If A is an additive subgroup of a ring R, A is said to be an ideal if Ra is contained in A for all a in A; that is, if every multiple of an element of A is again in A.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Is it true that A is an ideal of R if Ar is contained in A for all r in R? To me it seems like they are equivalent statements but I'm not sure.

Update: Second thought, I believe these are NOT equivalent statements. I'm looking at the proof that explains why if 1 is in A then A = R, and you could not employ this argument under the faulty definition I tried to push. Anyone wanna shed further light on the difference between these statements?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Alternate expression for definition of an Ideal?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Alternate expression definition | Date |
---|---|

I A different way to express the span | Nov 26, 2017 |

Alternating group | Jan 27, 2012 |

Alternating tensor of order 1 | Jun 23, 2011 |

The mapping to alternating tensors | Jun 17, 2011 |

Alternating tensors | Jun 15, 2011 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**