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.

The standard definition of a ring is an abelian group that is a monoid under multiplication (with distributivity). However there are some books that have a weaker definition in that a ring only has to be closed under multiplication (no identity).

There is a problem in my algebra book asking me to prove that if a ring (defined in the second way) has $p$ elements, where $p$ is prime. If the multiplication is not trivial (i.e. sending everything to 0) then the ring is forced to have a multiplicative identity.

Its seems like a trivial proof, but I just can't see what I'm missing.

What I have so far: Given $R$ is an ring with p elements R is an abelian group of prime order, therefore it is cyclically generated, and of characteristic $p$ and isomorphic to $Z/pZ$. Essentially it boils down to showing $Z/pZ$ is forced to have a multiplicative identity, but I just can't see where this comes from (every resource I found seems to take this as fact). Since this is a requirement regardless of multiplicative structure I can't just use the fact that $Z/pZ - 0$ is a group under the typical multiplication.

share|improve this question

5 Answers 5

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Let $x$ be a nonzero element of the ring. Then $R=\{0,x,2x,3x,\ldots,(p-1)x\}$ where $2x$ means $x+x$ etc. Then $x^2=jx$ where $1\le j\le p-1$. Moreover $(ax)(bx)=abx^2=(abk)x$. All you need to do is to prove that for some $a$, $(abk)x=bx$ for all $b$. (It's surely enough to do this for $b=1$).

share|improve this answer
    
Isn't it necessary to show that $x$ is not nilpotent? –  Niel de Beaudrap Nov 2 '10 at 10:14
    
The multiplication is nonzero, but if $x^2=0$.... –  Robin Chapman Nov 2 '10 at 10:43

Consider the subset $Z ⊆ R$ of elements such that left-multiplication by $z ∈ Z$ does map everything on $0$, $Z$ is trivial because $R$ has non trivial multiplication, hence every non zero element $a$ of $R$ defines an automorphism of the abelian group $R$ which sends $x$ to $ax$ (because the kernel of each map is trivial) , hence we can define a map from $R\setminus\{0\}$ to the automorphisms group $\operatorname{Aut}R$ this map is injective, or $\operatorname{Aut}R$ has $p-1$ element then our map send a non zero element $a$ of $R$ on the identity morphism of $R$, we obtain $ax=x$ for every element $x$ of $R$.

share|improve this answer

$\rm R = \{0,a,2a,\cdots,(p-1)a\}\ $ for $\rm\ 0 \ne a\in R\:$. So $\rm\ a^2 = k\:a\ $ and $\rm\ k \ne 0\:$ via multiplication nontrivial. Now $\rm\ j = 1/k\ \:mod\ p\ \Rightarrow\ ia\ ja\ = \ ijka\ =\ ia\ \Rightarrow\ ja = 1\:$.

share|improve this answer

If $R$ is a ring of order $p$, then it injects into the ring $\text{End}(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})$ of endomorphisms of the abelian group $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$. How many elements does this ring have?

share|improve this answer
1  
...endomorphisms of the abelian group $\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z$... –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Nov 2 '10 at 14:15
    
Right; I'll clarify that. –  Qiaochu Yuan Nov 2 '10 at 14:21

Go on a hunt for all the ways in which R can fail to be isomorphic to ℤ/pℤ, and demonstrate the failure of any of them to hold.

Consider the subset Z ⊆ R of elements such that left-multiplication by z ∈ Z does map everything to zero. We may easily show that Z is an ideal in R:

  • For y,z ∈ Z, we have (y+z)r = yr + zr = 0+0 = 0 for any r ∈ R, so y+r ∈ Z;
  • For any z ∈ Z and a,r ∈ R, we have (az)r = a(zr) = 0 and (za)r = z(ar) = 0; so az, za ∈ Z.

Well, really, we only needed the first of these two criteria, because it shows that (Z,+) must be a subgroup of the abelian group (R,+), which is of prime order. We know that Z ≠ R; so it follows that Z = {0}.

Okay then. If none of the non-zero elements map everything to zero via multiplication, perhaps some of them map some things to zero? Select a ∈ R \ {0} arbitrary, and consider the set Sa = {b ∈ R | ab = 0}. Well, again we find that Sa is an abelian subgroup of R, and again we know that Sa is not allowed to be all of R; so we know that Sa = {0}. That is, R contains no zero divisors.

Well, are there any non-zero elements such that multiplication is not invertible? Well, no: any a,b ∈ R such that ar = br for some non-zero r ∈ R would have the property (a − b)r = 0, so that a = b; so multiplication by elements of R \ {0} yield bijections on R \ {0}.

This should now enable you to answer your question.

share|improve this answer

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.