Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with identity. Show that $R$ is a field if and only if the only ideals of $R$ are $R$ itself and the zero ideal $(0)$.

I can't figure out where to start other that I need to prove some biconditional statement. Any help?

share|cite|improve this question
Think about what happens to ideals when they contain a unit. – sxd Jan 21 '12 at 23:21
up vote 33 down vote accepted

From some of the comments above you seem a little confused. Since you said you are not familiar with proofs I will try to write this out in a way that you can understand.

You are trying to prove the equivalence of the following statements:

$P:$ A commutative ring $R$ with $1$ is a field.

$Q:$ The only ideals of $R$ are $(0)$ and $(1)$.

Let us look at statement $Q$ closely. Well it is saying that the only ideals of $R$ are the zero ideal (which has only one element, zero) and $(1)$. What is $(1)$? Well by definition of an ideal if you multiply anything in the ideal $(1)$ by anything in $R$, you should get something back in $(1)$ again. But then $1$ is the multiplicative identity of $R$ so multiplying everything in $R$ by $1$ just gives everything in $R$ back again. This means that $(1)$ must be the whole ring $R$.

Now suppose we want to prove $P \implies Q$. Let $I$ be an ideal of a ring $R$. Here "ring" means "commutative ring with a unit". Now here are some things you should know:

(1) $I$ is non-empty

(2) $I$ must at least contain the element $0$ (Why?)

(3) If $I$ has more than one element this means that at least one non-zero element $a$ of the ring must be in $I$. (Why?)

Therefore if $I$ contains only $0$, $I = (0)$. If $I$ does not only contain zero, then by (3) above it contains at least one non-zero element $a$ of $R$. Now recall that we are trying to prove $P \implies Q$. We already know $P$. Therefore this means by definition of a field that $a^{-1}$ exists in $R$.

But then by definition of an ideal $I$, $a^{-1} a = 1$ must be in $I$. Therefore $1 \in I$ so that $I$ must be the whole ring $R$. Hence $I = (1)$. This establishes $P \implies Q$.

Now for the converse:

To show $Q \implies P$ it suffices to show that non-zero every element $a \in R$ contains a multiplicative inverse. So let $a$ be a non-zero element of $R$. The trick now is to consider the principal ideal generated by $a$ (which we denote by $(a)$ ).

Now by assumption of $Q$, since the only ideals of $R$ are $(0)$ and $(1)$, this means that $(a)$ being an ideal of $R$ must be either $(0)$ or $(1)$. Now $(a)$ cannot be $(0)$ for $a \neq 0$. So $(a) = (1)$. But then this means that $1$ is a multiple of $a$, viz. there exists a non-zero $c$ such that

$$ac = 1.$$

However this is precisely saying that $a$ has a multiplicative inverse. Since $a$ was an arbitrary non-zero element of $R$, we are done. Q.E.D.

Does this help you? I can discuss more if you need help.

share|cite|improve this answer
this is very detailed explaination and very useful. – zinking Oct 7 '12 at 5:48

Let $a\in R$, $a\neq 0$. Then the smallest ideal of $R$ that contains $a$ is $Ra=\{ra\mid r\in R\}$.

(Verify that the set $\{ra\mid r\in R\}$ is an ideal of $R$, and that it contains $a$; it's not hard. Then think about why any ideal that contains $I$ must contain this set.).

If $R$ is a field, then what is $Ra$ for any $a\neq 0$? If $I$ is any ideal of $R$, and $a\in I$ with $a\neq 0$, what does that tell you?

Conversely, if the only ideals of $R$ are $(0)$ and $R$, what is $Ra$? What does that tell you about $a$?

share|cite|improve this answer
Since the asker had no idea where to start, I suspect they may not know that $Ra$ is an ideal. Drew sam, can you prove that? – user23211 Jan 21 '12 at 23:05
Ummm, for the first part, I am not sure what you mean. You just multiply the field by that value? Is it just the identity? – Jackson Hart Jan 21 '12 at 23:07
And for the second part, is a just e? – Jackson Hart Jan 21 '12 at 23:08
@Drew, I don't know what you mean by "e". Arturo has written in his answer what he understands by $Ra$ and by $a$. Just read it carefully. – user23211 Jan 21 '12 at 23:12
@drew sam: If that's the case, then let me suggest that this website and quick interaction through comments is not an appropriate forum for you; you should try to find one-on-one, personal help at your institution instead, or try to think through things before posting quick follow-up questions as you have done here. – Arturo Magidin Jan 21 '12 at 23:37

It is given that the $0$-ring $\{0\}$ and the whole ring $R$ are ideals of any ring $R$. (Here I assume $R = \mathbb{Q}$, the rationals)

Suppose by contradiction that there is another ideal $N$ of $Q$ that is not $\{0\}$ or all of $Q$.

$N \neq \{0\}$ implies there is a nonzero rational number $a$ contained in $N$. Since $\frac{1}{a}$ is contained in $\mathbb{Q}$, the ideal $N$ must contain $(\frac{1}{a})\cdot a = 1$.

$N \neq Q$ implies that there is a rational number $b$ which is not contained in $N$. But $N$ contains $1$, so $N$ must also contain $b\cdot 1 = b$ by the definition of an ideal, contradicting the assumption that $N$ is not all of $\mathbb{Q}$.

Therefore there are no proper, non-trivial ideals of $\mathbb{Q}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
For some basic information about writing math at this site see e.g. here, here, here and here. – Julian Kuelshammer Nov 2 '12 at 19:57
Also this answers only one direction of the question (only for $\mathbb{Q}$, but that generalises easily). – Julian Kuelshammer Nov 2 '12 at 20:00

Hint $\ $ field $\rm R\ \iff\ 0\:|\:r\ \ or\ \ r\:|\:1 \iff\ (0)\supset (r)\ \ or\ \ (r)\supset (1)\iff\ (0)\supset I\ \ or\ \ I\supset (1)$

Alternatively it is the special case $\rm\: I = 0\:$ of: $\, $ field $\rm\: R/I \iff I\:$ maximal.

share|cite|improve this answer
Do you mean that a is in r? – Jackson Hart Jan 21 '12 at 23:21
@drew I see no "a" above. r denotes any element of R. – Bill Dubuque Jan 21 '12 at 23:24
How $0|r$ is possible in field? – Groups Jan 5 '15 at 14:16
@Groups By definition of divisibility: $\,\ 0\mid r \iff \exists s\!:\ 0\cdot s = r\iff r = 0.\ $ Therefore we have that $\ 0\mid r\,$ or $\,r\mid 1\iff r = 0\,$ or $\,r\,$ is invertible, $ $ i.e. $\ r\ne 0\,\Rightarrow\,r\,$ invertible. $\ $ – Bill Dubuque Jan 5 '15 at 14:55

protected by user26857 Sep 4 '15 at 20:09

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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