Here is the question I want to answer:
Let $\varphi : R \rightarrow S$ be a surjective homomorphism of commutative rings. Show that, if $R$ is Noetherian, then $S$ is Noetherian.
Here is a trial to the solution:
Let $\varphi : R \rightarrow S$ be a surjective homomorphism of commutative rings and assume that $R$ is Noetherian. We want to show that $S$ is Noetherian.
Now, since we know the following definition of a Noetherian ring : a commutative ring $S$ is Noetherian iff it satisfies the $ACC$ condition. And since we know that a commutative ring $S$ has the ascending chain condition $(ACC),$ if, for every ascending chain of ideals $$I_1 \subset I_2 \subset I_3 \subset \dots $$ in $S,$ there is an $N > 0,$ so that $I_n = I_{n+1}$ for $n \geq N.$
So, let $I_1 \subset I_2 \subset I_3 \subset \dots $ be an ascending chain of ideals in $S,$ Now since we have a surjective ring homomorphism, then the preimage of the ideal $I_k$ in $S$ (i.e. $f^{-1}(I_k)$) is an ideal of $R$(to be proved at the end). And similarly for all other ideals. So we get the following ascending (we will prove later why it is ascending) chain of ideals in $R,$ $$f^{-1}(I_1) \subset f^{-1}(I_2) \subset f^{-1}(I_3) \subset \dots \subset f^{-1}(I_k) \subset \dots $$
Now, since by assumption, $R$ is Noetherian, so its ascending chain of ideals terminate. That is $\exists N \in \mathbb Z$ such that $f^{-1}(I_n) = f^{-1}(I_{n+1})$ for all $n \geq N.$
Now since $f$ is surjective, we have $$f (f^{-1}(I_k)) = I_k, \quad \forall k > 0.$$
Therefore, it follows that we have $$ I_n = I_{n+1}, \quad \forall n \geq N.$$ So, each ascending chain of ideals of $S$ terminates, as we have taken an arbitrary ascending chain of $S$ and so $S$ is Noetherian as required.
My questions are:
1-Is this proof correct? or we should prove that $S$ is left Noetherian and then right Noetherian? If so, why?
2- why we are sure that we get an ascending chain of ideals in $R$?
As has been pointed out in the comments to the question itself, and is in fact easily seen, the hypothesis that $R$ and $S$ be commutative implies that every ideal in either ring is two-sided, so we needn't separately consider left or right ideals.
It strikes me that the essential fact here is the
Assertion that for surjective homomorphisms
$\varphi:R \to S \tag 1$
the image $\varphi(I)$ of an ideal
$I \subset R \tag 2$
is in fact an ideal in $S$.
It should be noted that if we lift the hypothesis that $\varphi$ is surjective, we still have that
$I = \varphi^{-1}(J) \subset R \tag 3$
is an ideal for any ideal
$J \subset S; \tag 4$
for if
$i_1, i_2 \in I, \tag 5$
we have
$\varphi(i_1), \varphi(i_2) \in J, \tag 7$
whence
$\varphi(i_1 - i_2) = \varphi(i_1) - \varphi(i_2) \in J; \tag 8$
thus
$i_1 - i_2 \in I; \tag 9$
also, for
$r \in R, \tag{10}$
$\varphi(ri_1) = \varphi(r) \varphi(i_1) \in J, \tag{11}$
since $J$ is an ideal; from this,
$r i_1 \in I; \tag{12}$
(9) and (12) together show that $I$ is an ideal in $R$.
The present Assertion is thus in a sense a logical complement of the above result, for it allows the affirmation that $I$ is a ideal if and only if $J$ is in the event of surjective $\varphi$.
Now once again assuming that $\varphi$ is surjective, we let $I$ be an ideal in $R$ and let
$J = \varphi(I) \tag{13}$
as a set. Then for
$j_1, j_2 \in J \tag{14}$
we may find
$i_1, i_2 \in I \tag{15}$
such that
$\varphi(i_1) = j_1, \; \varphi(i_2) = j_2; \tag{16}$
$j_1 - j_2 = \varphi(i_1) - \varphi(i_2) = \varphi(i_1 - i_2) \in J, \tag{17}$
and if
$s \in S, \tag{18}$
using the surjectivity of $\varphi$ we have some
$r \in R \tag{19}$
with
$\varphi(r) = s; \tag{20}$
and now
$sj_1 = \varphi(r) \varphi(i_1) = \varphi(ri_1) \in J, \tag{21}$
since
$ri_1 \in I; \tag{22}$
(17) and (21) in concert show that $J$ is in fact an ideal in $S$, proving the Assertion.
Thus we see that, in the event $\varphi$ is surjective, $I$ is an ideal in $R$ if and only if $J = \varphi(I)$ is an ideal in $S$.
It is a short step from this to the requested result, for if $R$ is Noetherian and $J_k$ is an ascending sequence of ideals in $S$, that is
$J_i \subset J_{i + 1}, \tag{23}$
we can form the corresponding sequence of ideals
$I_i = \varphi^{-1}(J_i) \subset R; \tag{24}$
we know the $I_i$ are ideals in $R$ by virtue of what has just been proven in the above. Now since $R$ is Noetherian, the sequence $I_i$ stabilizes at some point, whence
$\exists n \in \Bbb N, \; I_j = I_n \; \text{for} \; j \ge n; \tag{25}$
from elementary set theory it follows that
$J_j = \varphi(\varphi^{-1}(J_j)) = \varphi(I_j) = \varphi(I_n) = J_n \; \text{for} \; j \ge n, \tag{26}$
which shows the sequence of ideals $J_j$ stabilizes in $S$ and thus that $S$, like $R$, is a Noetherian ring.
Note Added in Edit, Friday 11 December 2020 10:22 PM PST: A few final remarks meant to address our OP Confusion's two closing questions. Yes, the proof given in the text of the question itself appears to be quite correct; indeed, it is for all intents and purposes the same as mine, and I'm pretty damn sure that is OK, so . . . I'm pretty damn sure Confusion's proof is OK as well. There is no need to consider right and left Noetherian rings separately: indeed, since the rings in question are commutative, there is not distinction 'twixt right, left, and two-sided ideals. As for Confusion's second question, that is, how do we know the sequence of ideals (24) (in the notation of my answer) is in fact ascending, note that
$r \in I_i = \varphi^{-1}(J_i) \tag{27}$
implies
$\varphi(r) \in J_i \subset J_{i + 1}, \tag{28}$
whence
$r \in \varphi^{-1}(J_{i + 1}) = I_{i + 1}, \tag{29}$
which shows that
$I_i \subset I_{i + 1}, \tag{30}$
that is, the ideals $I_i$ comprise an ascending chain in $R$. End of Note.