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.

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 right and left principal ideal domain. An element $a\in R$ is said to be a right divisor of $b\in R$ if there exists $x \in R$ such that $xa=b$ . And similarly define left divisor.

$a$ is said to be a total divisor of $b$ if $RbR = <a>_R \cap$ $ _R<a>$ .

How do I prove the following theorem:

If $RbR \subseteq aR$ then $a$ is already a total divisor of $b$.

Thanks in advance.

I am finding pretty difficult to understand things in the noncommutative case.

share|cite|improve this question
So when you write $<a>_R$, does that mean $aR$? I can't really tell what the notation is, if not... – rschwieb Oct 10 '13 at 14:27

I'm going to assume $R$ contains $1$.

Also, my proof will only show that $RbR \subseteq aR \cap Ra$.

Most definitions of total divisors I've seen go like the following: An element $a$ in a ring $R$ is a total divisor of $b$ when $RbR \subseteq aR \cap Ra$. Whether this implies $RbR = aR \cap Ra$ in a ring that is both a left and right principal ideal domain with unity, I'm unsure of. Maybe you could provide information on where you found this problem?

The proof:

Since $RbR$ is an ideal, it is also a right ideal, and because $R$ is a right principal ideal domain, we get $RbR = Rx$ for some $x \in R$. Again, because $R$ is a right PID, and sums of right ideals are right ideals, we have $Ra + Rx = Rd$ for some $d \in R$. Thus, $d = r_1a +r_2x$, with $r_1, r_2 \in R$. Further, $x = ar$ for some $r \in R$, because, $RbR \subseteq aR$ and $1 \in R$.

Now, $dr = r_1ar +r_2xr = r_1ar + r_2r'x$ (for some $r' \in R$, because $xR = Rx$) $= r_1ar + r_2r'ar = (r_1a + r_2r'a)r$ $\implies d = r_1a + r_2r'a$ when $r \neq 0$, that is when $a \neq 0$ (should we have $a = 0$ the result follows trivially, so let's assume $a \neq 0$).

That is, $d \in Ra$, so $Rd \subseteq Ra$, and $Rd = Ra$. From our previous equation $Ra + Rx = Rd$, we see that $Rx \subseteq Ra$. But $RbR = Rx = xR$, so $RbR \subseteq Ra$. We have, adding the hypothesis, that $RbR \subseteq aR$ and $RbR \subseteq Ra$, thus - $RbR \subseteq aR \cap Ra$.

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.