;" .

A First Course in
RINGS AND IDEALS

. DAVID M.~BURTON

University ofNew Hampshire

.'
'Y 'Y
- ADDISON-WESLEY PUBLISmNG COMPANY
Reading, Massachusetts . Menlo Park, California . London . Don MilIs, Ontario
;" .
A First Course in
RINGS AND IDEALS

. DAVID M.~BURTON

University ofNew Hampshire

.'
'Y 'Y
- ADDISON-WESLEY PUBLISmNG COMPANY
Reading, Massachusetts . Menlo Park, California . London . Don MilIs, Ontario
 .~
'{
I

1'1
'.1
l·
I

í
This book .ís in the To my Father. Frank Howard Burton
ADDISON-WESLEY SERIES IN MATHEMATICS

Consulting Editor: Lynn H. Loomis

1
i

Standard Book Number 201.00731.2

AMS 1968 Subject Classifieations 1610, 1620.
Copyright © 1970 by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, lnc. Philippines copyright 1970
by Addison~Wesley PubJishing Company, Ine.
AII rights reserved. No part ofthis publieation may be reproduced. stored in a retrievaI system,
or transmitted. in any form or by any means. electronie, mechanical, photocopying, recording.
or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in Ihe United Sta tes ,
of Ameriea. Published simultaneous1y in Canada. Library·of Congress CataJog Card No.
73-100855.
 .~
'{
I

1'1
'.1
l·
I

í
This book .ís in the To my Father. Frank Howard Burton
ADDISON-WESLEY SERIES IN MATHEMATICS

Consulting Editor: Lynn H. Loomis

1
i

Standard Book Number 201.00731.2

AMS 1968 Subject Classifieations 1610, 1620.
Copyright © 1970 by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, lnc. Philippines copyright 1970
by Addison~Wesley PubJishing Company, Ine.
AII rights reserved. No part ofthis publieation may be reproduced. stored in a retrievaI system,
or transmitted. in any form or by any means. electronie, mechanical, photocopying, recording.
or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in Ihe United Sta tes ,
of Ameriea. Published simultaneous1y in Canada. Library·of Congress CataJog Card No.
73-100855.
 ----------------------~~ ----,------------ .----_.- .. _.- ---- ----:-----.---------- --"----- _ . _ - - - - _ . ,

PREFACE
:1'

As the title suggests, this volume is designed to 'serve as an introduction to

the basic ideas and techniques of ring theory; it is intendedto be an
.' ".
expository textbook, rather than a treatise on the subject. Thé,mathe-
matical background required for a proper understanding of the coi1tents
i~ not extensive. We assume that the average reader 4as had SbITle prior
contact with' abstract algebra, but is stíll relatively inexperienced";in this
respect. In consequence, nearly everything herein can be read by a person
familiar with basic group-theoretic concepts and having a nodding acquain-
tance with linear algebra; .
The level ofmaterial should p'rove suitable-for advanced undergraduates
and beginning graduate students. Indeed, a built-in flexibility perrnits the
book to be used, either as the basic text or to be read independently by
interested students, in a variety of situations. The reader whose main interest
is in ideal theory, for instance, could chart a course through Chapters 2, 3,
5, 8, 11, 12, 13. Taken as a whole, the present work is more nearly a begin-
ning than an end. Our hope is that it may serve as a n~tural point of
departure for the study of th,e advanced treatises on ring theory and, in
sorne aspects of the subject, the periodicalliterature.
As regards treatment, ollr guiding principIe is the'sifong conviction that
intelligibility should be given priority over coverage; that a deeper under-
standing of a few important topics is preferable to a superficial knowledge
of many. This calIs for 'a presentation in which the pace is unhurried and
which is complete in the detaiis of proof, particularIy of basic resuIts. By
adhering to the "theorem-proof" ,5tyle ofwriting, we hope to achieve greater
clarity (perhaps at the sacrifice of elegance). Apart from the general know-
~' ledge presupposed, an attempt has been made to keep the text technicalIy
self-contained, even to the extent of including sorne material which is
el undoubtedly familiar. The mathematiéalIy sophisticated reader may prefer

.~
to skip the earlier chapters and refer to them only if the need arises.
At the end of each chapter, there will be found a colIection of problems
of varying degrees of difficulty. These constitute an integral part of the
book and reqliire the reader's active participation. They introduce a variety
v
,
 ----------------------~~ ----,------------ .----_.- .. _.- ---- ----:-----.---------- --"----- _ . _ - - - - _ . ,

PREFACE
:1'

As the title suggests, this volume is designed to 'serve as an introduction to

the basic ideas and techniques of ring theory; it is intendedto be an
.' ".
expository textbook, rather than a treatise on the subject. Thé,mathe-
matical background required for a proper understanding of the coi1tents
i~ not extensive. We assume that the average reader 4as had SbITle prior
contact with' abstract algebra, but is stíll relatively inexperienced";in this
respect. In consequence, nearly everything herein can be read by a person
familiar with basic group-theoretic concepts and having a nodding acquain-
tance with linear algebra; .
The level ofmaterial should p'rove suitable-for advanced undergraduates
and beginning graduate students. Indeed, a built-in flexibility perrnits the
book to be used, either as the basic text or to be read independently by
interested students, in a variety of situations. The reader whose main interest
is in ideal theory, for instance, could chart a course through Chapters 2, 3,
5, 8, 11, 12, 13. Taken as a whole, the present work is more nearly a begin-
ning than an end. Our hope is that it may serve as a n~tural point of
departure for the study of th,e advanced treatises on ring theory and, in
sorne aspects of the subject, the periodicalliterature.
As regards treatment, ollr guiding principIe is the'sifong conviction that
intelligibility should be given priority over coverage; that a deeper under-
standing of a few important topics is preferable to a superficial knowledge
of many. This calIs for 'a presentation in which the pace is unhurried and
which is complete in the detaiis of proof, particularIy of basic resuIts. By
adhering to the "theorem-proof" ,5tyle ofwriting, we hope to achieve greater
clarity (perhaps at the sacrifice of elegance). Apart from the general know-
~' ledge presupposed, an attempt has been made to keep the text technicalIy
self-contained, even to the extent of including sorne material which is
el undoubtedly familiar. The mathematiéalIy sophisticated reader may prefer

.~
to skip the earlier chapters and refer to them only if the need arises.
At the end of each chapter, there will be found a colIection of problems
of varying degrees of difficulty. These constitute an integral part of the
book and reqliire the reader's active participation. They introduce a variety
v
,
 vi PREFACE
C;rl: 4 585
of topics not treated in the body of the text, as well as impart additional
information about material covered earlier; sorne, especially in the later
chapters, provide substantial extensions of the theory. We have, on the
whole, resisted the temptation to use the exercises to develop results that
will subsequently be needed (although this is not hard and fast). Those
problems whose solutions do not appear straightforward are often accom-
panied by hints.
The text is not intended to be encyc10pedic in nature; many fascinating CONTENTS
aspects of this subject vie for inc1usion and sorne choice is imperative. To
this end, we merely followed our own tastes, condensing or omitting entirely
a number of topics that might have been encompassed by a book of the
same tltle. Despite sorne notable omissions, the coverage should provide Chapter 1 Introductory Concepts .
a firm foundation on which to build. 16
Chapter 2 Ideals and Their Operations
A great deal of valuable criticism was received in the preparation of this
work and ourmoments of complacence have admitted many improvements. Chapter 3 The Classical Isomorphism Theorems . 39
Of those students who helped, consciously or otherwise, we should like 52
Chapter 4 Integral Domains and Fields
particularly to mention Francis Chevarley, Delmon Grapes, Cynthia
Kennett, Kenneth Lidman, Roy Morell, Brenda Phalen, David Smith, and Chapter 5 Maximal, Prime, and Primary Ideals 71
John Sundstrom; we valued their critical reading of sections of the manu- 90
Chapter 6 Divisibility Theory in Integral Domains
script and incorporated a number of their suggestions into the texto It is a
pleasure, likewise, to record our indebtedness to Professor James Clay of Chapter 7 PolynomiaI Rings 112 ...
the University of Arizoria, who reviewed the final draft and offered helpful 157
Chapter 8 Certain Radicals of a Ring .
comments leading to its correction and improvement. We also profited
from many conversations with our colleagues at the University of New Chapter 9 Two Classic Theorems 180
Hampshire, especial1y Professors Edward Batho, Homer Bechtell, Robb Direct Sums of Rings 204
Chapter lQ
Jacoby, and Richard Johnson. In this regard, special thanks are due Pro-
fessor William Witthóft, who was kind enough to read portions of the Chapter 11 Rings with Chain Conditions 217
galleys; his eagle-eyed attention saved us from embarrassment more than 234
Chapter 12 Further Results on Noetherian Rings .
once. We enjoyed the'luxury of unusually good secretarial help and take
this occasion to express our appreciation to Nancy Buchanan and Sola'nge Chapter 13 Some Noncommutative Theory 262
Larochelle for their joint labors on the typescript. To my wife must go tbe 287
AppendixA. Relations.
largest .debt of gratitud e, not only for generous assistance with the text at
all stages of development, but for her patience and understanding on those AppendixB. Zorn's Lernma 296
occasions when nOtlling would go as we wished. , Bibliography 300
Finally, we should like to acknowledge the fine cooperation of the staff
of Addison-Wesley and the usual high quality of their work. The author, Index oC Special Symbols 303
needless tq say, must accept the full responsibility for any shortcomings and 305
Index .
errors which remain.

Durham, New Hampshire D.M.B.

J anuary 1970 vii
°o'
°7 I
 vi PREFACE
C;rl: 4 585
of topics not treated in the body of the text, as well as impart additional
information about material covered earlier; sorne, especially in the later
chapters, provide substantial extensions of the theory. We have, on the
whole, resisted the temptation to use the exercises to develop results that
will subsequently be needed (although this is not hard and fast). Those
problems whose solutions do not appear straightforward are often accom-
panied by hints.
The text is not intended to be encyc10pedic in nature; many fascinating CONTENTS
aspects of this subject vie for inc1usion and sorne choice is imperative. To
this end, we merely followed our own tastes, condensing or omitting entirely
a number of topics that might have been encompassed by a book of the
same tltle. Despite sorne notable omissions, the coverage should provide Chapter 1 Introductory Concepts .
a firm foundation on which to build. 16
Chapter 2 Ideals and Their Operations
A great deal of valuable criticism was received in the preparation of this
work and ourmoments of complacence have admitted many improvements. Chapter 3 The Classical Isomorphism Theorems . 39
Of those students who helped, consciously or otherwise, we should like 52
Chapter 4 Integral Domains and Fields
particularly to mention Francis Chevarley, Delmon Grapes, Cynthia
Kennett, Kenneth Lidman, Roy Morell, Brenda Phalen, David Smith, and Chapter 5 Maximal, Prime, and Primary Ideals 71
John Sundstrom; we valued their critical reading of sections of the manu- 90
Chapter 6 Divisibility Theory in Integral Domains
script and incorporated a number of their suggestions into the texto It is a
pleasure, likewise, to record our indebtedness to Professor James Clay of Chapter 7 PolynomiaI Rings 112 ...
the University of Arizoria, who reviewed the final draft and offered helpful 157
Chapter 8 Certain Radicals of a Ring .
comments leading to its correction and improvement. We also profited
from many conversations with our colleagues at the University of New Chapter 9 Two Classic Theorems 180
Hampshire, especial1y Professors Edward Batho, Homer Bechtell, Robb Direct Sums of Rings 204
Chapter lQ
Jacoby, and Richard Johnson. In this regard, special thanks are due Pro-
fessor William Witthóft, who was kind enough to read portions of the Chapter 11 Rings with Chain Conditions 217
galleys; his eagle-eyed attention saved us from embarrassment more than 234
Chapter 12 Further Results on Noetherian Rings .
once. We enjoyed the'luxury of unusually good secretarial help and take
this occasion to express our appreciation to Nancy Buchanan and Sola'nge Chapter 13 Some Noncommutative Theory 262
Larochelle for their joint labors on the typescript. To my wife must go tbe 287
AppendixA. Relations.
largest .debt of gratitud e, not only for generous assistance with the text at
all stages of development, but for her patience and understanding on those AppendixB. Zorn's Lernma 296
occasions when nOtlling would go as we wished. , Bibliography 300
Finally, we should like to acknowledge the fine cooperation of the staff
of Addison-Wesley and the usual high quality of their work. The author, Index oC Special Symbols 303
needless tq say, must accept the full responsibility for any shortcomings and 305
Index .
errors which remain.

Durham, New Hampshire D.M.B.

J anuary 1970 vii
°o'
°7 I

.,¡'
CONVENTIONS
Rere we sha11 set forth certain conventions in notatio'i(,~nd terminology
used throughout. the text: the standard sym bols of seí" theory will be
e~ployed, namely, E, u, n, -, and 0 for the empty set. In particular,
A - B = {xix E A and x!É B}. As regards inclusion, the symbols ~ ~~d
;;2 mean ordinary inclusion between sets (they do not exclude the posslbIllty
of equality), whereas e and ::J indicate proper inclusion. When we ~eal
with an indexed co11ection of sets, say {A¡li E IJ, the cumbersome notatlOns
U {A¡liEI} and n {A¡liEI} will genera11y. be ~bbreviated to. u A¡ and
n A¡; it being uIiderstood that the operabons are always over the fu11
domain on which the index is defined. Fo11owing custom, {a} denotes the
set whose only member is a. Provided that there is no dsk of confusion, a
one-element set will be identified with the element itself. . 2) (R,') is a semigroup, and
A function f (synonymous with mapping) is indicated by a strai?ht
arrow going from domain to range, as in the case f: X .-+ Y, and the no.tatl~n
always signifies thatfhas domain X. Under these cl~cumstan.ces,fls sald
to be a function on X, or from X, into. Y. In representmg functlOnal values,
we adopt the convention of writing the .function on the left, so that/~x), or
occasiona11y fx, denotes the image of an element x E X. The restnctlOn of
f to a subset A of X is the function flA from.1 into Y defined. by
(fIA)(x) = f(x) for a11 x in A: F~r the compo.sltlOn of two func~lOns
f: X -+ Yand g: Y -+ Z, we wIlI wnte g o f; that lS, g o f: X ~ Z .satlsfies
(g o f)(x) = g(J(x)) for each x E X. (It is important to bear m mmd that
our policy is to apply the functions from right to left.)
Sorne knowledge of elementary number theory is assumed. We simply
remark that the term "prime number" is taken to mean a positive prime;
in other words, an integer n > 1 whose only divisors are ± 1 and ± n.
Fina11y, let us reserve the symbol Zfor th~ set of all integers, Z~ for the
set of positive integers, Q fo! the set of ratlOnal numbers, and R for the
set of real numbers.
viii
.ONE
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
The present chapter sets the stag'~for much that fo11ows, by reviewing sorne
of the basic elements of ring theory: I t al so serves as an appropriate vehicle
for codifying certain notation and, technical vocabulary used throughout
the text . With an eye to the b~,r~ning student (as well as .to minimize a
sense of vagueness), we have also'l!1duded a ~umbel of pertinenrexamples
of rings. The mathematica11y matúre reader who finds thepace'somewhat
tedious may prefer to bypass this section, referring to it for terminology
when necessary.
As a starting point, it would seem appropriate formally to define the
principal object of inten!st in this book, the notion of a ringo
Definition 1-1. A ring is an ordered triple (R, +,.) consisting of a
nonempty set R and two binary operations + and . defined on R such
that
1) (R, +) is a cornmutative group,
3) the operation . is distributive (on both sides) over the operation +.
The reader should understand clearly that +' and . represent abstract,
unspecified, operations and not ordinary addition and multiplication. For
convenience, however, one invariably refers to the operation + as addition
and to the operation . as multiplication. In the light of this terminology, it
is natural then to speak of the commutative group (R, +) as the additive
group of the ri.p.g and of (R, .) as the multiplicative semigroup of the. ringo
By analogy with the integers, the unique identity element for addition
is caBed the zero element of the ring and is denoted by the usual symbol O.
The unique additive inverse of an element a E R will hereafter be written
as - a. (See Problem 1 for justification of the adjective "unique".)
In order to minimize the use of parentheses in expressions involving
both operations, we shall stipulate that multiplication is to be performed
befo re addition. Accordingly, the expression a'b + e stand s for (a'b) + e
and not for a'(b + e). Because ofthe general associative law, parentheses

