I am learning about rings and ideals. But I am confused about something. My book (Gallian) says that an ideal of a ring by definition is a subring. But I have talked to other people who insist that an ideal is not a ring itself. I am confused about this. According to Wikipedia an ideal isn't necessarily a subring. But maybe it follows from the definition in Wikipedia that an ideal is a subring?

So my question is: is an ideal a ring?


The answer is both yes and no, so this will take a bit of elaboration.

There are two ways to define a ring. One of them require the existence of a $1$, the other does not.

Let's start with the one that does. In this case, a subring is required to contain the $1$ from the larger ring, and hence no proper ideal can be a subring (as any ideal containing $1$ will be the entire ring).

If we removed the requirement that the subring contained the original $1$, then the answer would be "sometimes", since the ideal might or might not have a "local" $1$ (I invite you to try some small examples of rings to find examples of either case).

If we instead take the case where a ring need not have a $1$, then it follows straight from the definitions that any ideal will also be a subring.

Here is a general way to get a proper non-trivial ideal which has a "local" $1$: Take any $x\in R$ such that $x^2 = x$ (such $x$ are called idempotent) and such that $x\neq 0$ and $x\neq 1$ (which need not exist, but will for example exist in any ring of the form $R_1\times R_2$). Then the ideal generated by $x$ will have $x$ as its "local" $1$ (I am assuming the ring to be commutative, or at least $x$ to be central here).
Conversely, if we have such an $x$ then the ring will be the direct product of the ideals generated by $x$ and $1-x$ (note that $1-x$ is also idempotent).

  • $\begingroup$ Any ideal with $1$ coincides with whole ring? $\endgroup$ – Leox Apr 20 '15 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, since any $a\in R$ can be written as $1a$ or $a1$, so if the ideal contains $1$ then it also contains $a$ (whether it is a left-, right- or twosided ideal). $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Apr 20 '15 at 12:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Leox But note that this is when the $1$ is the same as for the whole ring. It is possible to have an element behave like a $1$ for a proper ideal but not for the entire ring. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Apr 20 '15 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ yes, but in this case any ideal of a ring be trivial one $\endgroup$ – Leox Apr 20 '15 at 12:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Leox I am not sure what you mean by trivial here. It is certainly possible to have a non-trivial ideal which is a ring with unity and the unit just happens to be different from the one of the original ring. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Apr 20 '15 at 12:33

In general, an ideal is a ring without unity - i.e. without a multiplicative identity - even if the ring it is an ideal of has unity. For example $\mathbb{2Z} \subset \mathbb{Z}$ is an ideal but $\mathbb{2Z}$ is not a ring with unity. So if you require your rings to have unity - and a lot of the time one does - then an ideal is in general not a ring. This is where the disagreement comes.

Sometimes the ideal can have a different identity (e.g., as quid points out in the comments, $\mathbb{Z}^2$ has $\mathbb{Z}\times {0}$ as an ideal, which is a ring with unity). But the only way the ideal can have the same multiplicative identity - and so be a sub-ring-with-identity - is if it is the whole ring.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for following up I think it is fine now. (I delete the original comment an will detete that one if I don't forger about it.) $\endgroup$ – quid Apr 20 '15 at 12:21

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.