MHB Is a Prime Artinian Ring Simple?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sudharaka
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Rings
Sudharaka
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone, :)

Here's a question that I am struggling find the answer. Any nudge in the correct direction would be greatly appreciated.

Question:

Prove that a prime Artinian ring is simple.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose $P$ is a (two-sided) prime ideal of our Artinian ring, $R$. Choose any $x \in R - P$.

Claim 1: $Rx^n + P$ is a left ideal of $R$ for any $n \in \Bbb Z^+$. To see this, suppose we have:

$a = rx^n + p$
$b = r'x^n + p'$ for $r,r' \in R, p,p' \in P$.

Then $a - b = rx^n + p - r'x^n - p = (r-r')x^n + (p - p') \in Rx^n + P$, so this is an additive subgroup.

Also, for any $r'' \in R$:

$r''a = r''(rx^n + p) = (r''r)x^n + r''p \in Rx^n + P$

Now we have the descending chain:

$Rx + P \supseteq Rx^2 + P \supseteq \cdots \supseteq Rx^n + P \supseteq Rx^{n+1} + P \supseteq \cdots$

and since $R$ is Artinian it is left-Artinian, so this stabilizes for some positive integer $n$.

Hence $x^n = rx^{n+1} + p$ for some $r \in R, p \in P$, which means that:

$x^n - rx^{n+1} = (1 - rx)x^n \in P$.

$x^n \in P \implies x \in P$ so we must have: $1 - rx \in P$, by our choice of $x$.

Hence, $1 = rx + (1 - rx) \in Rx + P$ which shows $P$ is a maximal left ideal.

A similar proof using $xR + P$ shows $P$ is a maximal right ideal as well.

Since our ring $R$ is also postulated to be prime, $\{0\}$ is a prime ideal of $R$, and thus (by the above) $\{0\}$ is a maximal ideal, that is: $R$ is simple.

********

(This proof is probably somewhat "inelegant", Artinian conditions aren't my strong suit).
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K