Binomial Theorem & Nilpotent Elements in a Ring: Is (a+b)m+n Nilpotent?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the binomial theorem in the context of nilpotent elements within a ring. The original poster questions whether the expression (a+b)^(m+n) is nilpotent given that a^m = b^n = 0.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the binomial expansion and the conditions under which terms vanish. There is a focus on whether specific terms in the expansion can lead to a conclusion about nilpotency.

Discussion Status

Some participants are clarifying the original question and discussing the implications of the conditions provided. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity in proving nilpotency and a suggestion to articulate reasoning more clearly. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the assumption that a^m = 0 and b^n = 0, but there is a lack of consensus on how these conditions affect the overall expression (a+b)^(m+n).

tom.young84
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I have this question and its a combination of the binomial theorem and nilpotent elements within a ring.

Suppose the following, am=bn=0. Is it necessarily true that (a+b)m+n is nilpotent.

For this question I did the following:

[tex]\sum[/tex]i=0m+n[tex]\binom{m+n}{i}[/tex]am+n-ibi

If i=m, then a=0. Additionally, if i>m a=0.

That's actually as far as I've gotten.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are actually asking whether (a+b)^(m+n)=0. Is that right? If a^m=0, then a^(m+1)=0, a^(m+2)=0 etc etc. Similar for b. All of the terms in your binomial expansion have the general form i*a^k*b^l where (k+l)=(m+n). Is it possible k<m AND l<n?
 
So I was working on this today during a lecture.

(a+b)m+n

Now we go to some arbitrary term in the middle:

am+n-ibi

From here we can notice the following things:
i>n and i=n
If this is true, then we know that b=0 and the whole thing equals zero.
i<n
If this is true, then we know that a=0 from the following:
If i<n then we know i[tex]\leq[/tex]n-1. Then with i subbed in, m+n-(n-1) which equals m+1.

This means that, by substitution, m+1. That makes a=0.

Done?
 
That's more than a little confusing. I mean, you aren't proving a=0 or b=0, you are proving powers of a and b are zero, right? But yes, I think you've got the right idea. You could just state it a lot more clearly.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K