I was reading some article on local rings, and it gave the following (equivalent) definitions:

A ring $R$ is $local$ if it satisfies one of the following equivalent properties (so this needs proving)

  1. $R$ has a unique left maximal ideal.
  2. $R$ has a unique right maximal ideal.
  3. $1\neq 0$, and the sum of non-units of $R$ is a non-unit.
  4. $1\neq 0$, and for all $r\in R$, either $r$ or $1-r$ is a unit.
  5. If the sum of finite number of elements in $R$ is a unit, then the sum must contain a unit as one of the summands.

Okay, I have no qualm with this definition, except that...

Do we allow the ring to be without an identity?

I mean, what if $1\not\in R$? Can one talk about a local ring that does not have an identity?


Usually, unless otherwise specified, when we say "ring" we mean ring with identity.

In algebraic-geometric or commutative-algebraic contexts, "local ring" usually also means Noetherian.

  • $\begingroup$ I was actually curious aswell; And I still wonder though: It doesn't follow that it has identity from having a unique maximal ideal (and being commutative) right? i.e. would it still make sense to talk about local (perhaps noncommutative) rings without identity? The definitions seem to vary, including/excluding both identity and commutativity. $\endgroup$ – Christopher.L Sep 18 '18 at 23:00

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.