.,¡'
CONVENTIONS
Rere we sha11 set forth certain conventions in notatio'i(,~nd terminology
used throughout. the text: the standard sym bols of seí" theory will be
e~ployed, namely, E, u, n, -, and 0 for the empty set. In particular,
A - B = {xix E A and x!É B}. As regards inclusion, the symbols ~ ~~d
;;2 mean ordinary inclusion between sets (they do not exclude the posslbIllty
of equality), whereas e and ::J indicate proper inclusion. When we ~eal
with an indexed co11ection of sets, say {A¡li E IJ, the cumbersome notatlOns
U {A¡liEI} and n {A¡liEI} will genera11y. be ~bbreviated to. u A¡ and
n A¡; it being uIiderstood that the operabons are always over the fu11
domain on which the index is defined. Fo11owing custom, {a} denotes the
set whose only member is a. Provided that there is no dsk of confusion, a
one-element set will be identified with the element itself. . 2) (R,') is a semigroup, and
A function f (synonymous with mapping) is indicated by a strai?ht
arrow going from domain to range, as in the case f: X .-+ Y, and the no.tatl~n
always signifies thatfhas domain X. Under these cl~cumstan.ces,fls sald
to be a function on X, or from X, into. Y. In representmg functlOnal values,
we adopt the convention of writing the .function on the left, so that/~x), or
occasiona11y fx, denotes the image of an element x E X. The restnctlOn of
f to a subset A of X is the function flA from.1 into Y defined. by
(fIA)(x) = f(x) for a11 x in A: F~r the compo.sltlOn of two func~lOns
f: X -+ Yand g: Y -+ Z, we wIlI wnte g o f; that lS, g o f: X ~ Z .satlsfies
(g o f)(x) = g(J(x)) for each x E X. (It is important to bear m mmd that
our policy is to apply the functions from right to left.)
Sorne knowledge of elementary number theory is assumed. We simply
remark that the term "prime number" is taken to mean a positive prime;
in other words, an integer n > 1 whose only divisors are ± 1 and ± n.
Fina11y, let us reserve the symbol Zfor th~ set of all integers, Z~ for the
set of positive integers, Q fo! the set of ratlOnal numbers, and R for the
set of real numbers.
viii
.ONE
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
The present chapter sets the stag'~for much that fo11ows, by reviewing sorne
of the basic elements of ring theory: I t al so serves as an appropriate vehicle
for codifying certain notation and, technical vocabulary used throughout
the text . With an eye to the b~,r~ning student (as well as .to minimize a
sense of vagueness), we have also'l!1duded a ~umbel of pertinenrexamples
of rings. The mathematica11y matúre reader who finds thepace'somewhat
tedious may prefer to bypass this section, referring to it for terminology
when necessary.
As a starting point, it would seem appropriate formally to define the
principal object of inten!st in this book, the notion of a ringo
Definition 1-1. A ring is an ordered triple (R, +,.) consisting of a
nonempty set R and two binary operations + and . defined on R such
that
1) (R, +) is a cornmutative group,
3) the operation . is distributive (on both sides) over the operation +.
The reader should understand clearly that +' and . represent abstract,
unspecified, operations and not ordinary addition and multiplication. For
convenience, however, one invariably refers to the operation + as addition
and to the operation . as multiplication. In the light of this terminology, it
is natural then to speak of the commutative group (R, +) as the additive
group of the ri.p.g and of (R, .) as the multiplicative semigroup of the. ringo
By analogy with the integers, the unique identity element for addition
is caBed the zero element of the ring and is denoted by the usual symbol O.
The unique additive inverse of an element a E R will hereafter be written
as - a. (See Problem 1 for justification of the adjective "unique".)
In order to minimize the use of parentheses in expressions involving
both operations, we shall stipulate that multiplication is to be performed
befo re addition. Accordingly, the expression a'b + e stand s for (a'b) + e
and not for a'(b + e). Because ofthe general associative law, parentheses
 2 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS INTRODUCTOR Y CONCEPTS 3

can also be otnÍtted when writing out sums and products of more than two Example 1-2 Let X be a. given set and P(X) be the collection oC all subsets
elements. of X. The symmetric difference of two subsets A, B ~ X is the set A I:l B,
With these remarks in mind, we can now give a more elaborate definition where
of a ringo A ring (R, +, . ) consists of a nonempty set R together with two A I:l B =. (A B) u (B - A).
binary operations + and . of addition and multiplícation on R for which
If we define addition and multiplication in P(X) by
the following conditions are satisfied :
1) a + b = b + a, / A + B A I:l B, A· B = A n B,
2) (a +' b) + C = a + (b + c), then the system (P(X), +, .) forros a commutative ring with identity. The
3) there exists an element Oin R such that i;¡ + O a for every a E R, empty set0 serves as the zero element, whereas the multiplicative identity
4) for each a E R, there exists an element -a E R such that a + (-a) = O, is X. Furthermore, each set in P(X) is its own additive in verse. It is
5) (a'b)'c a'(b'c), and interesting to note that if X is nonempty, then neither (P(X), u, n) nor
6) a'(b + c) = a'b + a'c and (b + c)'a b'a + c'a, (P(X), n, u) constitutes a ringo .
where it is understood that a, b, c represent arbitrary elements of R. Example 1-3. Given a ring (R, +, '), we may consider the set M,,(R) oC
A ring (R, +, .) is saidto be a finite ring if, naturally enough, the set R n x n matrices over R. If 1" {1,2, .. " n}, a typical member oC M,,(R)
of its elements is a finite set. By placing restrictions oIÍ the multiplication is a function 1: In X 1" --, R. In practice, one identifies such a Cunction
operation, several other specialized types of rings are obtained. with its values aij I(í,}), which are displayed as the n x n rectangular
Definition 1-2. 1) A commutative ring is a ring (R, +,.) in which array
multiplication is a commutative operation < a' b = b· a for all a, b E R. ~: 11 ... ~: 1" ) (aij E R).
(In case a'b = b'a for a particular pair a,b, we express this fact by saying (
that a and b commute.) Il"l , .. a""
2) A ring wíth identity is a ring (R, +, .) in which there exists an For the sake oC simplicity, let us hereafter abbreviate the n x n matrix
identity element for the operation of multiplication, normally represented whose (i,}) entry is aij ~o (a¡), .
by the symboll, so that a'l l'a = a for aH a E R. The operations required to make {Mn(R), +, ,) a ring are provlded by
Given a ring (R, +, .) with identity 1, an element a E R is said to be the familiar forrpulas
invertible, or to be a unit, whenever a possesses a (two-sided) inv,er'se with
respect to multiplication. The multiplicative inverse of a is uniqúe, when-
ever it exists, and will be denoted by a-l, so thata'a- l = a-l'a t'ln the where
future, the set of all invertible elements of the ring will be designateél by the c¡j = L" aik'b¡'j'
symbol R*. It follo~s easily that the system (R*, .) forms a group~ hown· k=l i

as the group 01 invertible elements. In this connection, notice tbat R* is
certainly nonempty, for, ifnothing else, 1 and -l'belong to R*. (Qne must
not assume, however, that 1 and -1 are necessarily distinct.) ,;'
A consideration of several concrete examples will serve to brii:J.g these
ideas into focus.
Example 1-1. If Z, Q, R# denote the sets of integers, rational, and real
numbers, respectively, then the systems
(Z,+,·), (Q,+,'), (R#,+,')
are all examples of rings (here, + and . are taken to be ordinary addition
and multiplication). In each oC these cases, the ring is commutative and
has the integer 1 for an identity elemento
(We sha11 oCten indulge in this harmless duplícation oC symbols whereby
+ and . are used with two different meanings.) The zero element oC the
resulting ring is the n x n matrix all .of whose entries are O; and
-(aij) (-aij)' The ring (Mn(R), +, .) fails to be commutative Cor n > 1.
It is equally easy to show that if (R, +,.) has an identity element 1,
then the matrix with l's down the main diagonal (that is, aH = 1) and O's
elsewhere will act as identity Cor matrix multiplication. In terms of the
Kronecker delta symbol Oij' which is defined by
oij =
J1 iC i
1,0 ifi
= j
=1= j (i,j = 1,2, ... , n),
the identity matrix can be written concisely as (oij)'
 2 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS INTRODUCTOR Y CONCEPTS 3

can also be otnÍtted when writing out sums and products of more than two Example 1-2 Let X be a. given set and P(X) be the collection oC all subsets
elements. of X. The symmetric difference of two subsets A, B ~ X is the set A I:l B,
With these remarks in mind, we can now give a more elaborate definition where
of a ringo A ring (R, +, . ) consists of a nonempty set R together with two A I:l B =. (A B) u (B - A).
binary operations + and . of addition and multiplícation on R for which
If we define addition and multiplication in P(X) by
the following conditions are satisfied :
1) a + b = b + a, / A + B A I:l B, A· B = A n B,
2) (a +' b) + C = a + (b + c), then the system (P(X), +, .) forros a commutative ring with identity. The
3) there exists an element Oin R such that i;¡ + O a for every a E R, empty set0 serves as the zero element, whereas the multiplicative identity
4) for each a E R, there exists an element -a E R such that a + (-a) = O, is X. Furthermore, each set in P(X) is its own additive in verse. It is
5) (a'b)'c a'(b'c), and interesting to note that if X is nonempty, then neither (P(X), u, n) nor
6) a'(b + c) = a'b + a'c and (b + c)'a b'a + c'a, (P(X), n, u) constitutes a ringo .
where it is understood that a, b, c represent arbitrary elements of R. Example 1-3. Given a ring (R, +, '), we may consider the set M,,(R) oC
A ring (R, +, .) is saidto be a finite ring if, naturally enough, the set R n x n matrices over R. If 1" {1,2, .. " n}, a typical member oC M,,(R)
of its elements is a finite set. By placing restrictions oIÍ the multiplication is a function 1: In X 1" --, R. In practice, one identifies such a Cunction
operation, several other specialized types of rings are obtained. with its values aij I(í,}), which are displayed as the n x n rectangular
Definition 1-2. 1) A commutative ring is a ring (R, +,.) in which array
multiplication is a commutative operation < a' b = b· a for all a, b E R. ~: 11 ... ~: 1" ) (aij E R).
(In case a'b = b'a for a particular pair a,b, we express this fact by saying (
that a and b commute.) Il"l , .. a""
2) A ring wíth identity is a ring (R, +, .) in which there exists an For the sake oC simplicity, let us hereafter abbreviate the n x n matrix
identity element for the operation of multiplication, normally represented whose (i,}) entry is aij ~o (a¡), .
by the symboll, so that a'l l'a = a for aH a E R. The operations required to make {Mn(R), +, ,) a ring are provlded by
Given a ring (R, +, .) with identity 1, an element a E R is said to be the familiar forrpulas
invertible, or to be a unit, whenever a possesses a (two-sided) inv,er'se with
respect to multiplication. The multiplicative inverse of a is uniqúe, when-
ever it exists, and will be denoted by a-l, so thata'a- l = a-l'a t'ln the where
future, the set of all invertible elements of the ring will be designateél by the c¡j = L" aik'b¡'j'
symbol R*. It follo~s easily that the system (R*, .) forms a group~ hown· k=l i

as the group 01 invertible elements. In this connection, notice tbat R* is
certainly nonempty, for, ifnothing else, 1 and -l'belong to R*. (Qne must
not assume, however, that 1 and -1 are necessarily distinct.) ,;'
A consideration of several concrete examples will serve to brii:J.g these
ideas into focus.
Example 1-1. If Z, Q, R# denote the sets of integers, rational, and real
numbers, respectively, then the systems
(Z,+,·), (Q,+,'), (R#,+,')
are all examples of rings (here, + and . are taken to be ordinary addition
and multiplication). In each oC these cases, the ring is commutative and
has the integer 1 for an identity elemento
(We sha11 oCten indulge in this harmless duplícation oC symbols whereby
+ and . are used with two different meanings.) The zero element oC the
resulting ring is the n x n matrix all .of whose entries are O; and
-(aij) (-aij)' The ring (Mn(R), +, .) fails to be commutative Cor n > 1.
It is equally easy to show that if (R, +,.) has an identity element 1,
then the matrix with l's down the main diagonal (that is, aH = 1) and O's
elsewhere will act as identity Cor matrix multiplication. In terms of the
Kronecker delta symbol Oij' which is defined by
oij =
J1 iC i
1,0 ifi
= j
=1= j (i,j = 1,2, ... , n),
the identity matrix can be written concisely as (oij)'
 4 FIRST
,
COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS , I
t ,
Example 1-4. To develop our next example, let X be an arbitrary (non- '
enipty) set and(R, +, .) be a ringo We adoptthe notation map(X, R} for
the set consisting óf a11 mappings from ,X into R; in symbols,
map(X, R) :: {JI!: X ~ R}.
(Foreaseofnotation, let usalso agree to write map R in place o~map(R, R):)
Now, the elements ofmap(X, R) can be combined by performmg algebralc
,
operatio:ps ontheir functional values. More specifically, the poiritwise sum ,1 {'
and producto'r f and g, denoted by f + g, and f· g,. respectively, are the
functions whiéh satisfy
, (f + g)(X) = f(x) + g(x), (f'g)(x) = f(x)'g(x),(x E X).
It is read~1i'·~erified thaJ the aboye definitions provide map(X, R) with
the structuriola ringo We simply point out that tbe zero element of tbis
ring is the c9~stant functión wbose sole value is 0, and the additive inverse
-foffis cha,racterized by the rule (-1)(x) = -f(x).
Notice that,'the aIgebraic properties of map(X, R) are determined by
what happens in thering (R, +,.) (the set X fumishes only the points for
the pointwise operations).' , For instance, if (R, +, .) has a multipli.cative
identity 1, then the ring (map(X, R), +,.) likewise possesses an identity
element; namely, the constant functit;>n defined by l(x) = 1 f6r all x E. X. '
Example 1-5.. Our final example i8 that of the ring oC integers modulo n,
wbere n is a fixed positive integer. In order to describe tbis system, we
first introduce thé notion of congruence: two integers a and b are said to
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS 5
equivalently, [a] = [rJ. Thus, there are' at most n different congruence .
claSses in Zn, namely, [OJ, [lJ, ... , [n - 1]. But these n c1assesare them-
'selvesdistinct. For ifO :s;; b < a < n, then O < a - b < n and so a - b
cannot be divisible by n, whence [aJ =1 [b]. Accordingly, Zn cqnsists of
exactly n eIements:
Zn = {[OJ, [lJ, ... , [n - 1J}.
Thert::ader should J¡:eep in nlind that each congruence class li~ted.,above is
determined by any one of its
members; a1l we have done is to f~present
the cIass by its smallest nonnegative representative. .':'
Our next step i5 to define the manner in which the members,ol Zn are
to be added and multiplied, so tbat the.resulting system will forma ringo
Tbe definitions are as follows: for each [aJ, [b J E Zn, ,¡, "
:.... fr.
[aJ +n [bJ [a + bJ, . [ab].
In other words, the sum and product of two congruence c1asses[áliá'nd [b J .
are the unique members of Zn which contain' the ordinary sumo a. eV' b and
ordinary product ab;respectively. Before considering the algebraic properties
ofthese operations, it is necessary to make certain tbat they are well-defined'
and do not depend upon which representatives of the congruence c1asses
are chosen. In regaro to multiplication, for instance, we want to satisfy
ourselves that if [a'J= [aJ and [b'J = [bJ, then [a'h[b'J = [aln[bJ, or,
.rather, that [a'b'J == [ah]. Now, al E [a'J = [aJ and b' e [b'] [bJ,
which signifies that a' = a' + kn and b = b + jn for some k, j e Z. But
l

be eongruent modulo, n, written a == b (mod n), if and only if the difference then
a b is divisible by n; in other words, a == b (mod n) if ánd only if a'b l
= (a + kn)(b + jn) ab + (aj + bk + kjn)n .
.\.
a - b kn for some k E Z. We leave the reader to convince himself that
the relation "congruent modulo n" defines an equivalence relation on the Hence, a'b' == ab (mod n) and so [a'b'] = [abJ, as desired. The proof that
, set Z of integers. As such, it partitions Z into disjoint c1asses of congruent addition is unambiguously defined proceeds similarIy.
e1ements, caBed eongruenee classes. For each integer a, let the congníence We omit the detailed verification of the faet tbat (Z., +n' 'n) is a com-
class to which a belongs be denoted by [aJ: mutatíve ring with identity (tradítioIiaIly known as the ring of integers
moaulo n), remarking only that the various ring axiom8 hold in Zn simply
[aJ = {xe Zlx E a (mod n)} because they hold in Z. The distributive law, for instance, fo11ows in Zn
= {a + knlkeZ}. from its validity in Z: '
Of course, the same congrtience class may very well arise from another [aL([bJ +" [eJ) = [aL[b + eJ = [a(b + e)]
integer; any integer a' Cor which [a/J = [a J is said to be a representative
[ab + aeJ [abJ +n [aeJ
=
of [a]. Qne final, purely notational, remark : the collection of a11 congruence
classes oCintegers modulo n will be designated by Zn' = [aL[bJ +11 [aL [e].
It can be shown tbat the congruence cIasses [OJ, [lJ, ... , [n - 1J Notice, too, that the congruence classes [OJ and [lJ serve as the zero element
exhaust the elements of Z.. Given 'an arbitrary integer a, the division and multiplieative identity, respectively, whereas [-aJ i8 the additive
algorithm asserts tbat there exist uniqueq, re Z, with O :s;; r < n, such in verse of [aJ in Zn' When no eonfusion is likely, we sha1l1eave off the
that a = qn + r. By the definition of congruence, a == r (rnod n), or brackets from the elements of Zn, thereby making no genuine distínctiori
 4 FIRST
,
COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS , I
t ,
Example 1-4. To develop our next example, let X be an arbitrary (non- '
enipty) set and(R, +, .) be a ringo We adoptthe notation map(X, R} for
the set consisting óf a11 mappings from ,X into R; in symbols,
map(X, R) :: {JI!: X ~ R}.
(Foreaseofnotation, let usalso agree to write map R in place o~map(R, R):)
Now, the elements ofmap(X, R) can be combined by performmg algebralc
,
operatio:ps ontheir functional values. More specifically, the poiritwise sum ,1 {'
and producto'r f and g, denoted by f + g, and f· g,. respectively, are the
functions whiéh satisfy
, (f + g)(X) = f(x) + g(x), (f'g)(x) = f(x)'g(x),(x E X).
It is read~1i'·~erified thaJ the aboye definitions provide map(X, R) with
the structuriola ringo We simply point out that tbe zero element of tbis
ring is the c9~stant functión wbose sole value is 0, and the additive inverse
-foffis cha,racterized by the rule (-1)(x) = -f(x).
Notice that,'the aIgebraic properties of map(X, R) are determined by
what happens in thering (R, +,.) (the set X fumishes only the points for
the pointwise operations).' , For instance, if (R, +, .) has a multipli.cative
identity 1, then the ring (map(X, R), +,.) likewise possesses an identity
element; namely, the constant functit;>n defined by l(x) = 1 f6r all x E. X. '
Example 1-5.. Our final example i8 that of the ring oC integers modulo n,
wbere n is a fixed positive integer. In order to describe tbis system, we
first introduce thé notion of congruence: two integers a and b are said to
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS 5
equivalently, [a] = [rJ. Thus, there are' at most n different congruence .
claSses in Zn, namely, [OJ, [lJ, ... , [n - 1]. But these n c1assesare them-
'selvesdistinct. For ifO :s;; b < a < n, then O < a - b < n and so a - b
cannot be divisible by n, whence [aJ =1 [b]. Accordingly, Zn cqnsists of
exactly n eIements:
Zn = {[OJ, [lJ, ... , [n - 1J}.
Thert::ader should J¡:eep in nlind that each congruence class li~ted.,above is
determined by any one of its
members; a1l we have done is to f~present
the cIass by its smallest nonnegative representative. .':'
Our next step i5 to define the manner in which the members,ol Zn are
to be added and multiplied, so tbat the.resulting system will forma ringo
Tbe definitions are as follows: for each [aJ, [b J E Zn, ,¡, "
:.... fr.
[aJ +n [bJ [a + bJ, . [ab].
In other words, the sum and product of two congruence c1asses[áliá'nd [b J .
are the unique members of Zn which contain' the ordinary sumo a. eV' b and
ordinary product ab;respectively. Before considering the algebraic properties
ofthese operations, it is necessary to make certain tbat they are well-defined'
and do not depend upon which representatives of the congruence c1asses
are chosen. In regaro to multiplication, for instance, we want to satisfy
ourselves that if [a'J= [aJ and [b'J = [bJ, then [a'h[b'J = [aln[bJ, or,
.rather, that [a'b'J == [ah]. Now, al E [a'J = [aJ and b' e [b'] [bJ,
which signifies that a' = a' + kn and b = b + jn for some k, j e Z. But
l

