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.

Theorem 25.2: Modern Algebra an Introduction

A subset S of a Ring R is a subring of R iff S is nonempty, S is closed under both addition and multiplication of R, and S contains the negative of each of its elements.

Can anyone prove this? (note it is if and only if)

share|improve this question
4  
What is your definition of a subring? –  AWertheim Dec 10 '13 at 1:40
    
What is your definition of a ring? –  dfeuer Dec 15 '13 at 6:05

1 Answer 1

I'll give you some advice on how to do proofs.

When you want to prove something satisfies a definition, then you need to be familiar with that definition. In this case, you need to know the definition of a subring. From what I vaguely recall, S is a subring if it is also a ring and it has the same multiplicative identity as R (I'm not totally sure on this though).

So how do you start the proof? Well, start with the assumptions in the theorem. In the first direction you have "S is a subring of R" implies $\Rightarrow$ "S is nonempty, S is closed, etc."

This part is easy. HINT: Look at the definition of a subring.

Next, since this is an "if and only if" ($\Leftrightarrow$) statement then you have to also show that it works from the other direction:

S is nonempty, S is closed, S contains negatives" implies $\Rightarrow$ "S is a subring of R"

So work with your assumptions (S is nonempty, S is closed, etc) and figure out how these assumptions alone are enough to show that S satisfies all the other requirements of being a subring (which you will find in the definition of subring).

I would provide more detail but, like I said, I don't remember the definitions of rings or subrings off the top of my head.

share|improve this answer
1  
It depends on the definition of ring. Some texts require a ring to have a multiplicative identity and some don't. –  dfeuer Dec 15 '13 at 6:02
    
Ah ok, good to know. I thought I'd just give it a broad shot since OP still hasn't replied to the first comment. –  andraiamatrix Dec 15 '13 at 6:04
    
Some have ring and ring with unity. Some have rng and ring. Blah blah. It appears that rings with unity are in some ways nicer to study, but I don't really know anything about that. They seem to make modules work out better—if the ring doesn't have an identity, then there is no identity matrix. –  dfeuer Dec 15 '13 at 6:08

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.