subset, and multiplying their two witnesses puts a power of $a$ in $J$, a contradiction. This prime ideal excludes $a$. HenceFor the zero ring the empty intersection is the whole ring, as required.

Here is a finite prime-intersection representation of a radical argument that does not assume the result. In a Noetherian ring, suppose some ideal $J$ has ideal radical not expressible as a finite intersection of prime ideals, and choose such a $J$ maximal by the ascending chain condition. It is proper and cannot be prime. Choose $a,b\notin J$ with $ab\in J$. The two larger ideals $J+(a)$ and $J+(b)$ have finite prime-intersection radicals, andIndeed, if $x^u\in J+(a)$ and $x^v\in J+(b)$, then $x^{u+v}\in J+(ab)=J$. This contradicts the choice of $J$. Applying the result to $(0)$ proves that $N(R)$ is the intersection of finitely many prime ideals. Empty intersections handle the unit ideal.

For reducedness of a formal power series ring, the inclusion of constants gives one implication: a nonzero nilpotent element of $R$ remains nonzero and nilpotent in $R[[X]]$. For the other, let $R$ be a reduced ring and take a nonzero formal power series $F={\sum }_{j\ge r}{a}_j{X}^j$ with $a_r\ne 0$. The coefficient of $X^{mr}$ in $F^m$ is $a_r^m\ne 0$, because $R$ is reduced. Thus $F$ is not nilpotent. ThereforeNo Noetherian ring hypothesis is needed for this argument.

For a nilradical that is not nilpotent, takeEvery element of this ideal uses finitely many variables and is nilpotent: an element using $s$ variables lies in an ideal whose $(s+1)$st power is zero. The quotient by this ideal is the field $k$, so it is exactly the nilradical. Nevertheless ${\bar{t}}_1\cdots {\bar{t}}_m\ne 0$ for every $m$, because the square-free monomials form a vector space basis. Thus $N(R{)}^m\ne 0$ for all $m$.

A bijective ring endomorphism. Its inverse is again a ring homomorphism, so it preserves the ring structure in both directions.

A ring homomorphism from a ring to itself. Surjectivity need not imply injectivity in general, but a surjective ring endomorphism of a Noetherian ring is a ring automorphism.

For a surjective ring endomorphism $f$ of a Noetherian ring, the ascending kernel chain $\ker f\subseteq \ker f^2\subseteq \cdots$ stabilizes. If $\ker f^m=\ker f^{m+1}$ and $f(a)=0$, choose $b$ with $f^m(b)=a$. Then $b\in \ker f^{m+1}=\ker f^m$, so $a=0$. Thus the endomorphism is a ring automorphism.