2
$\begingroup$

Prove that if $f \in R[x]$ is a zero divisor then $\exists r(\neq 0) \in R$ s.t $rf=0$, where $R$ is a ring.

I know that for $(a_0+a_1x+ \cdots +a_nx^n)(b_0+b_1x+\cdots+b_mx^m)=(c_0+c_1x+\cdots+c_{m+n}x^{m+n})=0$ where $c_k=\sum_{i=0}^k a_ib_{k-i}$ Then $a_0$ & $a_n$ is a zero divisor. But how to prove from here now?

I have found 1 proof in Zero divisor in $R[x]$ but this is for commutative ring, what about non-commutative rings? Is the result still true or not? Give me proof or counterexamples.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think this holds in noncommutative rings. See for example Section 3 of this paper. $\endgroup$ – rogerl Oct 13 '14 at 21:25
1
$\begingroup$

McCoy's theorem (the theorem described in the link you used) does not hold in general for noncommutative rings.

Maybe the first example given was here:

L. G. Jones and L. Weiner, Advanced Problems and Solutions, Solutions 4419, Amer. Math. Monthly 59 (1952), no. 5, 336–337.

This lead to the following two papers defining a right McCoy ring to be a ring $R$ for which for $f,g\in R[x]$, $fg=0$ implies $fr=0$ for some $r\in R$.

P. P. Nielsen, Semi-commutativity and the McCoy condition, J. Algebra 298 (2006), no. 1, 134–141.

M. B. Rege and S. Chhawchharia, Armendariz rings, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 73 (1997), no. 1, 14–17.

I learned about these when reviewing this article which has a lot of other nice information.

$\endgroup$

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.