be eongruent modulo, n, written a == b (mod n), if and only if the difference then
a b is divisible by n; in other words, a == b (mod n) if ánd only if a'b l
= (a + kn)(b + jn) ab + (aj + bk + kjn)n .
.\.
a - b kn for some k E Z. We leave the reader to convince himself that
the relation "congruent modulo n" defines an equivalence relation on the Hence, a'b' == ab (mod n) and so [a'b'] = [abJ, as desired. The proof that
, set Z of integers. As such, it partitions Z into disjoint c1asses of congruent addition is unambiguously defined proceeds similarIy.
e1ements, caBed eongruenee classes. For each integer a, let the congníence We omit the detailed verification of the faet tbat (Z., +n' 'n) is a com-
class to which a belongs be denoted by [aJ: mutatíve ring with identity (tradítioIiaIly known as the ring of integers
moaulo n), remarking only that the various ring axiom8 hold in Zn simply
[aJ = {xe Zlx E a (mod n)} because they hold in Z. The distributive law, for instance, fo11ows in Zn
= {a + knlkeZ}. from its validity in Z: '
Of course, the same congrtience class may very well arise from another [aL([bJ +" [eJ) = [aL[b + eJ = [a(b + e)]
integer; any integer a' Cor which [a/J = [a J is said to be a representative
[ab + aeJ [abJ +n [aeJ
=
of [a]. Qne final, purely notational, remark : the collection of a11 congruence
classes oCintegers modulo n will be designated by Zn' = [aL[bJ +11 [aL [e].
It can be shown tbat the congruence cIasses [OJ, [lJ, ... , [n - 1J Notice, too, that the congruence classes [OJ and [lJ serve as the zero element
exhaust the elements of Z.. Given 'an arbitrary integer a, the division and multiplieative identity, respectively, whereas [-aJ i8 the additive
algorithm asserts tbat there exist uniqueq, re Z, with O :s;; r < n, such in verse of [aJ in Zn' When no eonfusion is likely, we sha1l1eave off the
that a = qn + r. By the definition of congruence, a == r (rnod n), or brackets from the elements of Zn, thereby making no genuine distínctiori
 6 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
betwec3D a congruence c1ass and its smallest nónnegative representative;
under this convention, Z" = {O, 1, ... , n - 1}. It is perhaps worth com-
menting that, since Z 1 = Z, a number of texts specifically exc1ude the value
1 for n.
Although it is logically correct (and often convenient) to speak of a
ring as an ordered triple, the notation becomes unwieldy as one progresses
further into the theory. We shall therefore adopt the usual convention of
designating a ring, say (R, +, '), simply by the set symbol R and assume
that + and . are known. The reader should realize, however, that a given
set may perfectly well be the underlying set of several different rings. Let
us also agree to abbreviate a + (-b) as a - b and subsequently refer to
tbis expression as the difference between a and b. As a final concession to
brevity, juxtaposition without a median dot will be used to denote the
product oftwo ring elements. .
With these conventions on record, let us begin our formal development
of ring theory. The material covered in the next several pages will probably
be familiar to most readers and is inc1uded more to assure completeness
than to present new ideas.
Theorem 1-1. If R is a ring, then for any a, b, e E R
1) Oa = aO = O,
2) a(-b) = (-a)b = -(ab),
3) (-a)(-b) = ab, and
4) a(b - e) = ab - ae, (b - e)a = ba - ea.
Proof. These turn out, in,t.he m~in, to be simple consequences of the dis-
tributive laws. For instari2e, Irom O + O = O, it follows that
Oa·=;(O + O)a = Oa + Da.
Thus, by the cancellation law:ror the additive group (R, +), we have Oa = O.
In a like manner, one obtains aO = O. The proof of (2) requires the fact
that each element of R h~SI a unique additive inverse (Problem 1). Since
b + (-b) = O, '"
ab + a("':'~) = a(b + (-b)) = aO = O,
which then implies that -(ab) = a( -b). The argument that (-a)b is also
the additive inverse of ab proceeds similarly. Tbis leads immediately'to (3):
(-a)( -b) = -( -a)b = - (-(ab)) = abo
The last assertion is all but obvious.
. There is one very simple ring that consists only of the additive identity
O, with addition and multiplication given by O + O = O, 00 = O; tbis ring
is usually called the trivial ringo ' presence of a multiplicative identity when defining integral domains; and
INTRODUCTOR Y CONCEPTS 7
Corollary. Let R be a ring with identity 1. If R is noUhe trivial ring,
then the elements O and 1 are distinct.
Proof. Since R =1= {O}, there exists sorne nonzero element a E R. If Oand
1 were equal, it would follow that a = al.. = aO = O, an obvious contradic-
tion.
CONVENTION: Let us assume, once and for all, that any ring with identity
contains more than one·element. This will rule out the possibility that O
and 1 coincide.
We now make several remarksabout the concept of zero divisors (the
term "divisors of zero" is also in common use): .
Defuútion 1-3. If R is a ring and O =1= a E R, then a is called a left
(right) zero divisor in R if there exists sorne b =1= O in R such that
ab = O (ba = O). A zero divisor is any element of R that is either a
left or right zero divisor.
According to this definition, O is not a zero divisor, and if R contains
an identity 1, then 1 is not a zero divisor nor is any element of R which
happens to possess a multiplicative inverse. An obvious example of a riIig
with zero divisors is Z., where the integer n > 1 is composite; if n = n 1 n 2
in Z (O < n 1 , n 2 < n), then the product n 1 ·.n 2 = O in Z •.
For the most part, we shall be studying rings without zero divisors.
In such rings it is possible to conc1ude from the equation ab = O that
either a = O or b = O.
One can express the property of being with or without zero divisors in
the following useful way.
,Theorem 1-2. A ring R is without zero divisors if and only if it satisfies
the cancellation laws for multiplication; that is, for all a, b, e E R,
ab = ae and ba = ca, where a =1= O, implies b = e.
Proof. Suppose that R is without zero divisors and let ab = ae, a =1= O.
Then, the product a(b - e) = O, which means that b - e = O and b = e.
The argument is the same for the equation ba = ca. Conversely, let R
satisfy the cancellation laws and assume that ab = O, with a =1= O. We then'
have ab = aO, whence by cancellation b = O. Similarly, b =1= O implies
a = O, proving that there are no zero divisors in R. '
By an integral domain is meant a commutative ring with identity which
has no zero divisors, Perhaps the best-known example ofan integral domain
is the ring ofintegers; hence the choice ofterminology. Theorem 1-2 shows
that the cancellation laws for multiplication hold in any integral domain.
The reader should be warned that many authors do not insist on the
 6 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
betwec3D a congruence c1ass and its smallest nónnegative representative;
under this convention, Z" = {O, 1, ... , n - 1}. It is perhaps worth com-
menting that, since Z 1 = Z, a number of texts specifically exc1ude the value
1 for n.
Although it is logically correct (and often convenient) to speak of a
ring as an ordered triple, the notation becomes unwieldy as one progresses
further into the theory. We shall therefore adopt the usual convention of
designating a ring, say (R, +, '), simply by the set symbol R and assume
that + and . are known. The reader should realize, however, that a given
set may perfectly well be the underlying set of several different rings. Let
us also agree to abbreviate a + (-b) as a - b and subsequently refer to
tbis expression as the difference between a and b. As a final concession to
brevity, juxtaposition without a median dot will be used to denote the
product oftwo ring elements. .
With these conventions on record, let us begin our formal development
of ring theory. The material covered in the next several pages will probably
be familiar to most readers and is inc1uded more to assure completeness
than to present new ideas.
Theorem 1-1. If R is a ring, then for any a, b, e E R
1) Oa = aO = O,
2) a(-b) = (-a)b = -(ab),
3) (-a)(-b) = ab, and
4) a(b - e) = ab - ae, (b - e)a = ba - ea.
Proof. These turn out, in,t.he m~in, to be simple consequences of the dis-
tributive laws. For instari2e, Irom O + O = O, it follows that
Oa·=;(O + O)a = Oa + Da.
Thus, by the cancellation law:ror the additive group (R, +), we have Oa = O.
In a like manner, one obtains aO = O. The proof of (2) requires the fact
that each element of R h~SI a unique additive inverse (Problem 1). Since
b + (-b) = O, '"
ab + a("':'~) = a(b + (-b)) = aO = O,
which then implies that -(ab) = a( -b). The argument that (-a)b is also
the additive inverse of ab proceeds similarly. Tbis leads immediately'to (3):
(-a)( -b) = -( -a)b = - (-(ab)) = abo
The last assertion is all but obvious.
. There is one very simple ring that consists only of the additive identity
O, with addition and multiplication given by O + O = O, 00 = O; tbis ring
is usually called the trivial ringo ' presence of a multiplicative identity when defining integral domains; and
INTRODUCTOR Y CONCEPTS 7
Corollary. Let R be a ring with identity 1. If R is noUhe trivial ring,
then the elements O and 1 are distinct.
Proof. Since R =1= {O}, there exists sorne nonzero element a E R. If Oand
1 were equal, it would follow that a = al.. = aO = O, an obvious contradic-
tion.
CONVENTION: Let us assume, once and for all, that any ring with identity
contains more than one·element. This will rule out the possibility that O
and 1 coincide.
We now make several remarksabout the concept of zero divisors (the
term "divisors of zero" is also in common use): .
Defuútion 1-3. If R is a ring and O =1= a E R, then a is called a left
(right) zero divisor in R if there exists sorne b =1= O in R such that
ab = O (ba = O). A zero divisor is any element of R that is either a
left or right zero divisor.
According to this definition, O is not a zero divisor, and if R contains
an identity 1, then 1 is not a zero divisor nor is any element of R which
happens to possess a multiplicative inverse. An obvious example of a riIig
with zero divisors is Z., where the integer n > 1 is composite; if n = n 1 n 2
in Z (O < n 1 , n 2 < n), then the product n 1 ·.n 2 = O in Z •.
For the most part, we shall be studying rings without zero divisors.
In such rings it is possible to conc1ude from the equation ab = O that
either a = O or b = O.
One can express the property of being with or without zero divisors in
the following useful way.
,Theorem 1-2. A ring R is without zero divisors if and only if it satisfies
the cancellation laws for multiplication; that is, for all a, b, e E R,
ab = ae and ba = ca, where a =1= O, implies b = e.
Proof. Suppose that R is without zero divisors and let ab = ae, a =1= O.
Then, the product a(b - e) = O, which means that b - e = O and b = e.
The argument is the same for the equation ba = ca. Conversely, let R
satisfy the cancellation laws and assume that ab = O, with a =1= O. We then'
have ab = aO, whence by cancellation b = O. Similarly, b =1= O implies
a = O, proving that there are no zero divisors in R. '
By an integral domain is meant a commutative ring with identity which
has no zero divisors, Perhaps the best-known example ofan integral domain
is the ring ofintegers; hence the choice ofterminology. Theorem 1-2 shows
that the cancellation laws for multiplication hold in any integral domain.
The reader should be warned that many authors do not insist on the
 8. FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS 9

in this case the term "integral domain"· would merely indicate a commutative Example 1-7. The set.Z. of ev~n integers forms a subring of the ring Z
ring without zeto divisors. of integers, for
We change direction somewhat to deal with the situation where a subset 2n -:- 2m = 2(n - m) E Z.,
of a ring again constitutes a ringo Formally speaking,
o (2n) (2m) ° = 2(2nm) E Z •.
Definition 1-4. Let (R, +, .) be a ring and S 5; R be a nonempty subset
This example al so illustrates a fact worth bearing in mind: in a ring with
of R. Ifthe system (S, +, .) is itselfa ring (using the induced operations),
identity, a subring need nof contain the identity elemento
then (S, +, .) is said to be a subring of (R, +, ').
Prior to stating our next theorem, let us define the center of a ring R,
This odefinition is adequate, but unwieldy, siIice all the aspects of the
denoted by cent R, to be thé set
definition of a ring must be checked in deteimining whether a given subset 1'"
is a subring. In seeking a simpler criterion, noticethat (S, +, .) is a subring cent R=' {a E RJar = ra for all r ER}.
of (R, +, .) provided that (S, +) is a °subgroup of (R, +), (S, .) is a subsemi-:
Phrased otherwise, cenot R;:consists of those elements which conimute with
group of (R, '), and the two distributive laws are .satisfied in S. But the
every member of R. It s~6uld be apparent that a ring R is commutative if
distributive and associative laws hold automaticaJly for elements of S as a
and only if cent R = R."::::.
consequence of their validity in R. Since these laws are inherited from R,
o
',.',
there is no necessity of requiring them in the definition of a subring. Theoreinl-4. For ahy.ring R, cent R is a subring of R..~~I'
Taking our cuefrom these remarks, a subring could just as well be
Proof. To be conscientiouiabout details,first observe that 'tentRis non-
defined as follows. The system (S, +, o) forms a subring of the ring (R, +, .)
if and only if . empty; for, at the very least, the zero element O E R. Now pick any two
elements a, b in cent R. By the definition of center, we know that ar = ra
1) S ·is a nonempty subset of R, and br :;= rb for every choice ofr E R. Thus, for arbitrary rE R,
2) (S, +) is a subgroup of(R, +), and (a - b)r = ar - br = ra - rb = r(a - b),
3) the set S is closed under multiplication.
which implies that a - b E cent R. A similar argumentaffirms that the
To add th~ final touch, even this definition can be improved upon; for product ab also lies in cent R. In the lightof Theorem 1-3, theseare
the reader versed in group theory will recall that (S, +) is a subgroup of sufficient conditions for the centet to be a subring of R.
the group (R, +) provided that a - b E S whenever a, bES. By these
observations we are led to·a set of c10sure conditions wruch make it some- It has aIread y been remarked that, when a ring has an identity, this
what easier to verify tbat a particular subset is actually a subring. need not be true of its subrings. Other interesting situations may arise,
1) Sorne subfing has a multiplitative identity, but the entire ring does noto
Theorem 1-3. Let R be a ring and 0 =1= S 5; R. Theri, S i8 a subring
2) Boththe ring and one ofits subrings possess identity elements, but they
of R if and only if
are distinct. .
1) a, b E S imply a - b E S .(closure under differences),
2) a, b E S imply ab E S (closure under multíplication). In each of the cited cases the identity for the subring is necessarily a divisor
of zero in the larger ringo To justify this claim, let l' =1= O denote the
If S is a subring of the ring R, then the zero element of S is that of R identity element of the subririg S; we assume further that l' does not act as
and, moreover, the additive inverse of an element of the subring S is the an identity for the whole ring R. Accordingly, there exists sorne element
same as its inverse as a member of R, Verification of these assertions is left a E R for which al'. =1= a. It is dear that
as an exercise.
(al')l' = a(l'l') = al',
Example 1-6. Every ring R has two obvious subrings, namely, the set {O},
consisting only of the zero element, and R itself. These two subrings are or (al' - a)l' = O. Since rieither al' -' a nor l' is zero, the ring R has
usually referred to as the trivial subrings of R; all other subrings (if any zero divisors, and in particular l' is a zerp divisor.
exist) are called nontrivial. We shall use the term proper subring to mean Example 1-8. to present a simple illustration of a ring in which the seoond .
a subring which is different from R. of the aforementioned possibilities occurs, consider the set R = Z x Z,
 8. FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS 9

