If a ring has no zero-divisors and it contains a nonzero element $b$ such that $b^2 = b$, then show that $b$...
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Idempotents in a ring without unity (rng) and no zero divisors.
1 answer
Suppose that $mathbb{R}$ is a ring with no zero-divisors and that $mathbb{R}$ contains a nonzero element $b$ such that $b^2 = b$. Show that $b$ is the unity for $mathbb{R}$.
I attempted to show that $ab=a$ as $b$ is the unity for that ring. Now, with that assumption, $$(ab)^2=a^2$$
$$implies abab=a^2$$
Multiplying both sides by $b$ and using $b^2=b$ we get:
$$abab=a^2b=a(ab)$$
Not only can we not take inverse on both sides (as it is not mentioned), but this kinda seems like a circular proof. I proved what I assumed so it is definitely incorrect.
I am unable to come up with any other method. What is the correct proof here?
abstract-algebra ring-theory
marked as duplicate by rschwieb
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 15 at 12:00
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Idempotents in a ring without unity (rng) and no zero divisors.
1 answer
Suppose that $mathbb{R}$ is a ring with no zero-divisors and that $mathbb{R}$ contains a nonzero element $b$ such that $b^2 = b$. Show that $b$ is the unity for $mathbb{R}$.
I attempted to show that $ab=a$ as $b$ is the unity for that ring. Now, with that assumption, $$(ab)^2=a^2$$
$$implies abab=a^2$$
Multiplying both sides by $b$ and using $b^2=b$ we get:
$$abab=a^2b=a(ab)$$
Not only can we not take inverse on both sides (as it is not mentioned), but this kinda seems like a circular proof. I proved what I assumed so it is definitely incorrect.
I am unable to come up with any other method. What is the correct proof here?
abstract-algebra ring-theory
marked as duplicate by rschwieb
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 15 at 12:00
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Idempotents in a ring without unity (rng) and no zero divisors.
1 answer
Suppose that $mathbb{R}$ is a ring with no zero-divisors and that $mathbb{R}$ contains a nonzero element $b$ such that $b^2 = b$. Show that $b$ is the unity for $mathbb{R}$.
I attempted to show that $ab=a$ as $b$ is the unity for that ring. Now, with that assumption, $$(ab)^2=a^2$$
$$implies abab=a^2$$
Multiplying both sides by $b$ and using $b^2=b$ we get:
$$abab=a^2b=a(ab)$$
Not only can we not take inverse on both sides (as it is not mentioned), but this kinda seems like a circular proof. I proved what I assumed so it is definitely incorrect.
I am unable to come up with any other method. What is the correct proof here?
abstract-algebra ring-theory
This question already has an answer here:
Idempotents in a ring without unity (rng) and no zero divisors.
1 answer
Suppose that $mathbb{R}$ is a ring with no zero-divisors and that $mathbb{R}$ contains a nonzero element $b$ such that $b^2 = b$. Show that $b$ is the unity for $mathbb{R}$.
I attempted to show that $ab=a$ as $b$ is the unity for that ring. Now, with that assumption, $$(ab)^2=a^2$$
$$implies abab=a^2$$
Multiplying both sides by $b$ and using $b^2=b$ we get:
$$abab=a^2b=a(ab)$$
Not only can we not take inverse on both sides (as it is not mentioned), but this kinda seems like a circular proof. I proved what I assumed so it is definitely incorrect.
I am unable to come up with any other method. What is the correct proof here?
This question already has an answer here:
Idempotents in a ring without unity (rng) and no zero divisors.
1 answer
abstract-algebra ring-theory
abstract-algebra ring-theory
asked Nov 15 at 4:24
Gaurang Tandon
3,48522147
3,48522147
marked as duplicate by rschwieb
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 15 at 12:00
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by rschwieb
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Nov 15 at 12:00
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Let $ain R$ an arbitrary, nonzero element. Then $ba = b^2a implies (b^2-b)a =0 implies b^2-b=0implies b(b-1)=0 implies b=0 text{ or } b=1$, but since we have assumed $bneq 0$ we have $b=1$ (unity in the ring)
Edit:
There actually isn't really any need for the arbitrary element $a$ -- we could just have easily have said $b^2=b implies b^2-b=0$ and worked from there. Sorry for the extraneous detail.
