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.

Let $R$ be a finite ring with unity. Prove that every nonzero element of $R$ is either a unit or a zero-divisor.

share|improve this question

5 Answers 5

up vote 29 down vote accepted

In a finite commutative ring with unity, every element is either a unit or a zero-divisor. Indeed, let $a\in R$ and consider the map on $R$ given by $x \mapsto ax$. If this map is injective then it has to be surjective, because $R$ is finite. Hence, $1=ax$ for some $x\in R$ and $a$ is a unit. If the map is not injective then there are $u,v\in R$, with $u\ne v$, such that $au=av$. But then $a(u-v)=0$ and $u-v\ne0$ and so $a$ is a zero divisor.

share|improve this answer
+1: My answer looks like overkill compared to this. –  Pete L. Clark Aug 31 '11 at 16:25
If you want to know when the converse holds, see mathoverflow.net/questions/42647/…, which is related to Pete's answer. –  lhf Aug 31 '11 at 16:29
@Pete: Most of your answers are overkill, which is why I enjoy them so much! :-) –  Asaf Karagila Aug 31 '11 at 16:47
Perhaps my answer can be better phrased as: If the map is surjective then $a$ is a unit. Otherwise, the map cannot be injective, because $R$ is finite, and so $a$ is a zero divisor. –  lhf Aug 31 '11 at 18:32
I think for a complete solution, you still have to state that no element can be both a unit and a zero divisor. That's not a big deal, of course. –  azimut Sep 13 '13 at 10:50

Your question is incomplete: you say you want to prove that every nonzero element of $R$ is "either a zero-divisor?" If one inserts a unit or before zero-divisor then you get a true statement, so I'll assume for now that's what you meant.

First, following a comment by Gerry Myerson on a recent related answer, let me divulge that for me zero is a zero-divisor. I claim that this is just a convention that you should be able to translate back from if you see fit.

Next, note that if you have a family $\{R_i\}_{i \in I}$ of rings in which every element is either a unit or a zero-divisor, the same holds in the Cartesian product $R = \prod_{i \in I} R_i$.

In your case you can use the structure theorem for Artinian rings: $R$ is a finite product of local Artinian rings -- to reduce to the case in which $R$ is local Artinian. Then the maximal ideal is nilpotent, so every nonunit is nilpotent and in particular a zero divisor.

share|improve this answer
+1: Funny! It's like killing birds with cannon balls. :D I had never thought that a finite ring is Artinian. –  Andrea Aug 31 '11 at 18:36
@Andrea Another application of $\rm\:R\:$ finite $\rm\:\Rightarrow\: R\:$ Artinian is in this prior answer: A finite ring is a field if its units $\cup\ \{0\}$ comprise a field of characteristic $\ne 2$. –  Bill Dubuque Sep 3 '11 at 23:00

HINT $\rm\ |R|<\infty\ \Rightarrow\ r^j=r^k,\: j<k\ \Rightarrow\ r^j\:(1-r^{k-j})=0\ \Rightarrow\ 1 = r^{k-j}\: $ if $\rm\:r\:$ not a zero-divisor.

NOTE $\ $ The idea generalizes: if a non-zero-divisor $\rm\:r\:$ is algebraic then it divides the least degree coefficient of any polynomial of which it is a root. When said coefficient is a unit then so too is $\rm\:r\:.\:$ Hence the result holds more generally for any ring satisfying a polynomial identity whose least degree coefficient is unit, e.g. for Jacobson's famous rings satisfying the identity $\rm\:X^n =\: X\:.$

share|improve this answer

Since one good cannonball deserves another, I'd like to provide a solution using right Artinian rings that aren't necessarily commutative.


A ring $R$ is called strongly $\pi$-regular if for all $x\in R$, chains of the form $xR\supseteq x^2R\supseteq x^3R\supseteq\dots \supseteq x^iR\supseteq\dots$ become stationary.

A ring is called Dedekind finite if $xy=1$ implies $yx=1$ for all $x,y\in R$.

Strongly $\pi$-regular rings were introduced by Kaplansky in the citation at the bottom. The definition is usually given in terms of "$\forall x\exists r(x^n=x^{n+1}r)$", but this is equivalent.

Moreover, it's been shown that $r$ can be chosen to commute with $x$, and so the left-hand version of this definition is equivalent to this one.

It's obvious right Artinian rings are strongly $\pi$-regular, and it turns out they are Dedekind finite too.

Proposition: In a strongly $\pi$-regular Dedekind finite ring (in particular, right or left Artinian rings), each element is a unit or a zero divisor. (Zero being counted as a zero divisor.)

Proof: Let $x\in R$ be a nonunit, and let $n$ be minimal such that there exists $r$ that commutes with $x$ and $x^n=x^{n+1}r$. Since $x$ isn't a unit, $n\geq 1$. (Because if $1=xr$, $x$ would be a unit by Dedekind finiteness.)

Rearranging, we get $x(x^{n-1}-x^nr)=0=(x^{n-1}-x^nr)x$ since $r$ commutes with $x$. By minimality of $n$, $x^{n-1}-x^nr\neq 0$. Thus, $x$ has been demonstrated to be a two-sided zero divisor.

I. Kaplansky, Topological representations of algebras II, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 68 (1950), 62-75. MR 11:317

share|improve this answer

Let $a$ in $R$ be non-zero and suppose that a is not a zero-divisor.

First I will prove the cancelation property just for $a$. If $ab = ac$, then $ab-ac = 0$ and $a(b-c) = 0$.

Since a is not a zero-divisor, then $b-c = 0$ so $b = c$.

Consider the set $\{a^n\mid n \in\mathbb N\}=\{a,a^1,a^2,...\}$

Since $R$ is finite, we must have $a^i = a^j$ for some $i$; $j$ with $i \gt j$. Then since we have the cancellation property for $a$ and we have $a^{i-j}a^j = 1a^j$ (remember we have unity), then cancellation gives us $a^{i-j} = 1$. If $a = 1$ then $a$ is clearly a unit.

If $\ne 1$, then $i-j \gt 1$ so we can factor out one copy of $a$ to get $a^{i-j-1}a^1 = 1$.

Thus the element $a^{i-j-1}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a$, so $a$ is a unit.

Thus every nonzero element of this ring that is not a zero-divisor is a unit. In other words, every nonzero element is either a zero-divisor or a unit.

If we drop the finite condition then the result does not hold true. For example, $Z$ is a commutative ring with unity, but $2$ is neither a zero-divisor nor a unit.

share|improve this answer
Hello new user! This might help you in the future. –  G. Sassatelli yesterday

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.