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

I've been puzzling over one of the properties of quasiregular elements listed in the wikipedia article on the topic.

An element of a ring $x$ is quasiregular (left, right) when $1-x$ has a multiplicative inverse (left, right). The article claims that, in a matrix ring, this is equivalent to the element (matrix) not possessing $-1$ as an eigenvalue.

There is no reference given for this and there seem to be some pretty obvious counterexamples. For instance, if $x = \left( \begin{smallmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ then $1 - x$ (where 1 is the $2 \times 2$ identity matrix) has a multiplicative inverse in the ring of 2 by 2 matrices but $-1$ is clearly an eigenvalue of $x$. In fact, for matrices, having or not having $-1$ as an eigenvalue doesn't seem to say anything definite about quasiregularity.

Just wondering if I'm missing something obvious or if it's simply an error in the article. Thanks!

share|cite|improve this question
See the talk page where this was discussed and not resolved back in 2009. – Jack Schmidt Jul 25 '13 at 19:42
up vote 2 down vote accepted

An element $x$ of a ring with 1 is left quasiregular if $1+x$ has a left multiplicative inverse. Looks like Wikipedia has it wrong. I've edited the Wikipedia page to have the correct definition.

With this definition, it is immediate that $-1$ can not occur as an eigenvalue in the case you mention. Indeed, if $-1$ were an eigenvalue, then $\det(x - (-1)I) = 0$ making $x + I$ not invertible.

share|cite|improve this answer
The fix to the article is more complicated. The Reliable Source quoted uses the 1-x convention, but a lot of the world uses another. You need to find a nice reliable source that uses the 1+x convention, and then mention both. Kind of a pain. – Jack Schmidt Jul 25 '13 at 19:42
Annoyingly Jacobson, who invented the idea, uses the 1-x convention, so apparently the 1+x convention is a newer counterculture thing that is apparently popular in some circles. Any idea which ones? – Jack Schmidt Jul 25 '13 at 19:46
I believe Polcino & Sehgal implicitly use 1+x, but I can't find it stated clearly that they do. – Jack Schmidt Jul 25 '13 at 19:49
@Jack: Good point! I didn't even think about the references. Grove (the Dover series) uses $1+x$. – RghtHndSd Jul 25 '13 at 19:51

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.