3
$\begingroup$

We know that for a commutative ring $R$ with identity $1_R$,

(a) An ideal $P$ is prime iff $R/P$ is an integral domain

(b) An ideal $M$ is maximal iff $R/M$ is a field.

The way i proved the statement (a) doesn't need the existence of $1_R$. But then the way i proved (b) uses the existence of $1_R$. Also for the proof of "Every maximal ideal is prime" I used (a),(b)

(Note that if we take $R=x\mathbb{R}[x],I=x^2\mathbb{R}[x]$ then $I$ is a maximal ideal of $R$ which is not prime. Indeed, assume $I\subsetneq M$ then we can show $\exists ax\in M\text{ for some }a\in\mathbb{R}^*$. Thus $M=R$. But $x.x=x^2\in I$ but $x\not\in I$ which shows that $I$ is not prime). So I used the existence of $1_R$.

When I proved the existence of "Maximal ideal", i used Zorn's lemma along with the existence of $1_R$.

My question: I can formulate the characterization of prime ideal in an arbitrary ring as

"An ideal $P$ is prime iff $R/P$ has no zero-divisor."

(I hope it is correct! If not, please tell me where i am wrong.)

So, the question is how to characterize the maximal ideal of a ring $R$ if

(i) $R$ is commutative but has no unity (For this part I assume that a maximal ideal $M$ is given. As in an arbitrary ring maximal ideals may not exist, I'm assuming the existence and want to conclude about the ring $R/M$.)

(ii) $R$ is not commutative but has unity (I think $R/P$ is division ring, is necessary and sufficient. If I'm wrong, please correct my statement)

(iii) $R$ is non-commutative and without unity.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

"An ideal $P$ is prime iff $R/P$ has no zero-divisor."

Well, if you are saying a domain is a ring without zero divisors (i.e. zero is not a zero divisor) then you have to do something about the case $R=P$. You could, for example, just require that $P$ is a proper ideal of $R$. Otherwise, yes, the definition of a prime ideal in a commutative ring is equivalent to this.

It is not, however, the most useful defintion of prime ideal in noncommutative rings. The useful definition for noncommutative rings is this: a proper ideal $P$ of $R$ is said to be prime if, for any two ideals $A,B$ of $R$, $AB\subseteq P$ implies $A\subseteq P$ or $B\subseteq P$.

This is equivalent to $R/P$ being a prime ring, which is the noncommutative analogue of an integral domain.

An ideal in a noncommutative ring which satisfies the commutative definition of a prime ideal is called completely prime. It is equivalent to $R/P$ having no zero divisors. So my preferred way to state what you are trying to prove is: a proper ideal $P$ is completely prime iff $R/P$ has no zero divisors.

There is a ton of information on this already in the wiki article, which you should probably consult.

So, the question is how to characterize the maximal ideal of a ring $R$ if

(i) $R$ is commutative but has no unity (For this part I assume that a maximal ideal $M$ is given. As in an arbitrary ring maximal ideals may not exist, I'm assuming the existence and want to conclude about the ring $R/M$.)

(ii) $R$ is not commutative but has unity (I think $R/P$ is division ring, is necessary and sufficient. If I'm wrong, please correct my statement)

(iii) $R$ is non-commutative and without unity.

The answer to all these questions is uniformly this: a proper ideal $M$ is a maximal ideal if $R/M$ is a simple ring, meaning that it has exactly two ideals. It does not depend on identity or commutativity at all. As you've already noticed, it's possible for a maximal ideal of a commutative rng to fail to be prime.

Good examples to keep in mind include the ring of square matrices $M_n(\mathbb R)$ and $2\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$.

Information

In his analysis of noncommutative rings without identity, Jacobson especially tackled maximal left-, right-, and two-sided ideals. He distinguished modular, (or sometimes called regular) maximal right ideals from ones that aren't modular. Modular maximal ideals are relatively well behaved. In the case of commutative rngs, a modular maximal ideal $M$ is just one for which $R/M$ has an identity, and is therefore a field.

$\endgroup$

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.