So, my underlying subset is all the elements in R that contain a multiplicative inverse. I need to show closure under subtraction and multiplication.

I dont think this is a subring, but I'm having trouble showing this. Suppose $r_1, r_2 \in S$. Then $r_1^{-1}, r_2^{-1}\in S$. This would mean that for element $(r_1-r_2)$, $(r_1-r_2)^{-1}$ needs to be in $S$.

But since $r_1^{-1}-r_2^{-1}\neq (r_1-r_2)^{-1}$, this doesnt hold. Is this how the proof is finished? I dont feel like this is right, but I feel this is the subring condition that is violated. I feel as though i need to show more to prove the subtraction closure is not upheld. It would be closed under multiplication as


How do I procede?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ just take $r_1=r_2=s \in S$, then $r_1-r_2=0$ and hence not invertible. $\endgroup$ – Anurag A Jan 29 '17 at 14:26

Your idea is correct but it'd be better if you gave an explicit counterexample. For example, if you take $R=\Bbb{Z}$, and $r_1=r_2=1$, then $r_1-r_2=0$, which is not invertible in $R$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ you know, I was thinking that somehow the 0 element might be involved since 0 is noninvertible. Thank you!! $\endgroup$ – AveryJessup Jan 29 '17 at 14:25
  • $\begingroup$ @AveryJessup no problem. Note you can actually turn my "proof" into the fact that for every single ring $R$, this subset is not a subring. This is because you can always take $1\neq0$, and consider $1-1$. $\endgroup$ – Alex Mathers Jan 29 '17 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ thats why i liked it...the subring must contain both of those elements, so letting it equal 1 makes perfect sense as you said. I knew I was on the right track. Thank you again. $\endgroup$ – AveryJessup Jan 29 '17 at 14:28

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.