0
$\begingroup$

In Dummit and Foote Abstract ALgebra, they define

A subring of the ring $R$ is a subgroup of $R$ that is closed under multiplication.

I know that since we check for closure and multiplication and subtraction, it is actually closed under addition, additive inverse and multiplication.

I don't understand how being closed under addition and additive inverses is in the defintion, does subgroup imply a subgroup under addition, even though they didn't specify the group law for the subgroup? Are subgroups implicitly groups under addition when talking about rings?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Yes, a subgroup of $R$ is indeed a subgroup of $(R,+)$, you are right. The reason is, that $(R^{\times},\cdot)$ is not a group (except for fields). Take $R=\Bbb Z$ the integers. It doesn't make sense to take about the group $(\Bbb Z^{\times},\cdot)$ under multiplication.

$\endgroup$

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.