6
$\begingroup$

I'm relatively new to ring theory so this is probably a simple question.

Its easy to see that a finite ring that is commutative and has no-zero divisors (i.e. an integral domain) must have multiplicative inverses.

I am wondering if we can rearrange these properties and always get implication or produce finite rings with only 2 of the above properties.

Explicitly my questions are:

1) Does a finite ring that is commutative with multiplicative inverses always have no-zero divisors? (EDIT: this one is pretty easy too, let xy=0 and assume x not 0. then (x^-1)xy=(x^-1)0. Hence, y=0 as desired.)

2) Is a finite ring that has multiplicative inverses and no zero divisors always commutative?

If these are actually simple exercises, I'd just like a hint to get started with the proof or any counterexamples.

Thanks :)

$\endgroup$
12
$\begingroup$

HINT 1) If $\;\rm R\;$ is finite then $\;\rm x\to r\:x\;$ is onto iff 1-1, so $\;\rm R\;$ is a field iff $\;\rm R\;$ is a domain.

2) is Wedderburn's little theorem.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I see (1) now. Just say x,y are in R and then do xy=0. WLOG assume x not 0. then x has an inverse so (x^-1)xy=(x^-1)0, hence y=0. I think I need some more time with Weddernburn's little theorem, since I haven't really heard of a lot of the terms used in the link. $\endgroup$ – WWright Aug 31 '10 at 2:39
1
$\begingroup$

Des MacHale has a nice and simple answer to the question When is a finite ring a field?

Theorem: Let $(R,+,\cdot)$ be a finite non-zero ring with the property that if $a$ and $b$ in $R$ satisfy $ab=0$, then either $a=0$ or $b=0$. Then $(R,+,\cdot)$ is a field.

MacHale demonstrates that 1) and 2) are particular cases of this theorem. The article is published online by the Irish Mathematical Society here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It would be better to post the proof directly here, or at least to outline it. The link is only to the first page, which only states the theorem. $\endgroup$ – rogerl Dec 23 '17 at 15:37
  • $\begingroup$ It is not true, the link contains the complete article. Specifically, it is Theorem 3, whose proof is on pages 36 and 37. $\endgroup$ – G al Cubo Dec 23 '17 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ This theorem is more general in that it does not assume the ring is commutative like Number does in his question. $\endgroup$ – nombre Dec 23 '17 at 17:41

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.