9
$\begingroup$

This question suggested me the following:

Characterize the commutative unitary rings $R$ with trivial group of units, that is, $R^{\times}=\{1\}$.

The local case was solved here long time ago and it's very simple. In general, such a ring must have characteristic $2$ and the Jacobson radical $J(R)=(0)$. At present I know two classes of examples: direct products of $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$ and polynomial rings over $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$.

(One can also ask for such a characterization in the non-commutative case, but I'm primarily interested in the commutative setting.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you think that there is a characterization? I doubt it. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Feb 23 '14 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ (1) If $R^\times=\{1\}$, then the same holds for any (unitary) subring of $R$; (2) $\mathbb F_2[x,y]/(xy)$ has only one unit. (3) If $R$ is reduced and $(R/P)^\times=\{1\}$ for all minimal prime ideals $P$ of $R$, then $R$ has only one unit. (4) Because of (1), it will even be hard to characterize integral domains with only one unit. $\endgroup$ – Cantlog Feb 28 '14 at 23:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Cantlog How did you come up with the example (2)? $\endgroup$ – user26857 Mar 1 '14 at 22:39
  • $\begingroup$ @user121097: thanks to (3). $\endgroup$ – Cantlog Mar 2 '14 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Cantlog: Just a side note: your points (1)-(3) can be immediately deduced from the first paragraph in the first update to my answer (although I deal with the graded (i.e. projective) case, the relevant arguments extend to the affine case) $\endgroup$ – zcn Mar 3 '14 at 3:28
7
$\begingroup$

This is only a partial answer, to record some thoughts:

If $R$ is semilocal, i.e. has only finitely many maximal ideals (in particular, if $R$ is finite), then one can characterize these rings as precisely the finite products of copies of $\mathbb{F}_2$. If $R$ is semilocal, then any surjection $R \twoheadrightarrow R/I$ induces a surjection on unit groups $R^\times \twoheadrightarrow (R/I)^\times$ (see here for proof). In particular, for any maximal ideal $m$ of $R$, $R/m$ is a field with only one unit, hence must be $\mathbb{F}_2$. Since the Jacobson radical of $R$ is $0$, there is an isomorphism $R \cong \prod_{m \in \text{mSpec}(R)} R/m = \prod \mathbb{F}_2$ by Chinese Remainder, and conversely any finite product of $\mathbb{F}_2$'s does indeed have only one unit.

If there are infinitely many maximal ideals, then it is not clear if every residue field at a maximal ideal is $\mathbb{F}_2$. If this is the case though, then although Chinese remainder fails, one can still realize $R$ as a subring of a product of copies of $\mathbb{F}_2$, so we get a characterization in this case. Thus:

If $R$ is a subring of a direct product of copies of $\mathbb{F}_2$, then $R$ has trivial unit group. The converse holds if every maximal ideal of $R$ has index $2$; in particular it holds if $R$ is semilocal.

Update: There are more examples of such rings than products of $\mathbb{F}_2$ or polynomial rings over $\mathbb{F}_2$ though. If $S = \mathbb{F}_2[x_1, \ldots]$ is a polynomial ring over $\mathbb{F}_2$ (in any number of variables) then for any homogeneous prime ideal $P \subseteq S$ (necessarily contained in the irrelevant ideal $(x_1, \ldots)$), the ring $S/P$ has trivial unit group. Since the property of having trivial unit group passes to products and subrings, the same holds if $P$ is only assumed to be radical (and still homogeneous).

Conversely, any ring $R$ with trivial unit group is a reduced $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra, hence has a presentation $R \cong \mathbb{F}_2[x_1, \ldots]/I$, where $I$ is radical. We can even realize it as a demohogenization $R \cong (\mathbb{F}_2[t, x_1, \ldots]/J)/(t-1)$, where $J$ is a homogeneous radical ideal. Thus if any dehomogenization (at a variable) of a ring of the form $S/I$, where $I$ is a homogeneous radical ideal, has trivial unit group, this would yield a characterization. This in turn is equivalent to asking whether or not the multiplicative set $1 + (t - 1)$ is saturated in $S/I$ (at this point, I must leave this line of reasoning as is, but would welcome any feedback).

