Proof of eAe as Division Ring when Ae is a Minimal Left Ideal

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter peteryellow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Division Proof Ring
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof that eAe is a division ring when Ae is a minimal left ideal in a semiprime ring. Participants explore the implications of the properties of minimal left ideals and idempotents in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that if Ae is a minimal left ideal and exe is non-zero for x in A, then Aexe must equal Ae, leading to the conclusion that eAe is a division ring.
  • The same participant questions the step where it is concluded that e = aexe, seeking clarification on this point.
  • Another participant clarifies that since e is in A, it follows that e = ee is in Ae, and thus e must also be in Aexe, suggesting the existence of an a such that e = aexe.
  • This second participant warns that Aexe = Ae does not imply that aexe = ae for all a in A, but rather that there exists some a' in A such that aexe = a'e.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing levels of understanding regarding the implications of the properties of minimal left ideals and the specific steps in the proof. There is no consensus on the clarity of the proof's argumentation, particularly concerning the relationship between Aexe and ae.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential ambiguities in the proof, particularly regarding the assumptions made about the elements of A and their relationships within the ideal structure.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in ring theory, particularly those studying properties of minimal left ideals and division rings, may find this discussion relevant.

peteryellow
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Let A be semiprime ring and e a non-zero idempotent.

If Ae is a minimal left ideal then eAe is a division ring.

Proof:
Suppose that Ae is a minimal left ideal and that exe is different from 0 for x in A.
Then $Aexe \subset Ae$ since Ae is an ideal and since Ae is minimal hence Aexe = Ae.

Thus there exists a in A such that e = aexe and we get that
(eae)(exe)=eae^2xe=eaexe = e^2 =e.

The only thing I don't understand is that why is e = aexe?

We have that Aexe = Ae so I will say that aexe =ae? but then the rest of proof will not hold?

Any suggestions? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
e is in A, so e=ee is in Ae. Thus e is in Aexe as well, so there exists an a such that e=aexe.

A word of caution: Aexe=Ae in general does not imply that aexe=ae for all a in A. Rather, it implies that if a is in A, then there exists an a' in A such that aexe=a'e.
 
Thank you very much for your help:smile:
 
You're welcome!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K