I was taught in a ring if $ab=0$ we cannot assume $a=0$ or $b=0$
– Gaurang Tandon
Nov 15 at 4:30
3
Correct! But, in your problem statement you assume that the ring has no zero divisors. So since we have $(b^2-b)a =0$ and we assume $aneq0$, we must have that $b^2-b=0$
– Theo C.
Nov 15 at 4:31
@GaurangTandon when someone teaches something you should make sure they teach you why
– Prince M
Nov 15 at 6:43
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
One has to show that $ab=a$ for all $a$. Consider the product $x:=(ab-a)b$. By distributivity $x=ab^2-ab=ab-ab=0$. Since $bnot=0$ we get $ab-a=0$ as desired.
Note that it is not necessary to assume that the ring has a multiplicative unit. This follows from the assumptions.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let $e$ be the unit element of $R$. Then $e^2=e$ and $ae=a=ea$ for all $ain R$. Thus $b(e-b) = be-b^2= b-b=0$ and so $e-b = 0$ since $R$ has no zero divisors and $bne 0$ by hypothesis. Hence, $b=e$.
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Let $ain R$ an arbitrary, nonzero element. Then $ba = b^2a implies (b^2-b)a =0 implies b^2-b=0implies b(b-1)=0 implies b=0 text{ or } b=1$, but since we have assumed $bneq 0$ we have $b=1$ (unity in the ring)
Edit:
There actually isn't really any need for the arbitrary element $a$ -- we could just have easily have said $b^2=b implies b^2-b=0$ and worked from there. Sorry for the extraneous detail.
I was taught in a ring if $ab=0$ we cannot assume $a=0$ or $b=0$
– Gaurang Tandon
Nov 15 at 4:30
3
Correct! But, in your problem statement you assume that the ring has no zero divisors. So since we have $(b^2-b)a =0$ and we assume $aneq0$, we must have that $b^2-b=0$
– Theo C.
Nov 15 at 4:31
@GaurangTandon when someone teaches something you should make sure they teach you why
– Prince M
Nov 15 at 6:43
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Let $ain R$ an arbitrary, nonzero element. Then $ba = b^2a implies (b^2-b)a =0 implies b^2-b=0implies b(b-1)=0 implies b=0 text{ or } b=1$, but since we have assumed $bneq 0$ we have $b=1$ (unity in the ring)
Edit:
There actually isn't really any need for the arbitrary element $a$ -- we could just have easily have said $b^2=b implies b^2-b=0$ and worked from there. Sorry for the extraneous detail.
I was taught in a ring if $ab=0$ we cannot assume $a=0$ or $b=0$
– Gaurang Tandon
Nov 15 at 4:30
3
Correct! But, in your problem statement you assume that the ring has no zero divisors. So since we have $(b^2-b)a =0$ and we assume $aneq0$, we must have that $b^2-b=0$
– Theo C.
Nov 15 at 4:31
@GaurangTandon when someone teaches something you should make sure they teach you why
– Prince M
Nov 15 at 6:43
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Let $ain R$ an arbitrary, nonzero element. Then $ba = b^2a implies (b^2-b)a =0 implies b^2-b=0implies b(b-1)=0 implies b=0 text{ or } b=1$, but since we have assumed $bneq 0$ we have $b=1$ (unity in the ring)
Edit:
There actually isn't really any need for the arbitrary element $a$ -- we could just have easily have said $b^2=b implies b^2-b=0$ and worked from there. Sorry for the extraneous detail.
Let $ain R$ an arbitrary, nonzero element. Then $ba = b^2a implies (b^2-b)a =0 implies b^2-b=0implies b(b-1)=0 implies b=0 text{ or } b=1$, but since we have assumed $bneq 0$ we have $b=1$ (unity in the ring)
Edit:
There actually isn't really any need for the arbitrary element $a$ -- we could just have easily have said $b^2=b implies b^2-b=0$ and worked from there. Sorry for the extraneous detail.
edited Nov 15 at 4:35
answered Nov 15 at 4:29
Theo C.
20928
20928
I was taught in a ring if $ab=0$ we cannot assume $a=0$ or $b=0$
– Gaurang Tandon
Nov 15 at 4:30
3
Correct! But, in your problem statement you assume that the ring has no zero divisors. So since we have $(b^2-b)a =0$ and we assume $aneq0$, we must have that $b^2-b=0$
– Theo C.