Update 2: Upon reflection, it's easy to see that not every dehomogenization of a graded reduced $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra will have trivial unit group, i.e. for $\mathbb{F}_2[t,x,y]/(xy - t^2)$, setting $t = 1$ gives $\mathbb{F}_2[x,y]/(xy - 1)$ which has nontrivial units. I'll have to think a little more about the right strengthening of the condition on $I$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If $R$ is semilocal, then $R$ is a finite direct product of $\mathbb F_2$. (I didn't mention this in my question since I've considered it as a kind of obvious remark.) Thanks for your thoughts anyway. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Feb 24 '14 at 9:30
  • $\begingroup$ @user121097: You're correct in that $R$ is already isomorphic to a product of $\mathbb{F}_2$'s in the semilocal case. In my opinion this isn't particularly trivial to prove though (it comes down to showing that every residue field is $\mathbb{F}_2$, which is not just an obvious remark). Also, any finite ring is obviously semilocal, so I'm a little confused why you seemed to be enlightened by the other answer in the finite case $\endgroup$ – zcn Feb 25 '14 at 3:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the update. I'll take a closer look as soon as possible. (In the semilocal case just use CRT and find that $R$ is a product of fields, and then it's immediate that these fields are $\mathbb F_2$. I'm not so sure that one can use the same technique in the non-commutative setting, that's why I found interesting the finite non-commutative case, although it's an immediate consequence of Artin-Wedderburn theorem.) $\endgroup$ – user26857 Feb 25 '14 at 8:27
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that's a much easier argument than mine above. I'd also like to see your thoughts on the update - I'll keep thinking about it for a bit longer $\endgroup$ – zcn Feb 25 '14 at 8:40
3
$\begingroup$

If the ring is finite, then the ring must be boolean (and hence commutative). I have handled this problem in an article, which you can find on the web: Rodney Coleman: Some properties of finite rings.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Btw, after updating a little my poor knowledge in non-commutative algebra I think you can prove the same result (with the same arguments) for semi-local rings. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Feb 25 '14 at 9:33
3
$\begingroup$

I don't know if this actually contributes more than what has been already said, but in Rings of zero-divisors (1958, Theorem 3), Cohn shows that if $R$ is a commutative ring without nontrivial units, then every element $x\in R$ is either idempotent or transcendental (over $\mathbb{F}_2$). Moreover $R$ is a subdirect product of extension fields of $\mathbb{F}_2$.

These assertions are easy to prove: the subdirect product part is due to $J(R)=0$. If $x\in R$ is algebraic, then $\mathbb{F}_2[x]$ is finite-dimensional over $\mathbb{F}_2$, hence a product of extension fields without nontrivial units, hence a product of copies of $\mathbb{F}_2$, hence $x$ is idempotent.

In fact, the same argument is done by Cohn for any $F$-algebra $R$, $F$ a field, $R$ without units outside of $F$.

EDITED: For the noncommutative case, what we can say with the same arguments is very similar: If $R$ is a ring without nontrivial units, then $R$ is an $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra in which every element is either idempotent of transcendental. Moreover, $R$ is a subdirect product of domains.

The statement about the elements has the same proof as in the commutative case (since $\mathbb{F}_2(x)$ is commutative). Let us prove the last claim: Since $x^2=0$ implies $(1+x^2)=(1+x)^2=1$, we have $1+x=1$, so $x=0$; hence $R$ is reduced (in particular semiprime). In a semiprime ring, the intersection of prime ideals is $0$; since every prime ideal contains a minimal prime ideal, the intersection of minimal prime ideals is also $0$. Now, in a reduced ring, every minimal prime ideal is completely prime, so that its quotient ring is a domain. Therefore $R$ is a subdirect product of the domains $R/P_i$, where $\{P_i\}_{i\in I}$ is the family of completely prime ideals of $R$.

$\endgroup$

protected by user26857 May 31 '15 at 9:49

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.