Tag Archives: rings

A prime ideal that is not a maximal ideal

Every maximal ideal is a prime ideal. The converse is true in a principal ideal domain – PID, i.e. every nonzero prime ideal is maximal in a PID, but this is not true in general. Let’s produce a counterexample.

R=Z[x] is a ring. R is not a PID as can be shown considering the ideal I generated by the set {2,x}. I cannot be generated by a single element p. If it was, p would divide 2, i.e. p=1 or p=2. We can’t have p=1 as it means R=I but 3I. We can’t have either p=2 as it implies the contradiction xI. The ideal J=(x) is a prime ideal as R/JZ is an integral domain. Since Z is not a field, J is not a maximal ideal.

Four elements rings

A group with four elements is isomorphic to either the cyclic group Z4 or to the Klein four-group Z2×Z2. Those groups are commutative. Endowed with the usual additive and multiplicative operations, Z4 and Z2×Z2 are commutative rings.

Are all four elements rings also isomorphic to either Z4 or Z2×Z2? The answer is negative. Let’s provide two additional examples of commutative rings with four elements not isomorphic to Z4 or Z2×Z2.

The first one is the field F4. F4 is a commutative ring with four elements. It is not isomorphic to Z4 or Z2×Z2 as both of those rings have zero divisor. Indeed we have 22=0 in Z4 and (1,0)(0,1)=(0,0) in Z2×Z2.

A second one is the ring R of the matrices (x0yx) where x,yZ2. One can easily verify that R is a commutative subring of the ring M2(Z2). It is not isomorphic to Z4 as its characteristic is 2. This is not isomorphic to Z2×Z2 either as (0010) is a non-zero matrix solution of the equation X2=0. (0,0) is the only solution of that equation in Z2×Z2.

One can prove that the four rings mentioned above are the only commutative rings with four elements up to isomorphism.

Group homomorphism versus ring homomorphism

A ring homomorphism is a function between two rings which respects the structure. Let’s provide examples of functions between rings which respect the addition or the multiplication but not both.

An additive group homomorphism that is not a ring homomorphism

We consider the ring R[x] of real polynomials and the derivation D:R[x]R[x]PP

D is an additive homomorphism as for all P,QR[x] we have D(P+Q)=D(P)+D(Q). However, D does not respect the multiplication as D(x2)=2x1=D(x)D(x).
More generally, D satisfies the Leibniz rule D(PQ)=PD(Q)+QD(P).

A multiplication group homomorphism that is not a ring homomorphism

The function f:RRxx2

is a multiplicative group homomorphism of the group (R,). However f does not respect the addition.

A Commutative Ring with Infinitely Many Units

In a ring R a unit is any element u that has a multiplicative inverse v, i.e. an element v such that uv=vu=1,

where 1 is the multiplicative identity.

The only units of the commutative ring Z are 1 and 1. For a field F the units of the ring Mn(F) of the square matrices of dimension n×n is the general linear group GLn(F) of the invertible matrices. The group GLn(F) is infinite if F is infinite, but the ring Mn(F) is not commutative for n2.

The commutative ring Z[2]={a+b2 ; (a,b)Z2} is not a field. However it has infinitely many units.

a+b2 is a unit if and only if a22b2=±1

For u=a+b2Z[2] we denote N(u)=a22b2Z. For any u,vZ[2] we have N(uv)=N(u)N(v). Therefore for a unit uZ[2] with v as multiplicative inverse, we have N(u)N(v)=1 and N(u)=a22b2{1,1}.

The elements (1+2)n for nN are unit elements

The proof is simple as for nN (1+2)n(1+2)n=((1+2)(1+2))n=1

One can prove (by induction on b) that the elements (1+2)n are the only units uZ[2] for u>1.

The image of an ideal may not be an ideal

If ϕ:AB is a ring homomorphism then the image of a subring SA is a subring ϕ(A)B. Is the image of an ideal under a ring homomorphism also an ideal? The answer is negative. Let’s provide a simple counterexample.

Let’s take A=Z the ring of the integers and for B the ring of the polynomials with integer coefficients Z[x]. The inclusion ϕ:ZZ[x] is a ring homorphism. The subset 2ZZ of even integers is an ideal. However 2Z is not an ideal of Z[x] as for example 2x2Z.

Non commutative rings

Let’s recall that a set R equipped with two operations (R,+,) is a ring if and only if (R,+) is an abelian group, multiplication is associative and has a multiplicative identity 1 and multiplication is left and right distributive with respect to addition.

(Z,+,) is a well known infinite ring which is commutative. The rational, real and complex numbers are other infinite commutative rings. Those are in fact fields as every non-zero element have a multiplicative inverse.

For a field F (finite or infinite), the polynomial ring F[X] is another example of infinite commutative ring.

Also for n integer, the integers modulo n is a finite ring that is commutative. Finally, according to Wedderburn theorem every finite division ring is commutative.

So what are examples of non commutative rings? Let’s provide a couple. Continue reading Non commutative rings

A simple ring which is not a division ring

Let’s recall that a simple ring is a non-zero ring that has no two-sided ideal besides the zero ideal and itself. A division ring is a simple ring. Is the converse true? The answer is negative and we provide here a counterexample of a simple ring which is not a division ring.

We prove that for n1 the matrix ring Mn(F) of n×n matrices over a field F is simple. Mn(F) is obviously not a division ring as the matrix with 1 at position (1,1) and 0 elsewhere is not invertible.

Let’s prove first following lemma. Continue reading A simple ring which is not a division ring

Unique factorization domain that is not a Principal ideal domain

In this article, we provide an example of a unique factorization domain – UFD that is not a principal ideal domain – PID. However, it is known that a PID is a UFD.

We take a field F, for example Q, R, Fp (where p is a prime) or whatever more exotic.

The polynomial ring F[X] is a UFD. This follows from the fact that F[X] is a Euclidean domain. It is also known that for a UFD R, R[X] is also a UFD. Therefore the polynomial ring F[X1,X2] in two variables is a UFD as F[X1,X2]=F[X1][X2]. However the ideal I=(X1,X2) is not principal. Let’s prove it by contradiction.

Suppose that (X1,X2)=(P) with PF[X1,X2]. Then there exist two polynomials Q1,Q2F[X1,X2] such that X1=PQ1 and X2=PQ2. As a polynomial in variable X2, the polynomial X1 is having degree 0. Therefore, the degree of P as a polynomial in variable X2 is also equal to 0. By symmetry, we get that the degree of P as a polynomial in variable X1 is equal to 0 too. Which implies that P is an element of the field F and consequently that (X1,X2)=F[X1,X2].

But the equality (X1,X2)=F[X1,X2] is absurd. Indeed, the degree of a polynomial X1T1+X2T2 cannot be equal to 0 for any T1,T2F[X1,X2]. And therefore 1F[X1,X2].