0
$\begingroup$

This is an exercise out of Pinter's Abstract Algebra. What I did was just noted that since $B$ is a subring of $A$, it is closed under subtraction and multiplication. Therefore, if $\exists x, y \in B$ such that $xy = 0$, $x \neq 0$ and $y \neq 0$ then this also implies that $A$ is not an integral domain, since $x, y \in A$ as well. However, this did not use the assumption that $1 \in B$, so I'm wondering if I missed something.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Some authors use a definition of a ring that does not include a multiplicative identity, but typically an integral domain is required to have a multiplicative identity. Therefore $A,$ being an integral domain, has a $1$, but $B$ a general subring need not include that $1$. Once $1\in B$, then you can conclude that $B$ is an integral domain.

$\endgroup$

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.