# abstract algebra [closed]

How many of the following statements are false?
a) Subring of a ring is a ring.
b) Subring of commutative ring is a commutative ring.
c) Subring of a integral domain is an integral domain.
d) Subring of a field is a field.

-
What have you done, what have you tried, what are your ideas, background, insights...?! –  DonAntonio Sep 7 '12 at 4:17
Are you sure you want only to know how many, now which are fals? –  Hagen von Eitzen Sep 7 '12 at 5:22
Hint for (d): is $\Bbb Z$ a subring of any field that you know? –  Brian M. Scott Sep 7 '12 at 5:53
I wonder who upvoted this? –  user641 Sep 7 '12 at 7:09

## closed as not constructive by Andres Caicedo, Steve D, William, rschwieb, LVK Sep 7 '12 at 21:33

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

For instance, for a), let R be the ring, S the subring. Because R is a ring, we have $$\forall a, b \in R, a + b \in R$$ $$\forall a, b, c \in R, (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)$$ $$\exists 0 \in R, : \forall a \in R, 0 + a = a + 0 = a$$ $$\forall a \in R, \exists b (= "-a") \in R : a + b = b + a = 0$$ $$\forall a, b \in R, a + b = b + a$$ $$\forall a, b \in R, a · b \in R$$ $$\forall a, b, c \in R, (a · b) · c = a · (b · c)$$ $$\exists 1 \in R : \forall a \in R, 1 · a = a · 1 = a$$ $$\forall a, b, c \in R, a · (b + c) = (a · b) + (a · c)$$ $$\forall a, b, c \in R, (a + b) · c = (a · c) + (b · c)$$ Because $S$ is a subring, $$\forall a, b \in S, a + b \in S$$ $$\forall a, b \in S, a · b \in S$$ $$\forall a \in S, −a \in S$$ $$1 \in S$$ Now, verify that $S$ satisfies the remaining properties of a ring (it does). It's a bit tedious, but that's how it's done. (if the text you're working from doesn't require rings to be unital, you can ignore the properties involving $1$.)
The whole thing depends on how one defines "subring". One might e.g. define that $(S,+_S,\cdot_S)$ is a subring of $(R,+_R,\cdot_R)$ if it is a ring and $S\subseteq R$ and $+_S=+_R|_{S\times S}$ and $\cdot_S=\cdot_R|_{S\times S}$; then one observes that a sinmple criterion for subrings exists that allows one to avoid testing all ring axioms. Of course such a definition that a sub-foo is a foo contained in another foo is much more naturally motivated and transfers readily to most (concrete) categories. –  Hagen von Eitzen Sep 7 '12 at 6:34