in this case the term "integral domain"· would merely indicate a commutative Example 1-7. The set.Z. of ev~n integers forms a subring of the ring Z
ring without zeto divisors. of integers, for
We change direction somewhat to deal with the situation where a subset 2n -:- 2m = 2(n - m) E Z.,
of a ring again constitutes a ringo Formally speaking,
o (2n) (2m) ° = 2(2nm) E Z •.
Definition 1-4. Let (R, +, .) be a ring and S 5; R be a nonempty subset
This example al so illustrates a fact worth bearing in mind: in a ring with
of R. Ifthe system (S, +, .) is itselfa ring (using the induced operations),
identity, a subring need nof contain the identity elemento
then (S, +, .) is said to be a subring of (R, +, ').
Prior to stating our next theorem, let us define the center of a ring R,
This odefinition is adequate, but unwieldy, siIice all the aspects of the
denoted by cent R, to be thé set
definition of a ring must be checked in deteimining whether a given subset 1'"
is a subring. In seeking a simpler criterion, noticethat (S, +, .) is a subring cent R=' {a E RJar = ra for all r ER}.
of (R, +, .) provided that (S, +) is a °subgroup of (R, +), (S, .) is a subsemi-:
Phrased otherwise, cenot R;:consists of those elements which conimute with
group of (R, '), and the two distributive laws are .satisfied in S. But the
every member of R. It s~6uld be apparent that a ring R is commutative if
distributive and associative laws hold automaticaJly for elements of S as a
and only if cent R = R."::::.
consequence of their validity in R. Since these laws are inherited from R,
o
',.',
there is no necessity of requiring them in the definition of a subring. Theoreinl-4. For ahy.ring R, cent R is a subring of R..~~I'
Taking our cuefrom these remarks, a subring could just as well be
Proof. To be conscientiouiabout details,first observe that 'tentRis non-
defined as follows. The system (S, +, o) forms a subring of the ring (R, +, .)
if and only if . empty; for, at the very least, the zero element O E R. Now pick any two
elements a, b in cent R. By the definition of center, we know that ar = ra
1) S ·is a nonempty subset of R, and br :;= rb for every choice ofr E R. Thus, for arbitrary rE R,
2) (S, +) is a subgroup of(R, +), and (a - b)r = ar - br = ra - rb = r(a - b),
3) the set S is closed under multiplication.
which implies that a - b E cent R. A similar argumentaffirms that the
To add th~ final touch, even this definition can be improved upon; for product ab also lies in cent R. In the lightof Theorem 1-3, theseare
the reader versed in group theory will recall that (S, +) is a subgroup of sufficient conditions for the centet to be a subring of R.
the group (R, +) provided that a - b E S whenever a, bES. By these
observations we are led to·a set of c10sure conditions wruch make it some- It has aIread y been remarked that, when a ring has an identity, this
what easier to verify tbat a particular subset is actually a subring. need not be true of its subrings. Other interesting situations may arise,
1) Sorne subfing has a multiplitative identity, but the entire ring does noto
Theorem 1-3. Let R be a ring and 0 =1= S 5; R. Theri, S i8 a subring
2) Boththe ring and one ofits subrings possess identity elements, but they
of R if and only if
are distinct. .
1) a, b E S imply a - b E S .(closure under differences),
2) a, b E S imply ab E S (closure under multíplication). In each of the cited cases the identity for the subring is necessarily a divisor
of zero in the larger ringo To justify this claim, let l' =1= O denote the
If S is a subring of the ring R, then the zero element of S is that of R identity element of the subririg S; we assume further that l' does not act as
and, moreover, the additive inverse of an element of the subring S is the an identity for the whole ring R. Accordingly, there exists sorne element
same as its inverse as a member of R, Verification of these assertions is left a E R for which al'. =1= a. It is dear that
as an exercise.
(al')l' = a(l'l') = al',
Example 1-6. Every ring R has two obvious subrings, namely, the set {O},
consisting only of the zero element, and R itself. These two subrings are or (al' - a)l' = O. Since rieither al' -' a nor l' is zero, the ring R has
usually referred to as the trivial subrings of R; all other subrings (if any zero divisors, and in particular l' is a zerp divisor.
exist) are called nontrivial. We shall use the term proper subring to mean Example 1-8. to present a simple illustration of a ring in which the seoond .
a subring which is different from R. of the aforementioned possibilities occurs, consider the set R = Z x Z,
 10 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
consisting of ordered pairs of integers. One converts R into a ring by
defining addition and rnultiplicatiori componentwise :
(a, b) + (e, d) = (a + e, b + d),
(a,b)(e, d) = (ae, bd).
A routíne calculation will show that Z x {O} = {(a, O)la E Z} forms a sub-
ring with .identíty element (1, O). This obviously differs from the identity
of the entire ring R, which turns out to be the ordered pair (1, 1). By our
prevíous rernarks, (1, O)rnustbeazerodivisorinR;infact,(l, 0)(0,1) = (O, O),
where (O, O) serves as the zero element of R.
If R is an arbitrary ring and n a positive integer, then the nth power a"
of an element a E R is defined by the inductíve condítions al = a and
a" = a"-la. Frorn tbis the usuallaws of exponents follow at once:
a"a m = an+ m, (a"t = a"m (n, m E Z+).
To establish these rules, fu m and proceed by induction on n. Observe also
that iftwo elements a, bE R happen to cornrnute, so do all powers of a and
b, whence (ab)" = a"b" for each positive integer n.
In the event that R possesses an identíty element 1 and a- l exists,
negaÚve powers of a can be introduced by intelJ)retíng a-" as (a- l )", where
n > O. With the definition aO = 1, the symbol a" now has a well-defined
meaning for every integer n (at least when attention is restricted to invertible
elernents).
Parallelíng the exponent notation for powers, there is the notation of
integral multiples of an e1ement a E R. For each positive integer n, we define
the nth natural multiple na recursively as follows:
la = a and na = (n - l)a + a, when n > 1.
If ít is also agreed to let Oa = O and ( - n)a = - (na), then the definition of
na can be extended to all íntegers. Integral multiples satisfy several
identities which are easy to establish:
(n + m)a = na + ma,
(nm)a = n(ma),
n(a + b) = /la + nb,
for a, b E R and arbitrary integers n and m. In addition to these rules, there
are two further properties resulting frorn the distributive law, namely,
n(ab) = (na)b = a(nb), and (na)(mb) = (nm)(ab).
Experience impels us to emphasize that the expression na should not
be regarded as a ring product (indeed, the integer n 'may not even be a
member of R); the entire symbol na is just a convenient way of indicating
INTROOUCTORY CONCEPTS 11
a certain sum of elements of R. However, when there is an identity for
rnultiplication, it is possible to represent na as a product oftwo ring elements,
namely, na = (n1)a.
To proceed further with our límited program, we must first frame a
definítion.
Definition 1-5. Let R be an arbítrary ringo If there exists a posítive
integer n such that na = Ofor all a E R, then the srnaIlest positive integer
wíth this property is called the eharaeteristie of the ringo If no such
positive integer exists (that is, n = Ois the only integer for which na =. O
for all a in R), then R is said to be of eharaeteristie zero. We shall wnte
char R for the characteristíc of R.
The rings of integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are all
standard exarnples of systerns having characteristíc zero (sorne· writers
prefer the expression "characteristic infinity"). On the other hand, the
ring P(X) of subsets of a fixed set X is of characteristic 2, since
2A = A A A = (A - A) u (A - A) = rp
for every subset A S; X.
Although the definition of characteristíc makes an assertion about every
element of the ring, in rings with identíty the characteristic is completely
determined by the identity elernent. . We reach tbis conc1usion below.
Theorem 1-5. If R is any ring wíth identity 1, then R has characteristic
n > O if and only if n is the least posítive integer for which nI = O.
Proo/. If char R = n > O, then na = Ofor every a E R and so, in particular,
nI = O. Were ml = O, where O < m < n, jt wciuld necessarily follow that
ma = m(la) = (m1)a = Oa = O
for every elernent a E R. The implícatíon is that char R < n, which is
impossible. One establishes the converse in rnuch the 'sarne way.
As we have seen, multiplícation exerts a strong infiuence on the addítive
structure of a ring through the distributive law. The following corollary to
Theorem 1-5 shows that by sufficiently restricting the multiplícation in a
ring R it is possible to reach sorne interestíng conc1usions regarding the
characteristic of R.
Corollary 1. In an integral dornain R all the nonzero elernents have
the sarne addítive order; this order is the characteristic of the domain
when char R > O and infinite when char R = o.
Proo/. To verify this assertion, suppose first that char R = n > O. Accord-
ing to the definítion of characteristic, each element O =1= a E R will then
possess a finíte additive order m, wíth m :::;; n. (Recall that for an element
 10 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
consisting of ordered pairs of integers. One converts R into a ring by
defining addition and rnultiplicatiori componentwise :
(a, b) + (e, d) = (a + e, b + d),
(a,b)(e, d) = (ae, bd).
A routíne calculation will show that Z x {O} = {(a, O)la E Z} forms a sub-
ring with .identíty element (1, O). This obviously differs from the identity
of the entire ring R, which turns out to be the ordered pair (1, 1). By our
prevíous rernarks, (1, O)rnustbeazerodivisorinR;infact,(l, 0)(0,1) = (O, O),
where (O, O) serves as the zero element of R.
If R is an arbitrary ring and n a positive integer, then the nth power a"
of an element a E R is defined by the inductíve condítions al = a and
a" = a"-la. Frorn tbis the usuallaws of exponents follow at once:
a"a m = an+ m, (a"t = a"m (n, m E Z+).
To establish these rules, fu m and proceed by induction on n. Observe also
that iftwo elements a, bE R happen to cornrnute, so do all powers of a and
b, whence (ab)" = a"b" for each positive integer n.
In the event that R possesses an identíty element 1 and a- l exists,
negaÚve powers of a can be introduced by intelJ)retíng a-" as (a- l )", where
n > O. With the definition aO = 1, the symbol a" now has a well-defined
meaning for every integer n (at least when attention is restricted to invertible
elernents).
Parallelíng the exponent notation for powers, there is the notation of
integral multiples of an e1ement a E R. For each positive integer n, we define
the nth natural multiple na recursively as follows:
la = a and na = (n - l)a + a, when n > 1.
If ít is also agreed to let Oa = O and ( - n)a = - (na), then the definition of
na can be extended to all íntegers. Integral multiples satisfy several
identities which are easy to establish:
(n + m)a = na + ma,
(nm)a = n(ma),
n(a + b) = /la + nb,
for a, b E R and arbitrary integers n and m. In addition to these rules, there
are two further properties resulting frorn the distributive law, namely,
n(ab) = (na)b = a(nb), and (na)(mb) = (nm)(ab).
Experience impels us to emphasize that the expression na should not
be regarded as a ring product (indeed, the integer n 'may not even be a
member of R); the entire symbol na is just a convenient way of indicating
INTROOUCTORY CONCEPTS 11
a certain sum of elements of R. However, when there is an identity for
rnultiplication, it is possible to represent na as a product oftwo ring elements,
namely, na = (n1)a.
To proceed further with our límited program, we must first frame a
definítion.
Definition 1-5. Let R be an arbítrary ringo If there exists a posítive
integer n such that na = Ofor all a E R, then the srnaIlest positive integer
wíth this property is called the eharaeteristie of the ringo If no such
positive integer exists (that is, n = Ois the only integer for which na =. O
for all a in R), then R is said to be of eharaeteristie zero. We shall wnte
char R for the characteristíc of R.
The rings of integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are all
standard exarnples of systerns having characteristíc zero (sorne· writers
prefer the expression "characteristic infinity"). On the other hand, the
ring P(X) of subsets of a fixed set X is of characteristic 2, since
2A = A A A = (A - A) u (A - A) = rp
for every subset A S; X.
Although the definition of characteristíc makes an assertion about every
element of the ring, in rings with identíty the characteristic is completely
determined by the identity elernent. . We reach tbis conc1usion below.
Theorem 1-5. If R is any ring wíth identity 1, then R has characteristic
n > O if and only if n is the least posítive integer for which nI = O.
Proo/. If char R = n > O, then na = Ofor every a E R and so, in particular,
nI = O. Were ml = O, where O < m < n, jt wciuld necessarily follow that
ma = m(la) = (m1)a = Oa = O
for every elernent a E R. The implícatíon is that char R < n, which is
impossible. One establishes the converse in rnuch the 'sarne way.
As we have seen, multiplícation exerts a strong infiuence on the addítive
structure of a ring through the distributive law. The following corollary to
Theorem 1-5 shows that by sufficiently restricting the multiplícation in a
ring R it is possible to reach sorne interestíng conc1usions regarding the
characteristic of R.
Corollary 1. In an integral dornain R all the nonzero elernents have
the sarne addítive order; this order is the characteristic of the domain
when char R > O and infinite when char R = o.
Proo/. To verify this assertion, suppose first that char R = n > O. Accord-
ing to the definítion of characteristic, each element O =1= a E R will then
possess a finíte additive order m, wíth m :::;; n. (Recall that for an element
 12 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 13

a + Oofthe group (R, +) to have order m mean s that ma = Oand ka O + where p is a prime, then we are able to deduce considerably more: each
irO < k < m.) But the retation O == ma = (ml)a ímplies that mI = O, Cor nonzero element of Zl is invertible. Before establishing this, first observe
R is assumed to be free of zero divisors. We therefore conclude from the that the set ZI, regarded as an additive cyclic group of order p, consists of
theorem that n ::;; m, whence m and n are equal. In consequence, every p distinct elements, namely, the p ~ums nI, where n = O, 1, ... , p 1. Now
nonzero element of R has additive order n. letnl beany nonzeroelementoCZ1 (O < n < p). Since nandp are relatively
A somewhat similar argumen't can be employed when char R O. 'prime, there exist integers r and s Cor which rp + sn = 1. But then
The equaqon ma = O would lead, as before, to m1 = O or m O. In this 1 = (rp + sn)1 = r(p1) + (s1)(nl).
case every nonzero eIement a E R musí be oC infinite order.
. ¡As p1 = O, we obtain the equation 1 = (sl)(nl), so that sI serves as the
The last result seives to bring OUt anotner use fuI point, which we place í multiplicative in verse of nI in ZL The value of these remarks wiIl have too
on record as . . áwait further developments (in particular, see Chapter 4).
CoroHary 2. An integral dornain R has positive characteristic ifand
only iC na +
O foro s?me O a E R and some integer n E Z+. ;',.:PROBLEMS

Continuing in thls veln, let us next show tbat not any commutative ::.' ¡). Verify that the zero elernent of a ring R is unique, as ís the additive inverse of each.:
group can serve as the additive group of an integral domain. element a E R. .'
. , .
Theorem 1-6. The cbaracteristic of an integral domain is either zero ). Let R be an additive commutative group: If the product of eveJ'Y pair of elernents
or a prime number. ' is defined to be zero, show tbat tbe resulting systern f~rmiifa'coxirmutaÚve ring "
(this is sometimes called tbe zero ring). .
Prooj. Let R be of positive characteristic n and assume that n is not a prime.
Then, n has a nonírivial factorization n = n I n2 , with I < nI' n 2 < n. It 3. Prove that any ring R in which the two operations are equal (that is, a + b = ab
for all a, b e R) must be the trivial ring R = {O}. .
follows tbat
O = nl = (n 1 n2)1 = (n I n2 )12 = (n I l)(n 2 1). 4., In a ring R with identity, establish each of the following:
a) !he identity elemen! for rnultiplieation is unique,
By supposition,.R is without zero divisors, so that either nll Oor n2 I O. b) if a e R has a rnultiplieative inverse, thena -1 is unique,
Since both nI and n2 are less than n, this contradicts the choice of n as the . e) ifthe'elernent a is invertible, then so. also is -a,
leastpositive integer for which n1 = O. We therefore concluoe that char R d) no divisor of zero can Po.ssess a multiplica ti ve IDverse in R.
must be prime. 5. 'a) Ifthe set X eontains more than one elernent, prove that every nonempty proper
CorolIary.. If R is a finite integral domain, then char R = .p, a prime. subset of X is a zeró divisor in the ring P(X).
b) Show that, if n > 1, the matrix ring Mn(R) has zero divison even though the
Turning again to the general theory, let R be any ring with identity and ring R may not. '_
, consider the set Zl of integral multiples of the ídentity; stated symbolically,
6. Suppose !hat R is a ring with identity 1'itnd having no divisor s ofzero. For a, bE R,
Zl = {nlln E Z}. verify that
a) ab 1 if and only if ha = 1,
From the relations
b) if a2 1, then either a 1 or a = -1.
nI - mI = (n - m)l, (nl)(ml) = (nm)l
7~ Let a,' b be two elements ofthe ring R. Ji nE Z.¡: and a and b eommute, derive the
one can easily infer that ZI itself [orms a (commutative) ring with identity. binomial expansion
The order of the additive cyclic group (Z1, +) is simply the characteristic (a + bY' = an + ('i.)an-1b + '" + (k)án-kb k + '" (n~l)Qb·-l + b",
oC the given ring R.
When R happens to be an integral domain, then Zl is a subdomain of where
R (that ¡s, Z1 is also an integral domain with respect to the operations in
R). In fact, ZI is the smallest subdomain oC R, in the sense that it is con- [knj "" k!(n nI- k)!
..
tained in every other subdomain of R. If R is a domain of characteristic p, is the usual binomial coefficÍent
, I
 12 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 13

a + Oofthe group (R, +) to have order m mean s that ma = Oand ka O + where p is a prime, then we are able to deduce considerably more: each
irO < k < m.) But the retation O == ma = (ml)a ímplies that mI = O, Cor nonzero element of Zl is invertible. Before establishing this, first observe
R is assumed to be free of zero divisors. We therefore conclude from the that the set ZI, regarded as an additive cyclic group of order p, consists of
theorem that n ::;; m, whence m and n are equal. In consequence, every p distinct elements, namely, the p ~ums nI, where n = O, 1, ... , p 1. Now
nonzero element of R has additive order n. letnl beany nonzeroelementoCZ1 (O < n < p). Since nandp are relatively
A somewhat similar argumen't can be employed when char R O. 'prime, there exist integers r and s Cor which rp + sn = 1. But then
The equaqon ma = O would lead, as before, to m1 = O or m O. In this 1 = (rp + sn)1 = r(p1) + (s1)(nl).
case every nonzero eIement a E R musí be oC infinite order.
. ¡As p1 = O, we obtain the equation 1 = (sl)(nl), so that sI serves as the
The last result seives to bring OUt anotner use fuI point, which we place í multiplicative in verse of nI in ZL The value of these remarks wiIl have too
on record as . . áwait further developments (in particular, see Chapter 4).
CoroHary 2. An integral dornain R has positive characteristic ifand
only iC na +
O foro s?me O a E R and some integer n E Z+. ;',.:PROBLEMS

