Pehaps I missed something, but in my first abstract algebra course we were taught that if in a ring either cancellation law (i.e. $ac = bc, c\neq 0 \Rightarrow a=b$; either this one or the left one), then said ring had no zero divisors. The converse holds too: if a ring has no zero divisors, both cancellation laws hold.

My first question is: Does this mean that any division ring has no zero divisors?; because, in a division ring, if one has $ac = bc$ with $c\neq 0$, one could always multiply both sides by $c^{-1}$ and $ac = bc$ would imply that $a=b$ and, thus, the right cancellation law would hold.

My second question is: Are there more necessary and sufficient conditions for a ring to have no zero divisors?

  • $\begingroup$ Presumably you mean no proper zero divisors for your first question, in which case the answer is yes. $\endgroup$ – Batman Mar 30 '15 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, what do you mean with "proper"?, elements different from $0$? $\endgroup$ – Miguelgondu Mar 30 '15 at 3:08

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the rings you are referring to are called integral domains. As for more necessary/sufficient conditions, this might help:


  • $\begingroup$ I knew them by name, but Wikipedia had just what I was looking for and I hadn't noticed. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Miguelgondu Mar 30 '15 at 3:55

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.