5
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a unital associative ring and

$$ R=A\oplus B, $$

where $A$ is a two-sided ideal of $R$ and $B$ is a right ideal of $R$. Does it follow that $B$ is a two-sided ideal of $R$?

I feel like the answer should be yes. Say I take an arbitrary element $(r,s)\in R$, I need to show that $(r,s)b\in B$ for all $b\in B$. But an element of $B$ can only be written as $(0,b)$ for some $b\in R$, so

$$ (r,s)(0,b)=(0,sb)\in B. $$

I feel like I am missing something and it's not that simple, since I'm not using the fact that $R$ is unital at all. What am I missing here?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to me that if $A \oplus B$ denotes the direct product of rings, with operations by component, then $A \oplus 0$ and $0 \oplus B$ are ideals of $A \oplus B$, without any further conditions. Am I missing something? $\endgroup$ – Andreas Caranti Oct 20 '16 at 11:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AndreasCaranti Pretty sure he's using it to denote the direct sum of right ideals of $R$, where one just happens to be a two-sided ideal. The multiplication would just be the ring multiplication. As such, the multiplication wouldn't be component-wise, it would be internal to the ring, and there's the possibility of cross-terms making problems. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Oct 20 '16 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ @rschwieb, thanks, you opened my eyes. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Caranti Oct 20 '16 at 14:40
6
$\begingroup$

Counterexample

Let $R$ be a ring with identity and a proper ideal $A$, and assume also that there is a nonzero element $e\in A$ such that $ea=a$ for all $a\in A$ and yet there exists an $a'\in A$ such that $a'e\neq a'$. (For example, you could take any rng $A$ with a left identity $e$ that isn't a right identity, and then unitize it in the standard way into the ring $R=\mathbb Z \times A$.)

Now let $B$ be the subring $(1-e)R(1-e)$, and consider the subring of $R$ that is $S=A+B$. It's important to remember that $e$ is idempotent and so $e(1-e)=0$. Notice also that $1=e + (1-e)\in A+B$.

Clearly $A\cap B=\{0\}$, because if $a=(1-e)r(1-e)$, then left multiplication by $e$ yields $a=ea=0$. Having shown this, we now have that $S=A\oplus B$. $A$ remains an ideal in $S$ since it was an ideal in $R$. Furthermore $B^2\subseteq B$, and $BA\subseteq B$ (in fact, $BA=\{0\}$) so $B$ is a right ideal of $S$.

Of course, $a'(1-e)\in A\setminus \{0\}$, and it cannot be in $B$ since $A\cap B=\{0\}$. Nevertheless $a'(1-e)\in AB$, so we see that $B$ does not absorb multiplication on the left in $S$, so $B$ isn't a left ideal.

$\endgroup$
0
4
$\begingroup$

If writing $R = A\oplus B$ means that $R$ is the direct sum of two additive subgroups $A$ and $B$, and $A$ happens to be a 2-sided ideal while $B$ happens to be a right ideal, then it need not be true that $B$ is a 2-sided ideal.

Example. $R$ is the ring of upper triangular $2\times 2$ matrices over a field, $A$ is the ideal of $R$ consisting of matrices of the form $\left[\begin{matrix} *&*\\0&0\end{matrix}\right]$ and $B$ is the right ideal of $R$ consisting of matrices of the form $\left[\begin{matrix} 0&0\\0&*\end{matrix}\right]$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ This was my first thought too, but I discarded it after noticing a deleted answer retracting the scheme. Looks like he would have had it if he had reexamined his choice of $A$ and $B$. It's a rather good special case of the scheme I was outlining with $e=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&0\end{bmatrix}$ $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Oct 20 '16 at 14:55
  • $\begingroup$ @KeithKearnes Sry. I did not read carefully. $\endgroup$ – martini Oct 21 '16 at 7:50

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.