Continuing in thls veln, let us next show tbat not any commutative ::.' ¡). Verify that the zero elernent of a ring R is unique, as ís the additive inverse of each.:
group can serve as the additive group of an integral domain. element a E R. .'
. , .
Theorem 1-6. The cbaracteristic of an integral domain is either zero ). Let R be an additive commutative group: If the product of eveJ'Y pair of elernents
or a prime number. ' is defined to be zero, show tbat tbe resulting systern f~rmiifa'coxirmutaÚve ring "
(this is sometimes called tbe zero ring). .
Prooj. Let R be of positive characteristic n and assume that n is not a prime.
Then, n has a nonírivial factorization n = n I n2 , with I < nI' n 2 < n. It 3. Prove that any ring R in which the two operations are equal (that is, a + b = ab
for all a, b e R) must be the trivial ring R = {O}. .
follows tbat
O = nl = (n 1 n2)1 = (n I n2 )12 = (n I l)(n 2 1). 4., In a ring R with identity, establish each of the following:
a) !he identity elemen! for rnultiplieation is unique,
By supposition,.R is without zero divisors, so that either nll Oor n2 I O. b) if a e R has a rnultiplieative inverse, thena -1 is unique,
Since both nI and n2 are less than n, this contradicts the choice of n as the . e) ifthe'elernent a is invertible, then so. also is -a,
leastpositive integer for which n1 = O. We therefore concluoe that char R d) no divisor of zero can Po.ssess a multiplica ti ve IDverse in R.
must be prime. 5. 'a) Ifthe set X eontains more than one elernent, prove that every nonempty proper
CorolIary.. If R is a finite integral domain, then char R = .p, a prime. subset of X is a zeró divisor in the ring P(X).
b) Show that, if n > 1, the matrix ring Mn(R) has zero divison even though the
Turning again to the general theory, let R be any ring with identity and ring R may not. '_
, consider the set Zl of integral multiples of the ídentity; stated symbolically,
6. Suppose !hat R is a ring with identity 1'itnd having no divisor s ofzero. For a, bE R,
Zl = {nlln E Z}. verify that
a) ab 1 if and only if ha = 1,
From the relations
b) if a2 1, then either a 1 or a = -1.
nI - mI = (n - m)l, (nl)(ml) = (nm)l
7~ Let a,' b be two elements ofthe ring R. Ji nE Z.¡: and a and b eommute, derive the
one can easily infer that ZI itself [orms a (commutative) ring with identity. binomial expansion
The order of the additive cyclic group (Z1, +) is simply the characteristic (a + bY' = an + ('i.)an-1b + '" + (k)án-kb k + '" (n~l)Qb·-l + b",
oC the given ring R.
When R happens to be an integral domain, then Zl is a subdomain of where
R (that ¡s, Z1 is also an integral domain with respect to the operations in
R). In fact, ZI is the smallest subdomain oC R, in the sense that it is con- [knj "" k!(n nI- k)!
..
tained in every other subdomain of R. If R is a domain of characteristic p, is the usual binomial coefficÍent
, I
 14 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
PROBLEMS 15

8. An e1ement a of a ring R is said to be idempotent if a2 = a and nilpotent if a" = O

for sorne n E Z+. Show that
a) a nonzero idempotent element cannot be nilpotent,
b) every nonzero nilpotent element is a zero divisor in R.
9. Given that R is an integral domain, prove that
a) the only nilpotent element is the zero element of R,
b) the multiplicative identity is the only nonzero idempotent elemento
10. If a is a nilpotent element of R, a ring with identity, establish that 1 + a is
invertible in R. [Hint: (1 + a)-l = 1 - a + a2 + ... + (-l)"-la"-l, where
a" = O.]
11. A Boo/ean ring is a ring with identity every element of which is idempotent. Prov~
that any Boolean ring R is cornmutative. [Hin!: First show that a = -a for
every aE R.]
12. Suppose the ring R contains an element a such that (1) a is idempotent and (2) a
is not a zero divisor of R. Deduce that a serves as a multiplicative identity for R.
13. Let S be a nonempty subset of the finite ring R. Prove that S is a subring of R
if and only if S is c10sed under both the operations of addition and multiplication.
14. Assume that R is a ring l/lld a E R. If C(a) denotes the set of all elements which
commute with a,
C(a) = {r E Rlar = ra},
show that C(a) js a ~ubring of R. Also, verify the equality tent R = n.on C(a).
a) if there exists an integer k such that ka = O for aH a E R, then k is divisible by
char R;
b) if char R :> O, then char S ~ char R for any subring S of R;
c) if R is an integral domain and. S is a subdomain of R, then char S = char R.
19. L:t R be a ring with a finite number of elements, sayal> a2' ... , ano and let ni be
the order of ai regarded as a member of the additive group of R. Prove that the
characteristic of R is the least common multiple of the integers ni (i = 1,2, ... , n).
20. Suppose that R is a ring with identity such that char R = n > O. If n is not prime,
show that R has divisors of zero.
21. If R is a rillg which has no nonzero nilpotent elements, deduce that aH the idem-
potent elements of R belong to cent R. [Hint: If a2 = a, then (ara - arV =
(ara - ra)2 = O for aH r E R.]
22. Assume that R is a ring with the property that a2 + a E cent R for every element
a in R. Prove that R is necessarily a cornmutative ringo [Hint: Utilize the expression
(a + W + (a + b) to show first that ab + ba lies in the center for aH a, b E R.]
23. Let (G, +) be a commutative group and R be the set ofall (group) homomorphisms
of G into itself. The pointwise sum f + g and composition f o g of two functions
f, g E R are defined by the usual rules
(f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), (f o g)(x) = f(g(x») (XE G).
Show that the resulting system (R, +, o) forms a ring. At the same time determine
the invertible elements of R.

1S. Given a ring R, prove that 24. Let(G,') bea finite group (writtenmultiplicatively), say with elementsx¡, x 2 , ••• , x"'
and let R be an arbitrary ringo Consider the set R(G) of all formal sums
a) if SI is an arbitrary (indexed) coHection of subrings of R, then their intersection
n S¡ is also a subring of R;
b) for a nonempty subset T of R, the set ¿" r¡x i (r¡ER).
i=l

(T) = n {SIT S; S; S is a subring of R} Two such expressions are regarded as equal if they have the same coefficients ..
Addition and multiplication can be defined in R(G) by taking
.is the smaHest (in the sense of inc1usion) subring of R to contain T; (T) is
called the subring generated by T.

16. Let S be a subring of R, a ring with identity. For an arbitrary element a rt S, the
±r¡x¡ + ±s¡x¡ = ±(r¡ + s¡)x¡
i=l i=l i=l
and
subring generated by the set S u {a} is represented by (S, a). If a E cent R,
establish tha t
(.± r¡x¡) [.± S¡X¡) = .± t¡x
l=1 ,=1 1=1
j,

(S, a) = {ro + rla + ... + r.a"ln E Z+; r¡ E S}. where

ti = ¿ rjsk •
17. Let R be an arbitrary ring apd n E Z+. Ifthe set Sft is defined by XJXk=Xf

S. = {a E Rlnka = O for sorne k> O}, (The meaning of the last-written sum is that the surnmation is to be extended over
aH subscripts j and k for which xjxk = x¡.) Prove that, with respect to these
determine whether S" is a subring of R .. operations, R(G) constitutes a ring, the so-called group ring of G over R.
18. Establish the foHowing assertions concerning the characteristic of a ring R:
 14 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
PROBLEMS 15

8. An e1ement a of a ring R is said to be idempotent if a2 = a and nilpotent if a" = O

for sorne n E Z+. Show that
a) a nonzero idempotent element cannot be nilpotent,
b) every nonzero nilpotent element is a zero divisor in R.
9. Given that R is an integral domain, prove that
a) the only nilpotent element is the zero element of R,
b) the multiplicative identity is the only nonzero idempotent elemento
10. If a is a nilpotent element of R, a ring with identity, establish that 1 + a is
invertible in R. [Hint: (1 + a)-l = 1 - a + a2 + ... + (-l)"-la"-l, where
a" = O.]
11. A Boo/ean ring is a ring with identity every element of which is idempotent. Prov~
that any Boolean ring R is cornmutative. [Hin!: First show that a = -a for
every aE R.]
12. Suppose the ring R contains an element a such that (1) a is idempotent and (2) a
is not a zero divisor of R. Deduce that a serves as a multiplicative identity for R.
13. Let S be a nonempty subset of the finite ring R. Prove that S is a subring of R
if and only if S is c10sed under both the operations of addition and multiplication.
14. Assume that R is a ring l/lld a E R. If C(a) denotes the set of all elements which
commute with a,
C(a) = {r E Rlar = ra},
show that C(a) js a ~ubring of R. Also, verify the equality tent R = n.on C(a).
a) if there exists an integer k such that ka = O for aH a E R, then k is divisible by
char R;
b) if char R :> O, then char S ~ char R for any subring S of R;
c) if R is an integral domain and. S is a subdomain of R, then char S = char R.
19. L:t R be a ring with a finite number of elements, sayal> a2' ... , ano and let ni be
the order of ai regarded as a member of the additive group of R. Prove that the
characteristic of R is the least common multiple of the integers ni (i = 1,2, ... , n).
20. Suppose that R is a ring with identity such that char R = n > O. If n is not prime,
show that R has divisors of zero.
21. If R is a rillg which has no nonzero nilpotent elements, deduce that aH the idem-
potent elements of R belong to cent R. [Hint: If a2 = a, then (ara - arV =
(ara - ra)2 = O for aH r E R.]
22. Assume that R is a ring with the property that a2 + a E cent R for every element
a in R. Prove that R is necessarily a cornmutative ringo [Hint: Utilize the expression
(a + W + (a + b) to show first that ab + ba lies in the center for aH a, b E R.]
23. Let (G, +) be a commutative group and R be the set ofall (group) homomorphisms
of G into itself. The pointwise sum f + g and composition f o g of two functions
f, g E R are defined by the usual rules
(f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), (f o g)(x) = f(g(x») (XE G).
Show that the resulting system (R, +, o) forms a ring. At the same time determine
the invertible elements of R.

1S. Given a ring R, prove that 24. Let(G,') bea finite group (writtenmultiplicatively), say with elementsx¡, x 2 , ••• , x"'
and let R be an arbitrary ringo Consider the set R(G) of all formal sums
a) if SI is an arbitrary (indexed) coHection of subrings of R, then their intersection
n S¡ is also a subring of R;
b) for a nonempty subset T of R, the set ¿" r¡x i (r¡ER).
i=l

(T) = n {SIT S; S; S is a subring of R} Two such expressions are regarded as equal if they have the same coefficients ..
Addition and multiplication can be defined in R(G) by taking
.is the smaHest (in the sense of inc1usion) subring of R to contain T; (T) is
called the subring generated by T.

16. Let S be a subring of R, a ring with identity. For an arbitrary element a rt S, the
±r¡x¡ + ±s¡x¡ = ±(r¡ + s¡)x¡
i=l i=l i=l
and
subring generated by the set S u {a} is represented by (S, a). If a E cent R,
establish tha t
(.± r¡x¡) [.± S¡X¡) = .± t¡x
l=1 ,=1 1=1
j,

(S, a) = {ro + rla + ... + r.a"ln E Z+; r¡ E S}. where

ti = ¿ rjsk •
17. Let R be an arbitrary ring apd n E Z+. Ifthe set Sft is defined by XJXk=Xf

S. = {a E Rlnka = O for sorne k> O}, (The meaning of the last-written sum is that the surnmation is to be extended over
aH subscripts j and k for which xjxk = x¡.) Prove that, with respect to these
determine whether S" is a subring of R .. operations, R(G) constitutes a ring, the so-called group ring of G over R.
18. Establish the foHowing assertions concerning the characteristic of a ring R:
 . '

IDEALS ANO THEIROPERATIONS 17

, Example 2-1. For each integer a E Z"let (a) r.epresent the set consisting
TWO of all integral muItiples of a; that is,
(a) {naln E Z};
The following relations confirm (a) to be an ideal ofthe ring ofintegers:
na ma (n - m)a,
m(mi) = (mn)a, n, n EZ.
IDEALS AND THEIR OPERATIONS In particular, since (2) = Ze,the ring of even integers forms an {deal of Z. "
Notice, too, that (O) = {O} and (1) = Z.,¡ ;'.,'
Example 2-2. Another illustration is furnished by map (X, R), th~ ring of ¡.'
A1though it is possibleto obtain sorne interesting conclusions conceming )~?ppings froIn the set X into'the ring R (see Example 1-4). For a fixed ,l.,~
subrings, this concept,lifunrestricted, is too general for most purposes. To , element x E X, we denote by Ix the set of all mappings which take on the ...
derive certain highly'desirable results (for instance, the fundamental iso- ,value
..
~'.-
O at . x: ,,',;
1l'l:0rphism theorems), ad~tional assumptions that go beyond Definition 1-4 . Ix {f E map(X, R)/f(x) = O}.
must be imposed. Thus,in the present chapter we narrow the field and focus
attention on a class of subrings with a stronger type of multiplícative elosure, Now, choose J, g E Ix and hE map(X, R). From the définHion of the ring
namely, closure under multiplícation by an arbitrary ring element. ' operations in map(X, R),

DefinidoR 2-1. A subring I of the ring R is said to be a twa-sided ideal (f -g)(x) = f(x)-g(x) = O-O = O,
of R if and ónly if rE R anct a El imply both ra E I and ar E I. while
Viewed otherwise, Definition 2-1 asserts that whe~ever one of thé
(fh)(x) = f(x)h(x) Oh (x) O,
factors in a product belongs to I, then the product itself must be in l. (This
may be roughly summarized by saying tbat theset I "captures" products.) and, in a similar manner, (hf)(x) O. Thus, f - g, fh and hf all belong to
Taking stock of Theorem 1-3, which gives a mini mal set of conditions Ix, which implies that Ix is an ideal.
to be a subring, our current definition of a two-sided ideal may be reformu- More generally, if S is any nonempty subset of X, then
, lated as follows.
DefinitioR 2.;.2. Let I be a nonempty subset of a ring R. Then I is a
I = {f E map(X, R)lf(x) = O for all x E S}
two-sided ideal of R if and only if comprises an ideal of map(X, R). Since I nxesI.., we have a situation
1) .a, b E I imply a - b E I, and where. the intersection of ideals is once again an ideal. (Theorem 2-2shows
2) r E R and a E I imply both products ra, ar E I. that tbis is no accident.) - '
If condition (2) of the aboye definition is weakened so as to require Before presenting our next example, we derive a fact which, despite its
only that the product ra belongs to I for every choice of r E R and a E I, apparent simplicity, will be frequently applied in the sequel.
we are led to the notion of a left ideal; right ideals are defined in a sym-
metric way. Needless to say, if the ring R happens to be commutative (the Theonim 2-1. If 1 is a proper (right, left, two-sided) ideal of a ring R
most important case so far as we shall be concerned), then there is no with identity, then no element of I possesses a multiplicative inverse;
distinction between left, right, and two-sided ideals. that is, I n R* = 0.

CONVENTION In what follows, let us agree that theterm "ideal", un- Proa! Let I be an ideal of R and suppose that there is sorne member a =1= O
modified, wilJ always mean two-sided ideal. of I such that a-lexists in R. (The theorem is trivial when I = {O}.) Since'
I is closed under multiplication by arbitrary ring elements, it follows that
Before proceeding further, we pause to examine tbis concept by means 1 = a-la E l. By tile same reasoning, I contains r = rl for every r in R;
of several specificexamples.
16
 . '

IDEALS ANO THEIROPERATIONS 17

, Example 2-1. For each integer a E Z"let (a) r.epresent the set consisting
TWO of all integral muItiples of a; that is,
(a) {naln E Z};
The following relations confirm (a) to be an ideal ofthe ring ofintegers:
na ma (n - m)a,
m(mi) = (mn)a, n, n EZ.
IDEALS AND THEIR OPERATIONS In particular, since (2) = Ze,the ring of even integers forms an {deal of Z. "
Notice, too, that (O) = {O} and (1) = Z.,¡ ;'.,'
Example 2-2. Another illustration is furnished by map (X, R), th~ ring of ¡.'
A1though it is possibleto obtain sorne interesting conclusions conceming )~?ppings froIn the set X into'the ring R (see Example 1-4). For a fixed ,l.,~
subrings, this concept,lifunrestricted, is too general for most purposes. To , element x E X, we denote by Ix the set of all mappings which take on the ...
derive certain highly'desirable results (for instance, the fundamental iso- ,value
..
~'.-
O at . x: ,,',;
1l'l:0rphism theorems), ad~tional assumptions that go beyond Definition 1-4 . Ix {f E map(X, R)/f(x) = O}.
must be imposed. Thus,in the present chapter we narrow the field and focus
attention on a class of subrings with a stronger type of multiplícative elosure, Now, choose J, g E Ix and hE map(X, R). From the définHion of the ring
namely, closure under multiplícation by an arbitrary ring element. ' operations in map(X, R),

DefinidoR 2-1. A subring I of the ring R is said to be a twa-sided ideal (f -g)(x) = f(x)-g(x) = O-O = O,
of R if and ónly if rE R anct a El imply both ra E I and ar E I. while
Viewed otherwise, Definition 2-1 asserts that whe~ever one of thé
(fh)(x) = f(x)h(x) Oh (x) O,
factors in a product belongs to I, then the product itself must be in l. (This
may be roughly summarized by saying tbat theset I "captures" products.) and, in a similar manner, (hf)(x) O. Thus, f - g, fh and hf all belong to
Taking stock of Theorem 1-3, which gives a mini mal set of conditions Ix, which implies that Ix is an ideal.
to be a subring, our current definition of a two-sided ideal may be reformu- More generally, if S is any nonempty subset of X, then
, lated as follows.
DefinitioR 2.;.2. Let I be a nonempty subset of a ring R. Then I is a
I = {f E map(X, R)lf(x) = O for all x E S}
two-sided ideal of R if and only if comprises an ideal of map(X, R). Since I nxesI.., we have a situation
1) .a, b E I imply a - b E I, and where. the intersection of ideals is once again an ideal. (Theorem 2-2shows
2) r E R and a E I imply both products ra, ar E I. that tbis is no accident.) - '
If condition (2) of the aboye definition is weakened so as to require Before presenting our next example, we derive a fact which, despite its
only that the product ra belongs to I for every choice of r E R and a E I, apparent simplicity, will be frequently applied in the sequel.
we are led to the notion of a left ideal; right ideals are defined in a sym-
metric way. Needless to say, if the ring R happens to be commutative (the Theonim 2-1. If 1 is a proper (right, left, two-sided) ideal of a ring R
most important case so far as we shall be concerned), then there is no with identity, then no element of I possesses a multiplicative inverse;
distinction between left, right, and two-sided ideals. that is, I n R* = 0.

