MHB Is $I$ an Ideal in a Ring $R$?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $R$ be a ring and let $I\subseteq R$ the unique maximal right ideal of $R$.
I want to show the following:
  1. $I$ is an ideal
  2. each element $a\in R-I$ is invertible
  3. $I$ is the unique maximal left ideal of $R$
For 1. we have to show that $I$ is also a left ideal, right? (Wondering)

Could you give me some hints how we could show that? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Let $R$ be a ring and let $I\subseteq R$ the unique maximal right ideal of $R$.
I want to show the following:
  1. $I$ is an ideal
  2. each element $a\in R-I$ is invertible
  3. $I$ is the unique maximal left ideal of $R$
For 1. we have to show that $I$ is also a left ideal, right? (Wondering)

Could you give me some hints how we could show that? (Wondering)
For 1., let $r\in R$. What can you say about the set $rI$?
 
Opalg said:
For 1., let $r\in R$. What can you say about the set $rI$?

We have that $I$ is a right ideal, so it is an additive subgroup of $R$, so when $i,j\in I$ then $-i, i+j\in I$.

Let $a,b\in rI$, then $a=ri_1, b=ri_2, \ i_1, i_2\in I$.
Then we have the following:
$$-a=-(ri_1)=r(-i_1)\in rI \\
a+b=ri_1+ri_2=r(i_1+i_2)\in rI$$

So, $rI$ is an additive subgroup of $R$. For $x\in R$, $a'=ra\in rI$ we have that $a'x=rax\in rI$, since $I$ is a right ideal and so $ax\in I$.

That means that $rI$ is also a right ideal, right? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
We have that $I$ is a right ideal, so it is an additive subgroup of $R$, so when $i,j\in I$ then $-i, i+j\in I$.

Let $a,b\in rI$, then $a=ri_1, b=ri_2, \ i_1, i_2\in I$.
Then we have the following:
$$-a=-(ri_1)=r(-i_1)\in rI \\
a+b=ri_1+ri_2=r(i_1+i_2)\in rI$$

So, $rI$ is an additive subgroup of $R$. For $x\in R$, $a'=ra\in rI$ we have that $a'x=rax\in rI$, since $I$ is a right ideal and so $ax\in I$.

That means that $rI$ is also a right ideal, right? (Wondering)
That is correct. For the next step, what I'm hoping is true is that every right ideal should be contained in a maximal right ideal ...
 
Opalg said:
That is correct. For the next step, what I'm hoping is true is that every right ideal should be contained in a maximal right ideal ...

Since $I$ is a maximal right ideal, $rI$ is either a subset of $I$ or it is the entire ring $R$.

If $r$ has not a right inverse in $I$, then $rI$ doesn't contain $1$, so it must be $rI\subset I$.

Is this correct? (Wondering)

What if $r$ has a right inverse? (Wondering)
 
There are the following cases:
  1. If $rI\neq R$, then it must be $rI\subseteq I$, since $I$ is the unique maximal right ideal of $R$.
    If $rI\subseteq I$, then $ri\in I, \forall i\in I, \forall r\in R$.
    So, $I$ is a left ideal.
    Since $I$ is a right and a left ideal, it follows that $I$ is an ideal.

    $$$$
  2. If $rI=R$, then $ri=1$ for some $i\in I$.
    We have that $ir\in I$ since $I$ is a right ideal, so $ir\neq 1$.
    Then I thought to use post #8 of http://mathhelpboards.com/linear-abstract-algebra-14/statement-true-18331.html#post84301 to say that since $1-ir$ has no right inverse, it follows that $(1-ir)R\neq R$.
    Then $(1-ir)R$ is contained in the maximal right ideal, i.e., $(1-ir)R\subseteq I$. Then $1-ir\in I$.
    We have that $1=ir+(1-ir)\in I$, a contradiction.
    So, $rI\neq R$.

    But at the other post they told me that the argument of post #8 is not true... Do you maybe have an other idea how we can reject the case $rI=R$ ? (Wondering)
 
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...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top