Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The problem is to prove that, in a commutative ring with identity, the set of ideals in which every element is a zero divisor has a maximal element with respect the order of inclusion, and that every maximal element is prime. But I´m thinking* that considering the set of all zero-divisors, this set as I see it´s an ideal, and thus must be the only maximal element.

An ideal is defined as a subset J of the ring R , such that for every $ x\in R$ we have $ xJ \subset J $

I think that I´m wrong, only because it´s rare.

An extra question but related, there exist rings with element x, such that x is not a zero divisor nor a unit?

share|improve this question
    
Careful: an (two sided) ideal is usually defined as a subgroup of the additive group of the ring $R$, such that for any $x\in R$ and $xJ,Jx\subseteq J$. A left ideal is one for which $xJ\subseteq J$, and a right ideal is one for which $Jx\subseteq J$. –  Pedro Tamaroff Dec 19 '13 at 22:56
add comment

2 Answers

Your definition of an ideal seems nonstandard: for most folks, an ideal must also be a subgroup of the additive group of the ring. So, for counterexample to your conjecture, in the ring $\mathbf Z/6\mathbf Z$ there are zero-divisors $2$ and $3$, the sum of which is a unit.

To the second question: yes! As Alex notes in the comments, $2 \in \mathbf Z$ is an example. Any integral domain which is not a field also provides examples. But it's a good pigeonhole exercise to show that you cannot find such an element in a finite ring.

share|improve this answer
    
His definition is fine if he meant subgroup instead of subset, which seems likely, and you didn't answer his second question--he asked for a non-unit nonzero divisor, like $2\in\mathbb{Z}$. –  Alex Youcis Jan 21 '12 at 5:49
    
@Alex Of course! I think that's what I've said. I didn't notice the extra question, but I'll address it now. –  Dylan Moreland Jan 21 '12 at 5:51
    
@Alex Also, my thought was that if you only use the definition as written, then it seems possible to "prove" that the zerodivisors form an ideal. –  Dylan Moreland Jan 21 '12 at 15:39
add comment

It is not an ideal, as the next example show. Consider the ring $\mathbb R \times \mathbb R$. The elements $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are zero-divisors but their sum is not. Thus, the set of zero-divisors is not closed under sums.

For your second question, consider the polynomial ring in one variable $\mathbb R[x]$, clearly $x$ is neither a zero-divisor or a unit.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.