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 unitary (associative and non-commutative) ring with elements $a,b,c$ such that $a\cdot b=1\not=0=a\cdot c$ and $c\not=0$ where $1$ is the multiplicative identity. Then the set $I=R\cap\{x:a\cdot x=0\}$ is a nontrivial right ideal, and one has to show that $I$ is infinite. How is this done? (To my knowledge, this is in a slightly different form as an exercise in Jacobson's Basic Algebra I.)

Added as response to comments. Actually, it is trivial that $I$ is a right ideal, and I did not ask this. The only problem is to show that $I$ is necessarily infinite under the assumptions given. I do not know what the exact exercise in Jacobson's book is, but I think it is somewhere in the chapter introducing rings, i.e., somewhere around page 100. (I don't have the book but I have seen the contents page.) The exercise is to show that if an element has two distinct right inverses, then it has infinitely many.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The Jacobson problem and your problem are indeed connected. If $\{b_i\}$ is an indexed set of distinct elements inverting $a$ on the right, with $b_1=b$, then $\{b_i-b\mid i>1\}$ is a set of distinct zero divisors for $a$ on the right.

Do you need help proving the Jacobson problem? If so I'll add that in.

Actually, as I half expected, there is already a question for that here. Check out this question for the solution to the infinitely many right inverses question.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for the Kaplansky link. It solves the problem. – The-unKnowN Jan 20 '13 at 17:48

The set $I=R\cap\{x:a\cdot x=0\} = \{x \in R: a \cdot x = 0 \}$ is known as the right annihilator of $a$ in $R$. Showing that it is an ideal is simply an application of the definitions: if $x, y \in I$, then $a \cdot (x-y) = ax - ay = 0$ so $x - y \in I$. Also, if $r \in R$, then $a \cdot (xr) = (ax)r = 0r = 0$. So $I$ is a right ideal. That $I$ is infinite cannot be deduced unless we assume $R$ is infinite, and even then I'm not convinced it should be true...

share|cite|improve this answer
If $R$ is finite, then $ab=1$ implies $ba=1$. In fact, this is true for any Noetherian ring. – rschwieb Jan 21 '13 at 19:43

I'd put this as a comment, but I can't. The formulation of your exercise is a little off. It should say if $a \cdot b=1=a \cdot c$, $1 \neq 0$, and $b \neq c$, then $I=\{r \in R \ \vert \ a \cdot r=1\}$ is infinite, in accordance with your own comment. To do this, first prove that neither $b$ nor $c$ can be a left inverse and notice that $1-ba+b$ is another right inverse of $a$. Try using this to construct an infinite number of non-equal right inverses.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.