CONVENTION In what follows, let us agree that theterm "ideal", un- Proa! Let I be an ideal of R and suppose that there is sorne member a =1= O
modified, wilJ always mean two-sided ideal. of I such that a-lexists in R. (The theorem is trivial when I = {O}.) Since'
I is closed under multiplication by arbitrary ring elements, it follows that
Before proceeding further, we pause to examine tbis concept by means 1 = a-la E l. By tile same reasoning, I contains r = rl for every r in R;
of several specificexamples.
16
 18 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
that is, R S;; J, whence the equality J = R. This contradicts the hypothesis
that J is a proper subset of R.
Notice that, en route, we have also established
Corollary. In a ring with identíty, no proper (right, left, two-sided) ideal
contaíns the identity elemento
Example 2...3. Thís example is given to show that the ring Mn(R#) of
n x n matrices over the real numbers has no nontrivial ideals. As a nota-
tional device, let us define Eij to be the n x n matrix having 1 as its ijth
entry and zeroes elsewhere. Now, suppose that J =1= {O} is any ideal of the
ring Mn(R#). Then J must contain sorne nonzero matrix (aij), with, say,
rsth entry a,s =1= O. Since J is a two-sided ideal, the product
Err(b¡) (a¡)Ess
is a member of J, where the matrix (b;) is chosen to have the element a;. 1
down its main diagonal and zeroes everywhere else. As a result of al! the
zero entries in the various factors, it is easy to verify that this product is
.equal to E,s' Knowing thís, the relation
Eu = EúE,sE.l (i, j = 1,2, ... , n)
implies tbat all n2 of the matrices Eu are contained. in 1. The clinching
point is that the identity matrix (ou) can be written as
(ou) = Ell + E 22 + ... + E nn ,
which leads to the conelusion that (Oij) E J and, appealing to the above
corollary, thatl = Mn(R#). In other words, Mn(R#) possesses no nonzero
proper ideals, as assertt;d...
As a matter of definhíon, let us call a ring R =1= {O} simple if R has no
two-sided ideals other tbAn {O} and R. In the light of Example 2-4, the
matrix ring Mn(R#) is a simple ringo
We now take up some of the standard methods for constructing new
ideals from given ones. To begin with simpler things:
Theorem 2-2. Leí {J¡} be an arbitrary collection of (right, left, two-
s.ided) ideals of the ring R, where i ranges over sorne index set Then
n Ji is also a (right, left, two-sided) ideal of R.
Proof. We give the proof for the case in whích the ideals are two-sided.
First, observe that the intersection n Ji is nonempty, for each of the ideals
Ji must contain the zero element of the ringo Suppose that the elements
a, b E n Ji and r E R. Then a and b are members of Ji' where i varies over
the indexing set. Inasmuch as JI is assumed to be an ideal of R, it follows
that a - b, ar and ra alllie in the set Ji' But this is true for every value of
IDEALS ANO THEIR OPERATIONS 19
i, whence the elements a - b, ar and ra belong to n Ji' making n Ji an
ideal of R.
Consider, for the moment, an arbitrary ring Ji and a nonempty subset
S of R. By the symbol (S) we sháll mean the set
(S) = n {JI S S;; J; J is an ideal of R}.
The collection of all ideal s which contain S is not ernpty, since the entire
ring itself is an ideal containing any subset of R; thus, the set (S) exists and
satisfies the inclusion S S;; (S). By virtue ofTheorem 2-2, (S) forms an ideal
of R, lrnown as the ideal generated by the set S. It is noteworthy that when-
ever J is any ideal of R with S s;; J, then necessarily (S) S;; 1. For tbis rcason,
one often speaks of (S) as being the smallest ideal of R to contain the set S.
It should be apparent that corresponding remarks apply to the o'he-sided
ideals generated by S.
If S consists of a finite number of elements, sayal' a2 , ••• , an , then, the
l.,.
idcal'which t4ey generate is customarily denoted by (al' a2, ... , aJo Such an
ideal is said to be finitely generated with the given eIernents al as its
generators. An ideal (a) generated by just one ring eIement is termed a
principal ideal.
A natural undertaking is to determine the precise form of the members
of the various ideals (right, left, two-sided) generated by a single element,
saya, of an arbitrary ring R. The right ideal generated by a is caBed a
principal right ideal and is denoted by (a),. Being closed with respect to
multiplication on the right, (a), necessarily contains al! products ar (r E R),
as well as the elements na (n an integer), and, hence, ineludes their sum
ar + na. (As usual, the notation na represents the n-fold sum of a.) It is a
fairly simple matter to check that the set of elements of the form ar + na
constitutes a right iGeal of R. Observe, too, that the elernent a is a member
of the ideal, .since a = aO + la. These remarks make it clear that
(a), = {ar + nalrER; nE Z}.
When there is an identity element present, the term na becomes superfluous,
for, in this setting, we rnay write the expression ar + na more simply as
ar + na = ar + a(nl) = a(r + nI) ar',
where r ' = r + nI is some ring elemento Thus, the set (a), consists of all
right multiples of a byelements of R. If R is a ring with identity, we shall
frequently employ the more suggestive notation aR in place of (a),; that is,
(a)r = aR {arlr E R}.
Similar remarks ~pply, of course, to the principal left ideal (a)¡ generated
bya.
 18 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
that is, R S;; J, whence the equality J = R. This contradicts the hypothesis
that J is a proper subset of R.
Notice that, en route, we have also established
Corollary. In a ring with identíty, no proper (right, left, two-sided) ideal
contaíns the identity elemento
Example 2...3. Thís example is given to show that the ring Mn(R#) of
n x n matrices over the real numbers has no nontrivial ideals. As a nota-
tional device, let us define Eij to be the n x n matrix having 1 as its ijth
entry and zeroes elsewhere. Now, suppose that J =1= {O} is any ideal of the
ring Mn(R#). Then J must contain sorne nonzero matrix (aij), with, say,
rsth entry a,s =1= O. Since J is a two-sided ideal, the product
Err(b¡) (a¡)Ess
is a member of J, where the matrix (b;) is chosen to have the element a;. 1
down its main diagonal and zeroes everywhere else. As a result of al! the
zero entries in the various factors, it is easy to verify that this product is
.equal to E,s' Knowing thís, the relation
Eu = EúE,sE.l (i, j = 1,2, ... , n)
implies tbat all n2 of the matrices Eu are contained. in 1. The clinching
point is that the identity matrix (ou) can be written as
(ou) = Ell + E 22 + ... + E nn ,
which leads to the conelusion that (Oij) E J and, appealing to the above
corollary, thatl = Mn(R#). In other words, Mn(R#) possesses no nonzero
proper ideals, as assertt;d...
As a matter of definhíon, let us call a ring R =1= {O} simple if R has no
two-sided ideals other tbAn {O} and R. In the light of Example 2-4, the
matrix ring Mn(R#) is a simple ringo
We now take up some of the standard methods for constructing new
ideals from given ones. To begin with simpler things:
Theorem 2-2. Leí {J¡} be an arbitrary collection of (right, left, two-
s.ided) ideals of the ring R, where i ranges over sorne index set Then
n Ji is also a (right, left, two-sided) ideal of R.
Proof. We give the proof for the case in whích the ideals are two-sided.
First, observe that the intersection n Ji is nonempty, for each of the ideals
Ji must contain the zero element of the ringo Suppose that the elements
a, b E n Ji and r E R. Then a and b are members of Ji' where i varies over
the indexing set. Inasmuch as JI is assumed to be an ideal of R, it follows
that a - b, ar and ra alllie in the set Ji' But this is true for every value of
IDEALS ANO THEIR OPERATIONS 19
i, whence the elements a - b, ar and ra belong to n Ji' making n Ji an
ideal of R.
Consider, for the moment, an arbitrary ring Ji and a nonempty subset
S of R. By the symbol (S) we sháll mean the set
(S) = n {JI S S;; J; J is an ideal of R}.
The collection of all ideal s which contain S is not ernpty, since the entire
ring itself is an ideal containing any subset of R; thus, the set (S) exists and
satisfies the inclusion S S;; (S). By virtue ofTheorem 2-2, (S) forms an ideal
of R, lrnown as the ideal generated by the set S. It is noteworthy that when-
ever J is any ideal of R with S s;; J, then necessarily (S) S;; 1. For tbis rcason,
one often speaks of (S) as being the smallest ideal of R to contain the set S.
It should be apparent that corresponding remarks apply to the o'he-sided
ideals generated by S.
If S consists of a finite number of elements, sayal' a2 , ••• , an , then, the
l.,.
idcal'which t4ey generate is customarily denoted by (al' a2, ... , aJo Such an
ideal is said to be finitely generated with the given eIernents al as its
generators. An ideal (a) generated by just one ring eIement is termed a
principal ideal.
A natural undertaking is to determine the precise form of the members
of the various ideals (right, left, two-sided) generated by a single element,
saya, of an arbitrary ring R. The right ideal generated by a is caBed a
principal right ideal and is denoted by (a),. Being closed with respect to
multiplication on the right, (a), necessarily contains al! products ar (r E R),
as well as the elements na (n an integer), and, hence, ineludes their sum
ar + na. (As usual, the notation na represents the n-fold sum of a.) It is a
fairly simple matter to check that the set of elements of the form ar + na
constitutes a right iGeal of R. Observe, too, that the elernent a is a member
of the ideal, .since a = aO + la. These remarks make it clear that
(a), = {ar + nalrER; nE Z}.
When there is an identity element present, the term na becomes superfluous,
for, in this setting, we rnay write the expression ar + na more simply as
ar + na = ar + a(nl) = a(r + nI) ar',
where r ' = r + nI is some ring elemento Thus, the set (a), consists of all
right multiples of a byelements of R. If R is a ring with identity, we shall
frequently employ the more suggestive notation aR in place of (a),; that is,
(a)r = aR {arlr E R}.
Similar remarks ~pply, of course, to the principal left ideal (a)¡ generated
bya.
20 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
IDEA,LS AND THEIR O,Í>ERATIONS 21

As a general cornment, observe that the products ar (r E R) comprise the Then 11 + 12 + ... + In is likewise an ideal of R and is the smil.llest ideal
set of elements'of a right ideal of R even when the ring does not possess an of R which contains every 1,; phrased in another way, 11 + 12 + ... + In
identity. The difficulty, however, is that this ideal need not contain a itse1f. is the ideal generated by the union 11 u I2t U ... U In' In the special case
With regard to the two-sided ideal (a) generated by a, the situation is of two ideals 1 and J, our definitiQn reduces to
more complicated. Certainly the elements ras, ra, as and na must all belong 1 + J = {a + b/aEI; bEJ}.
to the ideal (a) for every choice of r, s E R and n E Z. In general, the sum More generally, let {J;} be an arbitrary indexed collection of ideals of
of two elements ras and r'as' is no longer of the same form, so that, in order R. , The sum of this collection may be deno~ed by ¿
1, and is the ideal of
¿
to have c10sure under addition, any finite sum rias i, where r" si E R, is R whose members are aH possible finite sumS of elements from the various
also required tobe in (a). The reader will experience no difficulty in'showing ideals I i : \L
that the principal ideal generated bya is given by ,', '¿ 1, = {¿ afia, ~:jJ.
. finite·· ..
(a) = {na + ra + as + ¿ r,as;!r,s,r"s,ER; nEZ}.,' The reader will take careto remember that, although {J,} may be an infinite
finite
family of ideals, only finíte sums of eleménts of R are involved in the
In case R happens to haye an identity, this description of (a) reduées to the
definition above. An alternative descriptio~o'f 1, could be 'given by
¿
¿
set of aH finite sums r , a s , . ' : , "
A particularIy important typeof ring is a principal ideal ririg" wbich ¿I, = {¿a,la, E finíte¡~Ú.llnber
I i ; aH but a
"':.;:
ofthe a¡ ~~e O},
,
we now d e f i n e . : - '
where it ís understood that ¿ represents an arbitrar y sum whh orie or more
Definítion 2-3. A ring R is said to be a principal ideal ring if eve~y ideal terms. Just as n Ii can be interpreted as the largest ideal'of R contained
1 of R is of the form 1 = (a) for sorne a E R. in every I i, the sum ¿ Ii supplies the dual notion of the smallest ideal
The foHowing theorem furnishes an example of such rings. containing every Ii'
U R = 11 + 12 + ... + In' then each element X E R can be expressed
Theorem 2-3. The ring Z of integers is a principal ideal ring; in fact, in the form x = al + a 2 + ... + an, where ai lies in J f . ' There is no
if 1 is an ideal of Z, then 1 = (n) for sorne nonnegative integer n. guarantee, however, that tbis representation of x is unique. To eilsure that
Proof If 1 = {O}, the theorem is triviaHy true, since' the zero ideal {O} is every member of R IS uniquely expressíble as a sum of elements from the
the principal ideal generated by O. Suppose then tbat 1 does not consist ideals I i , an auxíliary definitíon ís required. .
ofthe zero element alone. Now, ifm E 1, -m also Iles in 1, so that the set 1 . Definition ~-4. Let 11 , 12 , ... , In be ideals <;>fthe ring R. We caH R the
contains positive integers. Let n designate the least positive integer in 1. internal direct sum off 1, 12 , ... , In' and write R = 11 EB 12 EB ... EB In'
As 1 forms a~ ideal of Z, each integral multiple of n must belong to 1, whence provided that
~~L ' .¡
To establish the inc1usion 1 ~ (n), let k be an arbitrary element of 1.
a) R = 11 + 12 + ... + In' and'
By the di:vision aigorithm there existintegers q and r for which k = qn + r,
b) Ii n (JI + ... + I i- 1 + Ii+1 + ... + In) = {O} for each i.
with O ~ r < n. Since k and qn are both members of 1, it foHows that As was heralded by out remarks, we are now in a position to prove
r = k - qn E 1. Ifr > O, we would have a contradiction to the assumption Theorem 2-4. Let 11 , 12 , ... , In be ideals of the ring R. Then the
that n is the smaHest positive integer in 1. Accordingly, r ~ O and
following statements are equivalent:
k = qn E (n). Thus, only multiples of n belong to 1, implying that 1 ~ (n).
The two inc1usions show that 1 = (n) and the argument is complete. 1) R is the rntermiJ direct sum of 1 1 ,1 2 , ... , In'
2) Each element x of R is uniquely expressible in the form
Let us noW describe certain binary operations on the set of aH ideals
x = al + a2 + ... + an, where ai E I¡.
of R. (Similar consideratíons apply to the sets of right, and left ideal s, but
for economy of effort we concentrate on two-sided ideals.) Given a finite Proof There is no loss in confining ourselves to thecase n = 2; the general
number of ideals 11,12 , .,. ,1" of the ring R, one defines their sum in the arg~ment proceeds along similar lines. Webegin by assumíng that
natural way: R = 11 EB 12 , Suppose further that an element x E R has two representatíons

11 +1 2 + ... + In '= {al + a2 + ... + a"la,EIJ, x = al + b1 = a2 + Q2 (a i EI 1, b¡EI 2 ).