Nov 15 at 4:31
@GaurangTandon when someone teaches something you should make sure they teach you why
– Prince M
Nov 15 at 6:43
add a comment |
I was taught in a ring if $ab=0$ we cannot assume $a=0$ or $b=0$
– Gaurang Tandon
Nov 15 at 4:30
3
Correct! But, in your problem statement you assume that the ring has no zero divisors. So since we have $(b^2-b)a =0$ and we assume $aneq0$, we must have that $b^2-b=0$
– Theo C.
Nov 15 at 4:31
@GaurangTandon when someone teaches something you should make sure they teach you why
– Prince M
Nov 15 at 6:43
I was taught in a ring if $ab=0$ we cannot assume $a=0$ or $b=0$
– Gaurang Tandon
Nov 15 at 4:30
I was taught in a ring if $ab=0$ we cannot assume $a=0$ or $b=0$
– Gaurang Tandon
Nov 15 at 4:30
3
3
Correct! But, in your problem statement you assume that the ring has no zero divisors. So since we have $(b^2-b)a =0$ and we assume $aneq0$, we must have that $b^2-b=0$
– Theo C.
Nov 15 at 4:31
Correct! But, in your problem statement you assume that the ring has no zero divisors. So since we have $(b^2-b)a =0$ and we assume $aneq0$, we must have that $b^2-b=0$
– Theo C.
Nov 15 at 4:31
@GaurangTandon when someone teaches something you should make sure they teach you why
– Prince M
Nov 15 at 6:43
@GaurangTandon when someone teaches something you should make sure they teach you why
– Prince M
Nov 15 at 6:43
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
One has to show that $ab=a$ for all $a$. Consider the product $x:=(ab-a)b$. By distributivity $x=ab^2-ab=ab-ab=0$. Since $bnot=0$ we get $ab-a=0$ as desired.
Note that it is not necessary to assume that the ring has a multiplicative unit. This follows from the assumptions.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
One has to show that $ab=a$ for all $a$. Consider the product $x:=(ab-a)b$. By distributivity $x=ab^2-ab=ab-ab=0$. Since $bnot=0$ we get $ab-a=0$ as desired.
Note that it is not necessary to assume that the ring has a multiplicative unit. This follows from the assumptions.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
One has to show that $ab=a$ for all $a$. Consider the product $x:=(ab-a)b$. By distributivity $x=ab^2-ab=ab-ab=0$. Since $bnot=0$ we get $ab-a=0$ as desired.
Note that it is not necessary to assume that the ring has a multiplicative unit. This follows from the assumptions.
One has to show that $ab=a$ for all $a$. Consider the product $x:=(ab-a)b$. By distributivity $x=ab^2-ab=ab-ab=0$. Since $bnot=0$ we get $ab-a=0$ as desired.
Note that it is not necessary to assume that the ring has a multiplicative unit. This follows from the assumptions.
answered Nov 15 at 4:57
Jens Schwaiger
1,404127
1,404127
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let $e$ be the unit element of $R$. Then $e^2=e$ and $ae=a=ea$ for all $ain R$. Thus $b(e-b) = be-b^2= b-b=0$ and so $e-b = 0$ since $R$ has no zero divisors and $bne 0$ by hypothesis. Hence, $b=e$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let $e$ be the unit element of $R$. Then $e^2=e$ and $ae=a=ea$ for all $ain R$. Thus $b(e-b) = be-b^2= b-b=0$ and so $e-b = 0$ since $R$ has no zero divisors and $bne 0$ by hypothesis. Hence, $b=e$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Let $e$ be the unit element of $R$. Then $e^2=e$ and $ae=a=ea$ for all $ain R$. Thus $b(e-b) = be-b^2= b-b=0$ and so $e-b = 0$ since $R$ has no zero divisors and $bne 0$ by hypothesis. Hence, $b=e$.
Let $e$ be the unit element of $R$. Then $e^2=e$ and $ae=a=ea$ for all $ain R$. Thus $b(e-b) = be-b^2= b-b=0$ and so $e-b = 0$ since $R$ has no zero divisors and $bne 0$ by hypothesis. Hence, $b=e$.
answered Nov 15 at 6:37
Wuestenfux
2,4991410
2,4991410
add a comment |
add a comment |