3
$\begingroup$

Let $a$, $b$, and $c$ be elements of a commutative ring $R$, and suppose $a$ is a unit. Prove that $b$ divides $c$ if and only if $ab$ divides $c$.

Okay so here is the proof I came up with. Please be as critical as possible of the proof I need to have a very rigid understanding of this concept.

($\Rightarrow$) Since $b\mid c$ then there exists some $n\in R$ such that $bn = c$.

Since $a$ is a unit we can rewrite this as $abna^{-1} = c$.

Thus we know that $na^{-1}$ is an element of $R$, so rename it as $x$.

So $abx = c$. Therefore $(ab)x =c$. Thus $ab\mid c$.

($\Leftarrow$) Assume $ab\mid c$, then there exists some integer $x\in R$ such that $abx = c$.

Now since $a$ is a unit we can conclude that $abx = bx$, therefore $bx = c$, so $b\mid c$.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In your last lines: how do you come to $abc=bx$ on base of $abx=c$? Btw, the equality $abx=c$ tells us immediately that $b\mid c$. If $r_1\cdots r_k=c$ then every $r_i$ divides $c$. You don't need the fact that $a$ is a unit there. Also you should mention where it is used that $R$ is commutative (e.g. when you are saying that $abna^{-1}=bn=c$). $\endgroup$ – drhab Apr 18 '15 at 6:09
  • $\begingroup$ There it was a typo I have corrected my mistake, okay thank you for the input....I will post a revised version of the proof shortly $\endgroup$ – B ry Apr 18 '15 at 14:48
  • $\begingroup$ --> Since b/c then there exists some n that is an element of the ring R, such that bn = c. Since a is a unit and the ring R is commutative we can rewrite this as abna^-1 = c. Thus we know that na^-1 is an element of R, so rename it as x. So abx = c. Therefore, by commutativity, (ab)x =c. Thus ab/c. <-- Assume ab/c, then there exists some integer x in R such that abx = c. Now we can conclude that abx = b(ax), and we know that axis an element of R, therefore b/c. $\endgroup$ – B ry Apr 18 '15 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ "some integer $x\in R$...." Elements of $\mathbb Z$? $\endgroup$ – drhab Apr 18 '15 at 14:55
2
$\begingroup$

The $(\Rightarrow)$ part is good.

The $(\Leftarrow)$ part is wrong, unfortunately. You can't say that $abx=bx$.

Assume $ab\mid c$; then, for some $x\in R$, $(ab)x=c$ and so $a(bx)=c$. Then $b(ax)=c$ and therefore $b\mid c$.

Note that this part doesn't require $a$ is a unit.

$\endgroup$

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.