1
$\begingroup$

Find order of smallest non-commutative ring.

According to me, the order should be 4. 2×2 matrix with 2 non-zero entries over finite field Z2 and bottom row is zero.This matrix has no unity.

Is this a right answer or am i doing something wrong? Please help.Thanks.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I’m not sure what your ring elements are. Are these in the ring? What is $ \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1\\ 0& 0\end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}?$ $\endgroup$ – Dan Robertson Nov 29 '17 at 13:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also what is your definition of a (noncommitative) ring? You can’t have a noncommutative ring with no unity if your definition requires the existence of a unit. Often a ring with no unit is called a rng (a ring with no ‘i’). $\endgroup$ – Dan Robertson Nov 29 '17 at 13:58
  • $\begingroup$ Non commutative ring means it is not commutative under multiplication.I'm talking about the 2×2 matrix with only 2 non zero entries at any place and element are from finite field Z2. $\endgroup$ – Seeker Nov 29 '17 at 14:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user378511 This ring has a unit, but is not closed under addition. $\endgroup$ – lisyarus Nov 29 '17 at 14:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @lisyarus take bottom row of the matrix zero. $\endgroup$ – Seeker Nov 29 '17 at 14:08
2
$\begingroup$

Yes, your example (pieced together from the original post and the comments) $\begin{bmatrix}F_2&F_2\\0&0\end{bmatrix}$ is a noncommutative rng without identity of order $4$.

Since $\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&0\end{bmatrix}$ acts as an identity on the left, it would have to be equal to any candidate two-sided identity, if it existed, but $\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\0&0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&0\end{bmatrix}\neq \begin{bmatrix}0&1\\0&0\end{bmatrix}$

Obviously you can't have such a ring with $1$ or $2$ elements.

If such a ring had $3$ elements, say $\{0,a,b\}$, all distinct, then $a+b$ must be somewhere in this set. $a+b\in \{a,b\}$ creates a contradiction, so $a+b=0$ necessarily, so that $b=-a$. But multiplication in $\{-a,0,a\}$ necessarily commutes.

What you gave is actually a nice representation for one of my favorite examples of semigroup rings. You take the semigroup $S=\{a,b\}$ with multiplication defined by $a^2=ba=a$ and $b^2=ab=b$, and make the semigroup ring $F_2[S]$. I think this is the same ring as if we had taken $a=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&0\end{bmatrix}$ and $b=\begin{bmatrix}1&1\\0&0\end{bmatrix}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So the question should be asked what is the order of smallest non-commutative "rng"? Right? $\endgroup$ – Seeker Nov 29 '17 at 14:41
  • $\begingroup$ @user378511 "rng=ring possibly without identity". If I was given free reign with the question I would pose it as "what's the smallest ring that isn't commutative and doesn't have identity?" but that's just me. How you wrote it is understandable. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Nov 29 '17 at 14:44
  • $\begingroup$ Oh yeah!This sounds more understandable to me. Next time I'll be more precise with the language ;) $\endgroup$ – Seeker Nov 29 '17 at 14:49

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.