I have to prove that the ring $(\{0\},+,\cdot)$ is a subring of any ring $(R,+,\cdot).$

Let $S = (\{0\},+,\cdot)$ and $R = (R,+,\cdot)$ then $S$ is a subring of $R$ iff $(R,+,\cdot)$ is a ring and $S \subseteq R$ and $S$ is a ring with the same operations.

As we know $S$ has an identity element of $0 \to 0+0=0$. It has an additive inverse of $0 \to 0-0=0$. It is commutative and associative, and it is distributive over addition.

So my only problem is that I am having difficulties cleaning this up and putting it into a proof. Maybe you can help me.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If $R$ is a ring with unit, then $S$ might not be considered as a subring, since we usually assume $1_R\in S$ as a property of a subring. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Aug 19 '12 at 18:12
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ As it turns out, $0=1_R$ is possible if and only if $R$ is the zero ring, itself. Andrew's point (I suspect) is that some definitions of subring require that the multiplicative identities are the same. In this case, they clearly aren't requiring that. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Buie Aug 19 '12 at 18:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm always surprised whenever anyone puts a lot of emphasis on requiring subrings to be "unital subrings" (to share the superring's identity). There are interesting subrings with identity which are not unital. If $e$ is any central idempotent of a ring $R$ with unity, then $eRe$ is a subring with identity $e$. This characterizes the factor rings in products of rings. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Aug 19 '12 at 19:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Some people define rings to have $1\neq0$, others don't. It is one of those things you have to check when you encounter a paper or a text book. On the whole it makes very little difference - a sentence to deal with an anomalous case occasionally. It can be material when Category Theory is involved - and different contexts can prefer different conventions. $\endgroup$ – Mark Bennet Aug 19 '12 at 19:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @rschweib: If you don't require structure-preserving maps to preserve $1$, that means you're not viewing the existence of a multiplicative unit as part of the algebraic structure, but instead as a property of the structure -- it means you're viewing it as "a $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra that has a unit", rather as a ring. As for products, normally the factors of a product are supposed to be quotient objects, not subobjects. That the fact $R$ (viewed as an $R$-algebra) happens to be a product of $R$-subalgebras is a property not shared by the ring structure doesn't seem awkward to me. $\endgroup$ – user14972 Aug 20 '12 at 12:36

Hint $\ $ By the subring test it suffices to verify $\rm\:0-0,\, 0\cdot 0\,\in\, S,\:$ i.e. $\rm \,S\,$ is closed under subtraction and multiplication.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.