Is a Subring's Unit Element a Zero Divisor if the Ring Lacks a Unit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sunjin09
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical property of a subring's unit element in relation to zero divisors when the larger ring lacks a unit element. It is established that if a subring S has a unit element e' and the ring R does not, then e' must be a zero divisor. The reasoning provided indicates that if R contains a unit element e different from e', the equation (e-e')e' = 0 holds, confirming e' as a zero divisor. However, the challenge arises in proving this when R lacks a unit element altogether.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring theory concepts, specifically subrings and unit elements.
  • Familiarity with the definition of zero divisors in algebra.
  • Knowledge of mathematical proofs involving algebraic structures.
  • Experience with manipulating algebraic expressions and equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of zero divisors in rings without unit elements.
  • Explore the implications of subring structures in abstract algebra.
  • Learn about the relationship between units and zero divisors in various algebraic systems.
  • Investigate examples of rings that lack unit elements and their subrings.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebra students, and researchers in abstract algebra who are exploring the properties of rings and subrings, particularly in the context of unit elements and zero divisors.

sunjin09
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
If the subring S of a ring R has a unit element e' but R does not have a unit element then e' must be a divisor of zero.

I was able to show that if R has a unit element e≠e', then (e-e')e'=0, where e-e'≠0, implying e' is a divisor of zero, but if R does not have a unit element I can't see why, please help, thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sunjin09 said:
If the subring S of a ring R has a unit element e' but R does not have a unit element then e' must be a divisor of zero.

I was able to show that if R has a unit element e≠e', then (e-e')e'=0, where e-e'≠0, implying e' is a divisor of zero, but if R does not have a unit element I can't see why, please help, thank you.

If e' isn't a unit in R then there is an element of r of R such that e'r-r is not zero. Multiply that by e'.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K