# Distinctiveness of the set of nxn matrices as a ring

So I know that in general, for the ring of ##n \times n## matrices, if ##AB = 0##, then it is not necessarily true that ##A=0## or ##B=0##. However, in other rings, for example the integers ##\mathbb{Z}##, I know that this statement is true. So what property is the ring of matrices lacking such that it is not true in general?

Related Linear and Abstract Algebra News on Phys.org
fresh_42
Mentor
A ring is called an integral domain, if ##ab = 0 \Longrightarrow a=0 \vee b=0##. Elements ##a## for which there is an element ##b## with ##a \cdot b = 0## are called zero-divisors. So an integral domain is a ring without zero-divisors or more precisely: with ##0## as only zero-divisor. E.g. ##\mathbb{Z}_6## has also zero-divisors, namely ##2## and ##3##. (I'm not quite sure, whether ##0## is excluded in the definition of a zero-divisor or not. It's not really important, but "has no zero-divisors" is a usual phrase, so ##0## is probably excluded.)

FactChecker and Mr Davis 97
A ring is called an integral domain, if ##ab = 0 \Longrightarrow a=0 \vee b=0##. Elements ##a## for which there is an element ##b## with ##a \cdot b = 0## are called zero-divisors. So an integral domain is a ring without zero-divisors or more precisely: with ##0## as only zero-divisor. E.g. ##\mathbb{Z}_6## has also zero-divisors, namely ##2## and ##3##. (I'm not quite sure, whether ##0## is excluded in the definition of a zero-divisor or not. It's not really important, but "has no zero-divisors" is a usual phrase, so ##0## is probably excluded.)
One more question. Why doesn't a subring necessarily have to have the same multiplicative identity as the bigger ring?

fresh_42
Mentor
One more question. Why doesn't a subring necessarily have to have the same multiplicative identity as the bigger ring?
Do you have an example? I can only think of examples like ##n\cdot \mathbb{Z} \subseteq \mathbb{Z}## where the subring has none.
In general, a multiplicative identity doesn't always exist. The multiplicative structure of a ring doesn't need to define a group structure, but if rings are compared like ring and subring and both have a ##1##, then it's usually required to be the same. At least the ##1## in the ring is also a ##1## in the subring, if it's included. If not, and the subring has another element as a ##1## it's getting a bit messy, since this one will act as a ##1## on certain elements of the ring as well - or you have completely different multiplicative structures, in which case one doesn't speak of a subring.

Do you have an example? I can only think of examples like n⋅Z⊆Zn⋅Z⊆Zn\cdot \mathbb{Z} \subseteq \mathbb{Z} where the subring has none.
How about {0,2,4} as a subring of Z6. The multiplicative identity of the subring is 4.

WWGD and fresh_42
WWGD