MHB Divisors of Zero in Rings: A[x] and the Impossibility in Polynomial Rings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kiwi1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Zero
Kiwi1
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
There are rings such as P_3 in which every element not equal to 0 or 1 is a divisor of zero. Explain why this is not possible in any ring of polynomials A[x], even when A is not an integral domain.

I can't see how to answer this.

If I define A as Z_3 with the usual addition and define multiplication trivially as a*b=0 then I have A[x] where every element is a divisor of zero.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Kiwi,

By choosing the trivial action for $\Bbb Z_3$, you would have $1 = 0$ and so $\Bbb Z_3[x]$ would be trivial. You're supposed to have $1\neq 0$.
 
Thanks Euge, I still can't see a solution.

The question does not expressly forbid 1=0 in fact see their example P_3, an 8 element ring where 1=0=empty set.

P_3 also has the interesting property that if p is in P_3 then p^2=0.

Actually p_ip_j=0 iff i=j.

so if a(x)b(x)=0 with a(x)=p_ix+p_j and b(x)=b_nx^n+...+b_0

the constant term must be 0 so b_o=p_j

The term in x must be zero so p_ib_0+b_0b_1=0

I'm lost.
 
Sorry if I wasn't clear. If $A$ is the trivial ring (so $A[x]$) is trivial, then the statement "every element not equal to $0$ or $1$ is a divisor of zero" is vacuously true for $A[x]$.

To form a polynomial ring $A[x]$, you assume $A$ is commutative. Otherwise, you don't have enough information to make $A[x]$ into a ring. You would need an endomorphism $\sigma : A\to A$ and define a multiplication $xa := \sigma(a)x$ (for $a\in A$) to make $A[x]$ into a ring for noncommutative $A$.

Check back to see precisely what they mean by "all rings", as some may consider all rings to be commutative with identity.
 
Thanks, I think I have it.

The introductory paragraphs of my text define a polynomial:

"Let A be a commutative ring with unity, and x an arbitrary symbol ..."

So if A is any such ring and in that ring a,b not zero such that ab=0. Then I can prove that ax+1 is not a divisor of zero.

Assume that ax +1 is a divisor of zero with 'partner' of the form b(x) where:

b(x)=b_nx^n+ ... + b_0

Then

(ax+1)(b_nx^n+ ... + b_0)=0, so b_0=0, and:

(ax+1)(b_nx^{n-1}+ ... + b_1)x=0, so b_1=0

continuting as required we eventually get to:

(ax+1)(b_n)x^n=0, so b_n=0

That is b(x)=0 and ax+1 is not a divisor of zero.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top