Let $A$ be a unitary ring. The question is simply: can the product of two non invertible elements in $A$ be invertible?

I proved that the answer is negative if $A$ does not have zero divisors, because if you have $a,b$ non invertible elements in $A$ and $abx=xab=1$, then $a(bx)=1$ so $a$ is right invertible and if we put $d=bxa \implies db=b(xab)=b1=b \implies d=1$ (because obviously $b$ is not $0$), so $a$ is left invertible, as desired. If $A$ does have zero divisors, I don't see how to adapt the proof...

Thank you!


Yes. Consider the ring of bounded linear operators on $\ell^2$. Let $$ a = (x_1,x_2,\dots) \mapsto (0,x_1,x_2,\dots), \\ b = (x_1,x_2,\dots) \mapsto (x_2,x_3,\dots) .$$ Then $ba = I$, but neither $a$ nor $b$ are invertible.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Don't you means "Yes"??? $\endgroup$ – Gina Jan 5 '14 at 1:25
  • $\begingroup$ Fixed it, thanks. There is a theorem that says if $a$ in a unitary ring has a left inverse, but no right inverse, then it has infinitely many left inverses. I don't remember the proof, and I remember it being a hard problem. So this does mean that my example cannot be made much simpler. $\endgroup$ – Stephen Montgomery-Smith Jan 5 '14 at 1:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here is a proof that the ring has to be infinite: math.stackexchange.com/questions/138541/… $\endgroup$ – Stephen Montgomery-Smith Jan 5 '14 at 1:37
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I try to search for the theorem you mentioned. The closest I got is Kaplansky-Jacobson theorem, which say that if it have more than 1 right inverse then it have infinitely many. But I don't think that's what you're talking about. Do you know the name of the theorem? $\endgroup$ – Gina Jan 5 '14 at 1:43
  • $\begingroup$ Has anyone found the name of the theorem? $\endgroup$ – Léo Léopold Hertz 준영 Jan 16 '14 at 11:16

Here is a more algebraic example. Let $R$ be the ring of all $\infty\times\infty$ matrices with real entries such that in each column there is only a finite number of non-zero entries. Let $A = \left(\begin{array}{CCCcC} 0 & 1 & 0 & 0& \cdots \\ 0 & 0 & 2& 0& \cdots \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 3 & \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\end{array}\right)$ and $B = \left(\begin{array}{CCCcC} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& \cdots \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0& \cdots \\ 0 & \frac 12 & 0 & 0 & \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\end{array}\right)$. Then it is clear that $AB = I$ therefore $AB$ is invertible but neither $A$ nor $B$ are not invertible. (since for example the first row of $B$ is zero this mean that for any matrix $C \in R$ the $(1,1)$ entries of $BC$ is zero so this is impossible to have $BC = I$.)


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.