20 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
IDEA,LS AND THEIR O,Í>ERATIONS 21

As a general cornment, observe that the products ar (r E R) comprise the Then 11 + 12 + ... + In is likewise an ideal of R and is the smil.llest ideal
set of elements'of a right ideal of R even when the ring does not possess an of R which contains every 1,; phrased in another way, 11 + 12 + ... + In
identity. The difficulty, however, is that this ideal need not contain a itse1f. is the ideal generated by the union 11 u I2t U ... U In' In the special case
With regard to the two-sided ideal (a) generated by a, the situation is of two ideals 1 and J, our definitiQn reduces to
more complicated. Certainly the elements ras, ra, as and na must all belong 1 + J = {a + b/aEI; bEJ}.
to the ideal (a) for every choice of r, s E R and n E Z. In general, the sum More generally, let {J;} be an arbitrary indexed collection of ideals of
of two elements ras and r'as' is no longer of the same form, so that, in order R. , The sum of this collection may be deno~ed by ¿
1, and is the ideal of
¿
to have c10sure under addition, any finite sum rias i, where r" si E R, is R whose members are aH possible finite sumS of elements from the various
also required tobe in (a). The reader will experience no difficulty in'showing ideals I i : \L
that the principal ideal generated bya is given by ,', '¿ 1, = {¿ afia, ~:jJ.
. finite·· ..
(a) = {na + ra + as + ¿ r,as;!r,s,r"s,ER; nEZ}.,' The reader will take careto remember that, although {J,} may be an infinite
finite
family of ideals, only finíte sums of eleménts of R are involved in the
In case R happens to haye an identity, this description of (a) reduées to the
definition above. An alternative descriptio~o'f 1, could be 'given by
¿
¿
set of aH finite sums r , a s , . ' : , "
A particularIy important typeof ring is a principal ideal ririg" wbich ¿I, = {¿a,la, E finíte¡~Ú.llnber
I i ; aH but a
"':.;:
ofthe a¡ ~~e O},
,
we now d e f i n e . : - '
where it ís understood that ¿ represents an arbitrar y sum whh orie or more
Definítion 2-3. A ring R is said to be a principal ideal ring if eve~y ideal terms. Just as n Ii can be interpreted as the largest ideal'of R contained
1 of R is of the form 1 = (a) for sorne a E R. in every I i, the sum ¿ Ii supplies the dual notion of the smallest ideal
The foHowing theorem furnishes an example of such rings. containing every Ii'
U R = 11 + 12 + ... + In' then each element X E R can be expressed
Theorem 2-3. The ring Z of integers is a principal ideal ring; in fact, in the form x = al + a 2 + ... + an, where ai lies in J f . ' There is no
if 1 is an ideal of Z, then 1 = (n) for sorne nonnegative integer n. guarantee, however, that tbis representation of x is unique. To eilsure that
Proof If 1 = {O}, the theorem is triviaHy true, since' the zero ideal {O} is every member of R IS uniquely expressíble as a sum of elements from the
the principal ideal generated by O. Suppose then tbat 1 does not consist ideals I i , an auxíliary definitíon ís required. .
ofthe zero element alone. Now, ifm E 1, -m also Iles in 1, so that the set 1 . Definition ~-4. Let 11 , 12 , ... , In be ideals <;>fthe ring R. We caH R the
contains positive integers. Let n designate the least positive integer in 1. internal direct sum off 1, 12 , ... , In' and write R = 11 EB 12 EB ... EB In'
As 1 forms a~ ideal of Z, each integral multiple of n must belong to 1, whence provided that
~~L ' .¡
To establish the inc1usion 1 ~ (n), let k be an arbitrary element of 1.
a) R = 11 + 12 + ... + In' and'
By the di:vision aigorithm there existintegers q and r for which k = qn + r,
b) Ii n (JI + ... + I i- 1 + Ii+1 + ... + In) = {O} for each i.
with O ~ r < n. Since k and qn are both members of 1, it foHows that As was heralded by out remarks, we are now in a position to prove
r = k - qn E 1. Ifr > O, we would have a contradiction to the assumption Theorem 2-4. Let 11 , 12 , ... , In be ideals of the ring R. Then the
that n is the smaHest positive integer in 1. Accordingly, r ~ O and
following statements are equivalent:
k = qn E (n). Thus, only multiples of n belong to 1, implying that 1 ~ (n).
The two inc1usions show that 1 = (n) and the argument is complete. 1) R is the rntermiJ direct sum of 1 1 ,1 2 , ... , In'
2) Each element x of R is uniquely expressible in the form
Let us noW describe certain binary operations on the set of aH ideals
x = al + a2 + ... + an, where ai E I¡.
of R. (Similar consideratíons apply to the sets of right, and left ideal s, but
for economy of effort we concentrate on two-sided ideals.) Given a finite Proof There is no loss in confining ourselves to thecase n = 2; the general
number of ideals 11,12 , .,. ,1" of the ring R, one defines their sum in the arg~ment proceeds along similar lines. Webegin by assumíng that
natural way: R = 11 EB 12 , Suppose further that an element x E R has two representatíons

11 +1 2 + ... + In '= {al + a2 + ... + a"la,EIJ, x = al + b1 = a2 + Q2 (a i EI 1, b¡EI 2 ).

 22 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS IDEALS ANO THEIR OPERATIONS 23
Then al - a 2 = b2 - bl' But the left-hand side of this last equation lies In this connection, it is important to observe that
in 1 1 , while the right-hand side is in 12 , so that both sides be long to
11 n 12 = {O}. Itfollowsthata 1 - a 2 = b2 - b1 = 0,ora 1 = a2 ,b 1 = b2 • 1 ::2 12 ::2 13 ::2 '" ::2 1" ::2
In other words, x is uniquely representable as a sum a + b, a E 1 l' b E 12 ,
forms a decreasing chain of ideals.
Conversely, assume that assertion (2) holds and, that the element
x E 11 n 12 , We may then express x in two different ways as the sum of Remark. If 1 is a right ideal and S a nonempty subset of the ring R, then '
an, element in 11 and an element in 12 ; namely, x = x + O (here x E 1 1
and OE 12 ) and x = O + x (here OE 1 1 and x E 12 ), The uniqueness SI = {L a¡r¡la¡ E S; r¡ El}
assumption of(2) implies that x = O, in'consequence ofwhich 1 1 n 12 = {O}; finite

hence, R = 11 EB 12 , This completes the proof of the theorem.
We now come to a less elementary, but extremely useful,notion; namely,
the product of ideals. Once again, assume that 1 and J are two ideals of
the ring R. To be consistent with our earlier definition of the sum 1 + J,
we should define fue product 'IJ to be the collection of all simple products
ab, where a E 1 and b EJ. Unfortunately, the resulting set fails to form an
ideal. (Why?) To counter this difficulty, we instead take the elements of
IJ to be all possible ,finite sums of simple products; stated explicitly,
IJ = O=a¡b¡la¡El; b¡EJ}.
finile
With this definition IJ indeed becomes an ideal of R. For, suppose that
x, y E IJ and r E R; then,
where the a¡ and a; are in 1, and the b¡ and b; are in J. From this we obtain
x - y = a 1b 1 + ... + anb n + (-a'1)b'1' + ... + (-a~)b~,
rx = (ra 1)b 1 + (ra 2 )b 2 + ... + (ra~~bp.
Now, the elements -a; and raí necessarily lie in 1, so that x - y and
rx E IJ; likewise, xr E IJ, making IJ an ideal of R. In point of fact, JJ is
just the ideal generated by the set Qf all products ab, a E 1, bE J.
There is no difficulty in extending the a1:ibve temarks to any finite
number of ideals 11> 12 , ••• , In of the ring R. A'moment's thought shows
that the product 11 12 ... In is the ideal consisting of finite sums of terms of
the form a 1a2 ... an' with a¡ in 1¡. (It is perhaps appropriate to point out
that, because of the assodative law for multiplication in R, the notation
1112 ,., In is unambiguous.) A special case irnmediately presents itself:
namely, the situation where all the ideal s are alike, say equaJ to the ideal
l. Rere, we see that 1" is the set of finite sums of products of n elements
from 1:
1" = {L..,¡
" a·11 a·12 ... a·In la.Ik El}.
finite
forms a right ideal of R. In particular, if S = {a}, then al (a notation we
prefer to {a} 1) is gi ven by
al = {arlr E I}.
Analogous statements can be made when 1 is a left ideal of R, but not, of
course, a two-sided ideal.
The last ideal-theoretic operation which we wish to consider is that of
the quotient (or residual), defined below.
Definition 2-5. Let 1 and J be two ideal s of the ring R. The right (left)
quotient of 1 by J, denoted by the symbol 1 :r J (I :1 J), consists of all
elements a E R such that aJ S;; 1 (:la S;; 1). In the event R is a com-
mutative ring, we simply writel: J.
It is by no means obvious that the set
1:.1 = {aERlaJ S;; I}
actually forms an ideal of R, whenever 1 and J are ideals. To verify this,
suppose that the elements a, b El:, J and rE R. For any x E J, we clearly
have (a - b)x = ax - bx E 1, since ax and bx both belong to 1 by
definition. This establishes the inclusion (a - b)J S;; 1, which in turn
signifies that a - bE 1 :r J. Likewise, the relations raJ S;; rl ~ 1 and
arJ S;; aJ S;; 1 imply that ra, ar E r:r J. In consequence, 1:, J coinprises
an ideal of R in its own right, and that 1 :1 J is also an ideal follows similarly.
The purpose of the coming theorem is to point out the connection
between the quotient ideal and the operations defined previously. This
result, !llthough it might seem to be quite special, will serve us in good
stead when we develop the theory of Noetherian rings.
Theorem 2-5. The following relations hold for ideals in a ring R (capital
letters indicate ideals of R):
1) (n 1¡}:.1 = n (li :.1),
2) 1 :, L J¡ = n (I :, J¡),
3) 1 :r(JK)'= (1 :rK) :rJ.
 22 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS IDEALS ANO THEIR OPERATIONS 23
Then al - a 2 = b2 - bl' But the left-hand side of this last equation lies In this connection, it is important to observe that
in 1 1 , while the right-hand side is in 12 , so that both sides be long to
11 n 12 = {O}. Itfollowsthata 1 - a 2 = b2 - b1 = 0,ora 1 = a2 ,b 1 = b2 • 1 ::2 12 ::2 13 ::2 '" ::2 1" ::2
In other words, x is uniquely representable as a sum a + b, a E 1 l' b E 12 ,
forms a decreasing chain of ideals.
Conversely, assume that assertion (2) holds and, that the element
x E 11 n 12 , We may then express x in two different ways as the sum of Remark. If 1 is a right ideal and S a nonempty subset of the ring R, then '
an, element in 11 and an element in 12 ; namely, x = x + O (here x E 1 1
and OE 12 ) and x = O + x (here OE 1 1 and x E 12 ), The uniqueness SI = {L a¡r¡la¡ E S; r¡ El}
assumption of(2) implies that x = O, in'consequence ofwhich 1 1 n 12 = {O}; finite

hence, R = 11 EB 12 , This completes the proof of the theorem.
We now come to a less elementary, but extremely useful,notion; namely,
the product of ideals. Once again, assume that 1 and J are two ideals of
the ring R. To be consistent with our earlier definition of the sum 1 + J,
we should define fue product 'IJ to be the collection of all simple products
ab, where a E 1 and b EJ. Unfortunately, the resulting set fails to form an
ideal. (Why?) To counter this difficulty, we instead take the elements of
IJ to be all possible ,finite sums of simple products; stated explicitly,
IJ = O=a¡b¡la¡El; b¡EJ}.
finile
With this definition IJ indeed becomes an ideal of R. For, suppose that
x, y E IJ and r E R; then,
where the a¡ and a; are in 1, and the b¡ and b; are in J. From this we obtain
x - y = a 1b 1 + ... + anb n + (-a'1)b'1' + ... + (-a~)b~,
rx = (ra 1)b 1 + (ra 2 )b 2 + ... + (ra~~bp.
Now, the elements -a; and raí necessarily lie in 1, so that x - y and
rx E IJ; likewise, xr E IJ, making IJ an ideal of R. In point of fact, JJ is
just the ideal generated by the set Qf all products ab, a E 1, bE J.
There is no difficulty in extending the a1:ibve temarks to any finite
number of ideals 11> 12 , ••• , In of the ring R. A'moment's thought shows
that the product 11 12 ... In is the ideal consisting of finite sums of terms of
the form a 1a2 ... an' with a¡ in 1¡. (It is perhaps appropriate to point out
that, because of the assodative law for multiplication in R, the notation
1112 ,., In is unambiguous.) A special case irnmediately presents itself:
namely, the situation where all the ideal s are alike, say equaJ to the ideal
l. Rere, we see that 1" is the set of finite sums of products of n elements
from 1:
1" = {L..,¡
" a·11 a·12 ... a·In la.Ik El}.
finite
forms a right ideal of R. In particular, if S = {a}, then al (a notation we
prefer to {a} 1) is gi ven by
al = {arlr E I}.
Analogous statements can be made when 1 is a left ideal of R, but not, of
course, a two-sided ideal.
The last ideal-theoretic operation which we wish to consider is that of
the quotient (or residual), defined below.
Definition 2-5. Let 1 and J be two ideal s of the ring R. The right (left)
quotient of 1 by J, denoted by the symbol 1 :r J (I :1 J), consists of all
elements a E R such that aJ S;; 1 (:la S;; 1). In the event R is a com-
mutative ring, we simply writel: J.
It is by no means obvious that the set
1:.1 = {aERlaJ S;; I}
actually forms an ideal of R, whenever 1 and J are ideals. To verify this,
suppose that the elements a, b El:, J and rE R. For any x E J, we clearly
have (a - b)x = ax - bx E 1, since ax and bx both belong to 1 by
definition. This establishes the inclusion (a - b)J S;; 1, which in turn
signifies that a - bE 1 :r J. Likewise, the relations raJ S;; rl ~ 1 and
arJ S;; aJ S;; 1 imply that ra, ar E r:r J. In consequence, 1:, J coinprises
an ideal of R in its own right, and that 1 :1 J is also an ideal follows similarly.
The purpose of the coming theorem is to point out the connection
between the quotient ideal and the operations defined previously. This
result, !llthough it might seem to be quite special, will serve us in good
stead when we develop the theory of Noetherian rings.
Theorem 2-5. The following relations hold for ideals in a ring R (capital
letters indicate ideals of R):
1) (n 1¡}:.1 = n (li :.1),
2) 1 :, L J¡ = n (I :, J¡),
3) 1 :r(JK)'= (1 :rK) :rJ.

24 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Proo! Concerning (1), we have
(n 1J:rJ = {a E RlaJ ~ n 1¡} = {a E RlaJ ~ 1¡ for all
= n{aERlaJ ~ 1¡} c= n(l¡:r J )·
. With an eye to proving(2), notice that the inc1usion J¡ ~ ~ J¡ implies
a~~ J;) ~ 1 if and only if aJ¡ ~ 1 for all i; thus,
l: r ~,J¡ = fa E Rla(~ J;)~ 1}
= {q:E RlaJ¡' ~ Ifor all i} n (1 :r J¡).
Confirmation of the final' assertion follows from
l: r (JK) = {a~,Rla(JK) ~J} = {aERI(aJ)K ~ 1}'
= {~ERlaJ ~ l: r K} = (1 :r K) :r J.
Remark. Simila~ results,:h6Id for left quotients; the sole difference being
that, instead of (3),'one riD\V has 1 :¡ (J K) = (1 :¡ J) :1 K.
This may be a good pl~ce to observe that if 1 is an ide~l of. the ring R
and J is an ideal of 1, then J need not be 'an ideal of the enhre rmg. R. For
an illustration, we tum to the ring map R # and l~t R be the ~ubnng con-
sisting of all continuous functions from, R # into ltself. Conslder the sets
1 = (filfE R;f(O) = O},
J = {ji2 + ni21fE R;f(O) = O; n E Z},
where i denotes the identity function on R # (that is, i(x) = x for all x E R #).
A routine calculation verifies that J is an ideal of 1,which, in turn, forms an
ideal ofR. However, J fails to be an ideal of R, since i E J, while ti .~ J.
2 2
(The symbol .1 is used in this setting to represent the constant funch.on
whose value a~ each real number is l) We as sume that ti E J and denve
2
a contradiction. Then,
ti 2 = fi 2 + ni 2
for a suitable choice of f E R and n ~ Z, with feO) = O. In consequence,
fi2 = (t - n)i 2, implying that f(x) = t - n.=I= O for ;very O =1= x E R~;
in other words, f is a nonzero constant functlOn on R - {O}. But tbis
obviously violates the continuity off at O. . .
A condition which will ensure that J is also an Ideal of R IS to take R
to be a regular ring, a notion introduced by Von Neumann [52].
Definition 2-6. A ring R is said to be regular if for each element a E R
there exists sorne a' E R such that aa' a = a.
If the ele~ent a happens to have a multiplicative i~verse, t~en t~e
1 morphísm of R.
regularity condition is satisfied by setting a' = a- ; in Vlew of thlS, a' IS
IDEALS AND THEIR OPERA TIONS 25
often referred to as the pseudo-in verse of a. In the commutative case, ,the
equation aa'a = a may, o'f course, be written as a2a' = a. .
i} The result which we have in mind now follows.
Theorem 2-6. Let 1 be an ideal of the regular ring R. Then any ideal
J of 1 is likewise an ideal of R.
. . ,
Proof. To start, notice that 1 itself may be regarded as a regular ringo
Indeed, if a EJ, then aa'a = a for sorne a' in R. Setting b = a'aa', the
element b b~longs to 1 and has the property that
,"'. aba = a(a'aa')a = .(aa1a)a'a = aa'a = a.
. ' I . ~
Our aim :is to show that whenever a E J ~ 1 and rE R, then both ar
and ra lie in; r We already know that ar El; hence, by the above,there
exists an element x in 1 for which arxar = aro Sínce rxar is a member
of 1 and J ifa:ssumed to be an idea16f 1, it follows that the product a(rxar)
must belong,t6, J, or, equivalently, W'E J. A symmetric arg~ment confirms
that ra E J.'\, '.
Although Definition 2-6 appears to have a somewhat artificial air, we
might remark that the set of alllinear transfonrtations on a finite dimensional
vector space over a field forms a regular ring (Problem 20, Chapter 9).
This in itself would amply justify the study of such rings.
We now turn our attention to functions between rings arid, more
specifically, to functions which preserve both the ring operations.
Definition 2-7. Let R and R' be two rings. By a (ring) homomorphism,
or homomorphic mapping, from R ínto R' is meant a functionf: R --+ R'
such that
f(a+ b) = fea) + f(b), f(ab) = f(a)f(b)
,'" .'. for every pair of elements a, b E R. A homomorphísm which is also
one-to-one as a map on the underlying sets is called an isomorphism.
We emphasize that the + arid . occurring on the left-hand sides of the
equations in Definition 2-7 are those of R, whereas the + and . occurring
on the right-hand sídes are those of R'. This use of the same symbols for
tbe operations of addition and multiplication in two different rings should
cause no ambiguityif the reader attends c10sely to the context in which
the notation is employed.
If f is a homomorphism of R into R', then the image f(R) of R under f
will be called the homomorphic image of R. When R = R', so that the two
rings are the same, we say that f is a homomorphism of R into itself. In
this connection, a homomorphism of R into itself is frequently referred to
as an endomorphism of the ring R or, if an isomorphísm onto R, an auto-

