We know in a commutative ring, if the only ideals are trivial and the whole ring, then the ring is a field, which is proved by every ideal is contained in a maximal ideal, which is proved by Zorn's lemma.

But in non-commutative case, we can find counter-examples that the only ideals are trivial and the whole ring, but there are elements in the ring that do not have multiplicative inverse.

My question is: where does the proof for commutative rings break down in the non-commutative ring?

I think the only possibility is some ideals may not be contained in a maximal ideal, is that true?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The first point is not a consequence of Zorn's lemma! It's a straight forward proof from scratch. No axiom of choice needed. $\endgroup$ Dec 19, 2014 at 19:08
  • $\begingroup$ @OlivierBégassat what do you mean exactly? $\endgroup$
    – annimal
    Dec 19, 2014 at 19:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ with no two-sided ideals other than $0, R$ there are examples like matrix rings over division rings, etc. see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artin%E2%80%93Wedderburn_theorem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_ring $\endgroup$
    – yoyo
    Dec 19, 2014 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ In a noncommutative ring you have to distinguish between left, right, and two-sided ideals. So you first have to take care of this. What do you even mean by a maximal ideal in a noncommutative ring? Do you take it to be left, right,... ideal? $\endgroup$ Dec 19, 2014 at 19:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @annimal To explain Olivier's comment, consider the ideal generated by $a$ for any $a \ne 0$. Then this ideal is not trivial, so it must be the whole ring, therefore $1$ is contained in the ideal, therefore $ab = 1$ for some $b$, therefore $a$ is invertible. $\endgroup$
    – 6005
    Dec 22, 2014 at 8:13

2 Answers 2


Let $R$ be a ring with unity, take $r\in R \setminus \{0\}$, and suppose that $(r) = R$ as ideals.

In the commutative case, this means that $r$ is invertible. Why? Because every element of $(r)$ is of the form $ar$, so we have $ar=1$ for some $a\in R$.

But in the non-commutative case, if we are looking at two-sided ideals, the elements of $(r)$ include all elements of the form $\sum_{i=1}^n a_i r b_i$ (and more, if we don't assume $R$ unital). So the statement $(r)=R$ is not so strong anymore.

Consider the example of a $2\times 2$ matrix ring over a field. A rank $1$ matrix is not invertible, but it generates the whole ring as an ideal, because we can produce all rank $1$ matrices by multiplying, and then easily write any matrix as a sum of rank $1$ matrices.

On the other hand, if we assume that there are no non-trivial left ideals, for example, then a similar theorem still holds: a left- or right-simple unital ring is a division ring. But again, this is because principal left and right ideals have a nice structure, while principal two-sided ideals don't.

There is still much to be said about simple rings, but this takes more complicated forms, like Artin-Wedderburn.


For a counterexample take the first Weyl algebra $\mathbf C[p,q]$ where $pq-qp=1$, which is a subalgebra of ${\rm End}_{\mathbf C}\mathbf C[X]$. Here $p$ acts on polynomials by $p f(X)=f'(X)$ and $q$ acts by $qf(X)=Xf(X)$. It should be checked $q,p$ are not invertible, yet $pq-qp=1$ means $(p)=(q)=1$. The point is that in noncommutative cases, even principal ideals are not that simple: $(a)$ is equal to all possible sums $\sum\limits_{i=1}^n a_i ab_i$ and a relation of the form $\sum\limits_{i=1}^n a_i ab_i=1$ doesn't imply invertibility.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Doh: it looks like you read the title without reading the post. My question is: where does the proof for commutative rings break down in the non-commutative ring? $\endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Dec 20, 2014 at 15:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @rschwieb I have corrected the title of the post. I still think examples are valuable. $\endgroup$
    – Pedro
    Dec 20, 2014 at 17:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.