Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Proposition: Characteristic of an integral domain must be either $0$ or prime number.

I'm confused by this proposition.

I think the characteristic of an integral domain should be always $0$. Suppose it has characteristic $n$. Then $n * a = 0$ for all a of the integral domain.

since n is not $0$ and, if $c * d = 0$ in integral domain, it means $c=0$ or $d=0$, a should be $0$. Hence $n * a$ is not $0$ when $a$ is nonzero. Therefore, characteristic should be always $0$.

What's wrong with my thought?

share|improve this question
If the characteristic is $n$ then this means that $n$ is 0 (in the ring) by definition. –  Tobias Kildetoft Jul 31 '13 at 8:29
$na$ is not a product of two elements of the integral domain; it's the sum of $n$ copies of $a$. –  Gerry Myerson Jul 31 '13 at 8:35
add comment

4 Answers 4

up vote 3 down vote accepted

In a ring $R$ we define $p*x= {(1_R+1_R+1_R+\cdots+1_R)}x= \sum\limits_{i=1}^p x $, so even if $p= 1_R+1_R+1_R+\cdots+1_R=0 $ as a ring element, it is not necessarily $0$ in $\Bbb Z$.

$ \mathbb F_p$ (the integers modulo $p$ a prime, see here) is an integral domain with characteristic $p$. If $R$ was a ring with characteristic $mn$ then $m \ne 0$ and $ n \ne 0$ but $mn$=0, so $R$ could not be an integral domain.

Note in $\Bbb F_p$ the equivalence class of an integer $n \equiv 0 \mod p$ if and only if $n=pm$ for some $m \in \Bbb Z$, now if $xy \equiv 0 \mod p $ then $p|xy$. By primality of $p$ then $p|x$ or $ p|y$. So either $x$ or $y \equiv 0 \mod p$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Hint $\ $ Whenever you have problems understanding such an abstract statement you should look at concrete instances. For example $\,\rm \Bbb Z\ mod\ 3\ $ has characteristic $3$ because $ 3n := n + n + n \equiv 0\ $ for $ n\equiv 0,1,2.\:$ See how you argument breaks down in this simple concrete case, then generalize.

Note that $\,m\cdot a\,$ does not denote an element obtained by applying the ring multiplication to two elements of the ring. Rather, the $m$'th multiple $\,m\cdot a\,$ is the additive analog of the $m$'th power $a^m.$ In the first case we add $m$ copies of $a$ to obtain $\,m\cdot a\,$ and the second we multiply them to get $\,a^m.\,$ They are both well-defined operations in any ring.

One may rigorously define such operations by recursion, viz.

$$\begin{eqnarray} 0\cdot a \,&=&\, 0 \\ (1+n)\cdot a\,&=&\, a + n\cdot a\end{eqnarray}$$

share|improve this answer
This is really interesting advice, and a great way of looking at it. Thanks a ton for your help! –  Roger Tynes Dec 15 '13 at 1:30
You forgot to \rm your edit. ;) –  tomasz Dec 15 '13 at 2:26
@tomasz Thanks, Rome has fallen! –  Bill Dubuque Dec 15 '13 at 2:35
add comment

The integer is not an element of $D$. You have the canonical $\mathbb{Z}$-action ($0_\mathbb{Z}a = 0_D$, and $(k+1)a = ka + a$) on the abelian group $(D,+)$, and for that $\mathbb{Z}$-action, you have $ma = 0$ for all $a \in D$.

share|improve this answer
This is because any ring is canonically a ${\bf Z}$-algebra (and vice versa), much like any abelian group is canonically a ${\bf Z}$-module (and vice versa). –  tomasz Dec 15 '13 at 2:28
add comment

You are correct - $m$ is not an element of the integral domain D. $m$ is a natural number.

But then of course a fair question to consider is how $m \cdot a$ is defined. Somewhere in your text it should define $m \cdot a$ in which $m$ is a natural number and $a$ is an element of an integral domain D as $a$ added to itself $m$ times.

Consider the integral domain $\mathbb{Z}_5$ with addition and multiplication modulo $5$. $\mathbb{Z}_5$ is finite characteristic because each element may be added to itself a number of times (modulo $5$) to reach $0$.

  • $0 \equiv 0$ (mod $5$)
  • $1+1+1+1+1 = 5 \equiv 0$ (mod $5$)
  • $2+2+2+2+2 = 10 \equiv 0$ (mod $5$)
  • $3+3+3+3+3 = 15 \equiv 0$ (mod $5$)
  • $4+4+4+4+4 = 20 \equiv 0$ (mod $5$)
share|improve this answer
So by definition M is not an element. It's not optional, it's that M is just not in D correct? –  Roger Tynes Dec 15 '13 at 0:44
Yes $m\cdot a $ only means $\underbrace{a+a+a+\ldots+a}_{m \text{ times}}$. As everybody said $m\in \mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbf{m\not\in D}$. –  Sergio Parreiras Dec 15 '13 at 0:54
I see. Thanks so much for that clarification, I really apreciate it. –  Roger Tynes Dec 15 '13 at 1:26
add comment

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.