Basic ring theory

It is easy to verify that a ring has no zero divisors iff the left and right cancellation laws hold in .

The set of units forms a group under multiplication.

Proof. Use that for . Use induction. ◻

Proof. (ii). If is the least positive integer such that , .
(iii). If , , then implies that or , a contradiction. ◻

Proof. Let and define multiplication in by is a ring with identity and characteristic zero and the map given by is a ring monomorphism. If , use a similar proof with and multiplication defined by Then . ◻

If is any ring, the center of is the set . is easily a subring of but may not be an ideal. A left ideal of that is not or is called a proper left ideal. Observe that if has an identity and is an ideal of , iff . A nonzero ideal of is proper iff contains no units of . A division ring has no proper left or right ideals since every nonzero element of is a unit. The ring of matrices over a division ring has proper left and right ideals, but no proper ideals.

The elements of are called generators of the ideal . If then the ideal is denoted and said to be finitely generated. An ideal generated by a single element is called a principal ideal. A principal ideal ring is a ring in which every ideal is principal. A principal ideal domain is an integral domain and a principal ideal ring.

Let be nonempty subsets of a ring . Denote by . If and are nonempty subsets of let denote . More generally, let denote the set of all finite sums of the form . In the special case when all are the same set , denote it by .

Let be a ring and an ideal of . Since the additive group of is abelian, is a normal subgroup. is a well-defined quotient group.

Isomorphism theorems also exist for rings.

Proof. is an additive subgroup of . If whence . Thus is an ideal. is an epimorphism of groups with kernel . . is also an epimorphism of rings. ◻

Proof. Let . Then and . Thus has the same effect on every element of . The map defined by is well-defined. Since is a homomorphism, is easily shown to be a homomorphism of rings. is unique since it is completely determined by . Clearly and iff . . is an epimorphism iff is an epimorphism. is a monomorphism iff . ◻

Proof. is a homomorphism of rings and . There is a unique homomorphism of rings such that . , . iff . iff iff . Note that and implies . ◻

(i) is the second isomorphism theorem and (ii) is the third isomorphism theorem.

Proof. Suppose and are ideals such that and . whence or . Thus so and is prime. Conversely, if is a prime ideal, is commutative, and , then . Note that whence . Either or , whence or . ◻

Proof. If is prime, since , . has no zero divisors since implies implies or implies or . Therefore is an integral domain. If is an integral domain, then whence . Thus . Also, implies implies or . ◻

Proof. Suppose but . and properly contains . By maximality, . Since is commutative and , . This contradicts that . Thus or , whence is prime. ◻

In particular, whenever has an identity.

Proof. (i). If is maximal, then is prime. Whence is an integral domain. We must show if , has a multiplicative inverse in . is properly contained in .Since is maximal, . for some , . . Thus is a multiplicative inverse of in .
(ii). If is a division ring, then whence and . If is an ideal such that , let . has a multiplicative inverse say . . . But and implies that . Thus . Therefore is maximal. ◻

Proof. is a field iff is maximal. is maximal iff has no proper ideals. ◻

Let be an ideal and . is said to be congruent to modulo denoted iff .

Proof. Since and , Since , . Thus . Assume that . Then and hence . Thus and the induction step is proved. . Similarly, . Thus such that . Note that and for . Let . Verify that . Finally, if is such that for each , then for each . Whence . ◻

Proof. Let be the canonical epimorphism. The induces a homomorphism with . . Thus induces a monomorphism . If the hypotheses of the Chinese remainder theorem are satisfied, for , there exists such that for all . Thus . Whence is an isomorphism. ◻

Proof. (i). If is prime, . If is a nonzero prime ideal, .
(ii). If is irreducible, then is a proper ideal of . If , then . Since is irreducible, or is a unit. Hence is maximal. Conversely, if is maximal in , then is a nonzero nonunit in . If , then whence or . If , then is a unit. If , then hence . Thus is a unit. Therefore is irreducible.
(iii). If , . Say . Then and . Thus is a unit.
(iv). If is irreducible, then is maximal, hence prime, thus is prime.
(v). If is irreducible, is an associate of , where is a unit. If , then whence is a unit or is a unit. If is a unit, so is hence is irreducible.
(vi). If is irreducible and , then whence or . Thus is an associate of or a unit. ◻

Proof. Let . is an ideal. Let . . Thus . ◻

Proof. Let be PID and be the set of all nonzero nonunit elements of which cannot be factored as a finite product of irreducible elements. Suppose is not empty and . Then is a proper ideal and is contained in a maximal ideal . is irreducible. . Therefore, it is possible to choose for each an irreducible divisor of . Since is an integral domain, uniquely determines a nonzero such that . We claim . If were a unit, would be irreducible hence is not a unit. If were not in , then has a factorization as a product of irreducibles, whence also does. Thus . We claim . Since implies for some whence . Contradicting that is irreducible and hence a nonunit. The function given by is well defined. By the recursion theorem, there is a function such that , . Denote . There is an ascending chain of ideals contradicting the previous lemma. Thus must be empty. Finally, if then divides some . Since is not a unit, is associate to . We can cancel and (with a factor of a unit), and proceed by induction to canceling the associates. If , this would imply that some of the or are units, a contradiction. ◻

Proof. If is a nonzero ideal in , choose such that is the least integer in the set . If , then with or and . so that , whence . . is a principal ideal ring. Since itself is an ideal, for some . . If . Thus . Whence is a multiplicative identity for . ◻

Greatest common divisors need not exist. When it exists, it may not be unique. However, two greatest common divisors are associates by (ii). Furthermore, any associate of a greatest common divisor is a greatest common divisor. If has an identity and have as a greatest common divisor, then are said to be relatively prime.

Proof. (i). Routinely follows. (ii) follows from (i). (iii). Each has a factorization with distinct irreducible elements and each . where is a greatest common divisor. ◻

No comment found.

Add a comment

You must log in to post a comment.