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.

”If the nonzero element $a$ of the ring $\mathbb{D}$ does not have a multiplicative inverse, then $a$ must be a zero divisor”.

If $\mathbb{D}$ has finitely many elements, then the statement is true. However, I don't see why, as for the infinite case, 7 isn't a zero divisor only because every element $a > 0$ when multiplied by a $b > 0$ gives you $ab > 0$ which has nothing to do with infinity or finite amounts of elements.

share|improve this question
2  
You're right, in $\mathbb{Z}$ zero is the only zero-divisor, $1, -1$ are the only invertible elements, and everything else is neither/nor. Perhaps your ring has some extra conditions? –  Andreas Caranti Sep 14 '13 at 21:18
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

If $\mathbb D$ is finite, with $n$ elements, and $a\in \mathbb D$ does not have a multiplicative inverse, we consider the elements $$ad_1, ad_2 \dots ad_n$$where the $d_i$ are the $n$ distinct elements of $\mathbb D$. None of these elements is $1$, so the $n$ elements can have at most $n-1$ different values - so two of them must be equal.$$ad_i=ad_j \implies a(d_i-d_j)=0$$Since $d_i\neq d_j$, $a$ is a zero-divisor.

Note that this does use the finiteness assumption in an essential way. $2\in \mathbb Z$ does not have a multiplicative inverse, and is not a zero divisor. There are a number of proofs like this (eg a finite integral domain is a field, not true in the infinite case) which depend on being able to count the elements of a finite object.

Note that in the ring of integers mod $14$, $7$ does not have a multiplicative inverse, and $2\times 7=0$. In the ring of integers mod $15$ we have $7\times 13 =1$ and $7$ is not a zero divisor.

share|improve this answer
    
Excellent @Mark Bennet. Just great. –  Don Larynx Sep 17 '13 at 17:06
    
Let $ad_1 = 2, ad_2 = 4, ad_3 = 5$. Then three elements have three distinct values, so two of them are not equal. –  Don Larynx Sep 17 '13 at 17:23
1  
@Jossie The point is that there are $n$ products, and there are $n$ elements in the ring. But none of the products can be $1$, so there are only $n-1$ possible values. So two of the products have to be equal. You only get three products if there are only three elements in the ring. –  Mark Bennet Sep 17 '13 at 17:54
    
I just showed that there are three possible distinct values in a set of three elements...I remain confused. –  Don Larynx Sep 17 '13 at 20:53
    
@Jossie But when you go to $n$ elements there are not enough for all of them to be the same. –  Mark Bennet Sep 17 '13 at 21:05
show 7 more comments

Hint: Consider the map sending $r \to ra$. Use the fact that $a$ does not have a multiplicative inverse, so it's not onto; hence, in the finite case, it's not injective. Find a non-trivial kernel element and see what happens.


Note that the word finite is important here. The proof I've mentioned breaks down since the map $r \to 7r$ is injective, even though it's not surjective. More generally, in infinite rings, elements can be non-units and non-zero-divisors.

share|improve this answer
    
This is a good answer, but I don't know the terminology (kernel)? @T. Bongers –  Don Larynx Sep 17 '13 at 17:07
add comment

Consider the applications $l_a:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow\mathbb{D}$ and $r_a:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow\mathbb{D}$ given by $l_a(x)=a\cdot x$ and $r_a(x)=x\cdot a$. Both are injective if $a$ is not a zero divisor. But, because $\mathbb{D}$ is finite both are surjective too. Then you have left and right inverses for $a$ and you are done.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.