My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Abstract Algebra

Abstract Algebra Abstract Algebra Math Forum

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
April 7th, 2010, 10:05 PM   #1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009

Posts: 150
Thanks: 0

Ring with unity and two right ideals

I got the following wrong on a practice GRE math subject test and I don't know how to do it:

Let R be a ring with a multiplicative identity, and U an additive subgroup such that u in U and r in R implies u*r is in U. (Compare with a normal ideal which requires both u*r, and r*u to be in U) . U is called a right ideal of R. R has exactly two right ideals, which of the following is true:
I) R is commutative
II) R is a division ring (all elements except additive identity have multiplicative inverses)
III) R is infinite

The answer is (II) only. While (I)is clearly not true because there are two such ideals, it's that (II) is necessary that I don't know how to show. Also how can we be sure the ring is NOT infinite...

Square matrices with nonzero determinants come to my mind, because they lack commutativity and have multiplicative inverses, but this is a finite ring. Perhaps the quaternions have this property?

Everything except the part (Compare with ... to be in U) is straight from the practice exam word for word. Thank you for your time in advance.
forcesofodin is offline  
April 8th, 2010, 08:49 AM   #2
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2007
From: Chicago

Posts: 1,701
Thanks: 3

Re: Ring with unity and two right ideals

It's possible that the problem is a bit of a trick problem-- or at least, unclear wording. It says it has exactly two right ideals. Does it say anywhere that these need to be proper and/or non-trivial? Also, does "which of these hold?" mean "which must hold?" or "exactly one of the following holds. Which?" ?

Anyway, if my suspicion about the lack of clarity is correct, we need to show that a ring with no proper (and non-zero) right ideals is necessarily a division ring.
Suppose R is not a division ring. Choose a non-zero element a with no inverse in R. define aR = {a*r | r in R }. You can show that aR is a right ideal of R (show it's a subgroup using distributivity, and show it consumes elements on the right using associativity of multiplication.)
And clearly , so aR is a proper, non-zero right ideal in R.
So we've shown that any ring without inverses will have proper non-zero right ideals.

Of course, if my suspicion is wrong (which is possible, because normally ideals are explicitly defined to be proper), I'm not sure how to proceed.
cknapp is offline  

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Abstract Algebra

ideals, ring, unity

Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roots of Unity Jacob0793 Complex Analysis 3 March 7th, 2014 04:58 AM
relation between ideals and ideals generated by sets... Lolyta Abstract Algebra 1 September 30th, 2013 04:35 AM
Roots of unity Elladeas Abstract Algebra 2 February 19th, 2011 01:20 PM
Why a ring has at most one unity? tfhawk Abstract Algebra 2 May 3rd, 2009 09:26 AM
Ring and pseudo-ring cgouttebroze Abstract Algebra 5 August 14th, 2008 12:04 PM

Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.