Im soooooo close to solving this problem (Rings)

  • Thread starter Thread starter pureouchies4717
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the properties of rings in abstract algebra, specifically regarding zero divisors in a ring R of characteristic m > 0. It establishes that if 1 < gcd(n, m) < m, then n · 1R is a zero divisor. The key insight is that for a ring with characteristic m, the elements n · 1R that are zero correspond to integers n that are multiples of m. To demonstrate that n is a zero divisor, one must find an integer k such that nk is a multiple of m while k is not, leading to the equation n · 1R * k · 1R = 0.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring theory and the definition of a ring
  • Familiarity with the concept of characteristic of a ring
  • Knowledge of greatest common divisor (gcd) and its properties
  • Basic understanding of zero divisors in algebraic structures
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of zero divisors in rings
  • Learn about the implications of ring characteristics on element behavior
  • Explore examples of rings with specific characteristics, such as finite fields
  • Investigate the relationship between gcd and divisibility in algebraic contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in the properties of rings and their applications in algebraic structures.

pureouchies4717
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Question: Let R be a ring of characteristic m > 0, and let n be any
integer. Show that if 1 < gcd(n,m) < m, then n · 1R is a zero divisor



heres what i got out of this:

Let gcd(n,m) = b

1< d < m so m/d = b < m
and d | n


Also, m * 1_R = 0

can someone please offer some insight?
thanks,
nick
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't follow you at all. What is d?

If a ring has characteristic m, then the elements n*1_R which are zero are exactly those with n a multiple of m. So to show n is a zero divisor, you need to find another integer k such that nk is a multiple of m, but k is not, ie, n*1_R k*1_R=0, but k*1_R is not 0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K