24 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Proo! Concerning (1), we have
(n 1J:rJ = {a E RlaJ ~ n 1¡} = {a E RlaJ ~ 1¡ for all
= n{aERlaJ ~ 1¡} c= n(l¡:r J )·
. With an eye to proving(2), notice that the inc1usion J¡ ~ ~ J¡ implies
a~~ J;) ~ 1 if and only if aJ¡ ~ 1 for all i; thus,
l: r ~,J¡ = fa E Rla(~ J;)~ 1}
= {q:E RlaJ¡' ~ Ifor all i} n (1 :r J¡).
Confirmation of the final' assertion follows from
l: r (JK) = {a~,Rla(JK) ~J} = {aERI(aJ)K ~ 1}'
= {~ERlaJ ~ l: r K} = (1 :r K) :r J.
Remark. Simila~ results,:h6Id for left quotients; the sole difference being
that, instead of (3),'one riD\V has 1 :¡ (J K) = (1 :¡ J) :1 K.
This may be a good pl~ce to observe that if 1 is an ide~l of. the ring R
and J is an ideal of 1, then J need not be 'an ideal of the enhre rmg. R. For
an illustration, we tum to the ring map R # and l~t R be the ~ubnng con-
sisting of all continuous functions from, R # into ltself. Conslder the sets
1 = (filfE R;f(O) = O},
J = {ji2 + ni21fE R;f(O) = O; n E Z},
where i denotes the identity function on R # (that is, i(x) = x for all x E R #).
A routine calculation verifies that J is an ideal of 1,which, in turn, forms an
ideal ofR. However, J fails to be an ideal of R, since i E J, while ti .~ J.
2 2
(The symbol .1 is used in this setting to represent the constant funch.on
whose value a~ each real number is l) We as sume that ti E J and denve
2
a contradiction. Then,
ti 2 = fi 2 + ni 2
for a suitable choice of f E R and n ~ Z, with feO) = O. In consequence,
fi2 = (t - n)i 2, implying that f(x) = t - n.=I= O for ;very O =1= x E R~;
in other words, f is a nonzero constant functlOn on R - {O}. But tbis
obviously violates the continuity off at O. . .
A condition which will ensure that J is also an Ideal of R IS to take R
to be a regular ring, a notion introduced by Von Neumann [52].
Definition 2-6. A ring R is said to be regular if for each element a E R
there exists sorne a' E R such that aa' a = a.
If the ele~ent a happens to have a multiplicative i~verse, t~en t~e
1 morphísm of R.
regularity condition is satisfied by setting a' = a- ; in Vlew of thlS, a' IS
IDEALS AND THEIR OPERA TIONS 25
often referred to as the pseudo-in verse of a. In the commutative case, ,the
equation aa'a = a may, o'f course, be written as a2a' = a. .
i} The result which we have in mind now follows.
Theorem 2-6. Let 1 be an ideal of the regular ring R. Then any ideal
J of 1 is likewise an ideal of R.
. . ,
Proof. To start, notice that 1 itself may be regarded as a regular ringo
Indeed, if a EJ, then aa'a = a for sorne a' in R. Setting b = a'aa', the
element b b~longs to 1 and has the property that
,"'. aba = a(a'aa')a = .(aa1a)a'a = aa'a = a.
. ' I . ~
Our aim :is to show that whenever a E J ~ 1 and rE R, then both ar
and ra lie in; r We already know that ar El; hence, by the above,there
exists an element x in 1 for which arxar = aro Sínce rxar is a member
of 1 and J ifa:ssumed to be an idea16f 1, it follows that the product a(rxar)
must belong,t6, J, or, equivalently, W'E J. A symmetric arg~ment confirms
that ra E J.'\, '.
Although Definition 2-6 appears to have a somewhat artificial air, we
might remark that the set of alllinear transfonrtations on a finite dimensional
vector space over a field forms a regular ring (Problem 20, Chapter 9).
This in itself would amply justify the study of such rings.
We now turn our attention to functions between rings arid, more
specifically, to functions which preserve both the ring operations.
Definition 2-7. Let R and R' be two rings. By a (ring) homomorphism,
or homomorphic mapping, from R ínto R' is meant a functionf: R --+ R'
such that
f(a+ b) = fea) + f(b), f(ab) = f(a)f(b)
,'" .'. for every pair of elements a, b E R. A homomorphísm which is also
one-to-one as a map on the underlying sets is called an isomorphism.
We emphasize that the + arid . occurring on the left-hand sides of the
equations in Definition 2-7 are those of R, whereas the + and . occurring
on the right-hand sídes are those of R'. This use of the same symbols for
tbe operations of addition and multiplication in two different rings should
cause no ambiguityif the reader attends c10sely to the context in which
the notation is employed.
If f is a homomorphism of R into R', then the image f(R) of R under f
will be called the homomorphic image of R. When R = R', so that the two
rings are the same, we say that f is a homomorphism of R into itself. In
this connection, a homomorphism of R into itself is frequently referred to
as an endomorphism of the ring R or, if an isomorphísm onto R, an auto-
 26 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS IDEALS AND THEIR OPERATIONS 27

For future use, we shalllabel the set of all hornornorphisrns frorn the
ring R into the ring R' by the syrnbol horn(R, R'). In the event that R = R',
the sirnpler notation horn R will be used in place of horn(R, R). (Sorne
authors prefer to write end R, for endornorphisrn, in place of horn R; both
notations have a certain suggestive power and it reduces to a rnatter of
personal preference.)
A knowledge of a few sirnple-rninded exarnples will help to fix ideas.
Example 2-4. Let R and R' be arbitrary rings andf: R --> R' be the function
which sends each elernent of R to the zero elernent of R'. Then,
Proo! Frorn f(O) = f(O + O) == f(O) + f(O), we obtain f(O) = O. The
factthatf(a) +f(-a) =f(a + (-a») =f(O) = Oyieldsf(-a) = -f(a).
As regards (3), let the elernent a E R satisfy f(a) = 1; then,j(l) = f(a)f(l) =
f(a1) = f(a) = 1. Finally, the equationf(a)f(a- 1 ) = f(aa- 1 ) = f(l) = 1
shows thatf(a)-l = f(a- 1 ), whenever a E R has a rnultiplicative inverse.
Two cornrnents regarding part (3) of the aboye theorern are in order:
First, it is evident that
f(a)l = f(a) = f(a1) = f(a)f(l)

f(a + b) = O = O + O = f(a) + f(b), for any a in R. Knowing this, one rnight be ternpted to appeal (incorrectly)
(a, b E R), to the cancellation law to conclude thatf(l) = 1; what is actually required
f(ab) = O = OO = f(a) f(b)
is the fact that rnultiplicative identities are unique. Second, ifthe hypothesis
so thatfis a hornornorphic rnapping. This particular rnapping, the so-called thatfrnap onto the set R' is ornitted, then it can only be inferred thatf(l)
trivial homomorphism, iS.the only constant function which satisfies Definition is the identity for the hornornorphic irnage f(R). The elernent f(l) need not
2-7. serve as an identity for the en tire ring R' and, indeed, it rnay very well happen
that f(l) =1= 1.
Example 2-5. Consider the ring Z ofintegers and the ring Zn of integers
We also observe, in passing, that, by virtue of staternent (2),
modulo n. Definef: Z --> Zn by takingf(a) = [a]; that is, rnap each integer
into the congruence class containing it. Thatfis a hornornorphisrn follows f(a - b) = f(a) + f( - b) = f(a) - f(b).
directly frorn the definition of the operations üi Zn:
In short, any ring hornornorphisrn preserves differences as well as sums and
f(a + b) = [a + b] = [a] +n [b] = f(a) +nf(b), products.
f(ab) = [ab] = [aln[b] = f(a)·nf(b). The next theorem indicates the algebraic nature of direct and inverse
images of subrings under homomorphisms. Among other things, we shall
Example 2-6. In the ring rnap(X, R), define La to be the function which see that iffis a homomorphism from the ring R into the ring R', thenf(R)
assigns to each fE rnap(X, R) its value at a fixed elernent a E X; in other forms a subring of R'. The complete story is told below.
words, La(J) =:= f(a): Then La is a hornornorphisrn frorn rnap(X, R) into R,
Theorem 2-8. Letfbe a homomorphism from the ring R intotqe ring
known as the evaluation homomorphism at a. We need only observe that R'. Then, ... "
'7:a(j + g) = (J + g)(a) = f(a) + g(a) = La(J) + Ta(g), 1) for each subring S of R,J(S) is a subring of R'; a n d ' .
La(Jg) = (Jg)(a) = f(a)g(a) = Ta(J)~a(g). 2) for each subring S' of R',¡-.l(S') is a subring of R. l.

We now list sorne of the structural features preserved under horno- Proo! To obtain the first part of the theorem, recall that, by definition,
rnorphisrns. the imagef(S) = {f(a)la E S}. Now, suppose thatf(a) andf(b) are arbitrary
elements of f{S). Then both a and b belong to th~ set S, as do a -:- b and
Theorem 2-7. Letfbe a hornomorphism frorn the ring R into the ring
R'. Then the following hold: ab (S being a subring of R). Hence,
1) f(O) = O, f(a) - f(b) = f(a - b) Ef(S)
2) f( - a) = - f(a) for all a E R. and
f(a)f(b) = f(ab) Ef(S).
If, in addition, R and R' are both rings with identity and f(R) = R',
then According to Theorem 1-3, these are sufficient conditions for f(S) to be a
3) f(l) = 1, subring of R'.
The proof of the second assertion proceeds similarly. First, remember
4) f(a- 1) = f(a)-l for each in vertible elernent a E R. thatf-l(S') = {a E Rlf(a) E S'}. Thus, if a, b Ef-l(S'), the imagesf(a) and
 26 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS IDEALS AND THEIR OPERATIONS 27

For future use, we shalllabel the set of all hornornorphisrns frorn the
ring R into the ring R' by the syrnbol horn(R, R'). In the event that R = R',
the sirnpler notation horn R will be used in place of horn(R, R). (Sorne
authors prefer to write end R, for endornorphisrn, in place of horn R; both
notations have a certain suggestive power and it reduces to a rnatter of
personal preference.)
A knowledge of a few sirnple-rninded exarnples will help to fix ideas.
Example 2-4. Let R and R' be arbitrary rings andf: R --> R' be the function
which sends each elernent of R to the zero elernent of R'. Then,
Proo! Frorn f(O) = f(O + O) == f(O) + f(O), we obtain f(O) = O. The
factthatf(a) +f(-a) =f(a + (-a») =f(O) = Oyieldsf(-a) = -f(a).
As regards (3), let the elernent a E R satisfy f(a) = 1; then,j(l) = f(a)f(l) =
f(a1) = f(a) = 1. Finally, the equationf(a)f(a- 1 ) = f(aa- 1 ) = f(l) = 1
shows thatf(a)-l = f(a- 1 ), whenever a E R has a rnultiplicative inverse.
Two cornrnents regarding part (3) of the aboye theorern are in order:
First, it is evident that
f(a)l = f(a) = f(a1) = f(a)f(l)

f(a + b) = O = O + O = f(a) + f(b), for any a in R. Knowing this, one rnight be ternpted to appeal (incorrectly)
(a, b E R), to the cancellation law to conclude thatf(l) = 1; what is actually required
f(ab) = O = OO = f(a) f(b)
is the fact that rnultiplicative identities are unique. Second, ifthe hypothesis
so thatfis a hornornorphic rnapping. This particular rnapping, the so-called thatfrnap onto the set R' is ornitted, then it can only be inferred thatf(l)
trivial homomorphism, iS.the only constant function which satisfies Definition is the identity for the hornornorphic irnage f(R). The elernent f(l) need not
2-7. serve as an identity for the en tire ring R' and, indeed, it rnay very well happen
that f(l) =1= 1.
Example 2-5. Consider the ring Z ofintegers and the ring Zn of integers
We also observe, in passing, that, by virtue of staternent (2),
modulo n. Definef: Z --> Zn by takingf(a) = [a]; that is, rnap each integer
into the congruence class containing it. Thatfis a hornornorphisrn follows f(a - b) = f(a) + f( - b) = f(a) - f(b).
directly frorn the definition of the operations üi Zn:
In short, any ring hornornorphisrn preserves differences as well as sums and
f(a + b) = [a + b] = [a] +n [b] = f(a) +nf(b), products.
f(ab) = [ab] = [aln[b] = f(a)·nf(b). The next theorem indicates the algebraic nature of direct and inverse
images of subrings under homomorphisms. Among other things, we shall
Example 2-6. In the ring rnap(X, R), define La to be the function which see that iffis a homomorphism from the ring R into the ring R', thenf(R)
assigns to each fE rnap(X, R) its value at a fixed elernent a E X; in other forms a subring of R'. The complete story is told below.
words, La(J) =:= f(a): Then La is a hornornorphisrn frorn rnap(X, R) into R,
Theorem 2-8. Letfbe a homomorphism from the ring R intotqe ring
known as the evaluation homomorphism at a. We need only observe that R'. Then, ... "
'7:a(j + g) = (J + g)(a) = f(a) + g(a) = La(J) + Ta(g), 1) for each subring S of R,J(S) is a subring of R'; a n d ' .
La(Jg) = (Jg)(a) = f(a)g(a) = Ta(J)~a(g). 2) for each subring S' of R',¡-.l(S') is a subring of R. l.

We now list sorne of the structural features preserved under horno- Proo! To obtain the first part of the theorem, recall that, by definition,
rnorphisrns. the imagef(S) = {f(a)la E S}. Now, suppose thatf(a) andf(b) are arbitrary
elements of f{S). Then both a and b belong to th~ set S, as do a -:- b and
Theorem 2-7. Letfbe a hornomorphism frorn the ring R into the ring
R'. Then the following hold: ab (S being a subring of R). Hence,
1) f(O) = O, f(a) - f(b) = f(a - b) Ef(S)
2) f( - a) = - f(a) for all a E R. and
f(a)f(b) = f(ab) Ef(S).
If, in addition, R and R' are both rings with identity and f(R) = R',
then According to Theorem 1-3, these are sufficient conditions for f(S) to be a
3) f(l) = 1, subring of R'.
The proof of the second assertion proceeds similarly. First, remember
4) f(a- 1) = f(a)-l for each in vertible elernent a E R. thatf-l(S') = {a E Rlf(a) E S'}. Thus, if a, b Ef-l(S'), the imagesf(a) and
 28 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
f(b) must be members of S'. Since S' is asubring of R', it follows at once
that
fea - b) = fea) - f(b) E S'
and
f(ab) = f(a)f(b) E S'.
. , This means that a - b and ab líe in f-l(S'), from which we conc1ude.that
f-l(S') forms a subring of R.
Left unresolved is the matter ofreplacing the term "subring" in Theorem
2-8 by "ideal". It is not difficult to show that part (2) of the th~orem
remains true under such a substitution. More precisely: if /' is an ideal of
R', then the subringf-l(!') is an ideal of R. For instance, suppo~e·that
a Ef-l(!'), so thatf(a) E /', and let r be an arbitrary element of R. >.Then,
f(ra) = f(r)f(a) E/';.in other words, the product ra is inf-l(/,). Likéwise,
ar E f-l(/,), which helps to make f-l(!') an ideal of R . · .:.:..
. Without further restriction, it cannot be inferred that the image'f(l)
will be an ideal of R', whenever 1 is an ideal of R. One would need to know
that r'f(a) Ef(l) for all r' E R' and a E l. In general, there isno way of
replacing r' by som~f(r) in order to exploit the fact that l is an ideal. The
answer is o bvious : j ust take f to be an onto mapping.
Surnmarizing these remarks, we may now state:
CoroUary. 1) For each ideal /' of R', the subring f-l(/,) is an ideal
of R.
2) Ifj(R) = R', then for each ideal l of R, the subringf(I) is an ideal
ofR'.
To go still further, we need to introduce a new idea.
Definition 2-8. Let f be a homomorphism from the ring R into the
ring R'. The kernel off, denoted by ker j,consistsof those elements in
R which are mapped by f onto the zero element of the ring R': . Example 2-7. Consider an arbitrary ring R with idelltity and the mapping
ker f= {a E Elf(a) = O}.
Theorem 2-7 indicates that ker f is a nonempty subset of R, since, if
nothing else, O E ker f. Except for the case .of the trivial homomorphism,
the kernelwill alwa,ys turn out to be a proper subset of R.
As one might suspect, the kernel of a ring homomorphism forms an
ideal.
Theorem 2-9; The kernel ker Iof a homomorphism f from a ring R
into a ring R' is an ideal'of R.
Proof. We already know that the trivjal subring {O} forms an ideal of R'.
Since ker f = f-l(O), the conclusion follows from the last corollary.
IDEALS AND THEIR OPERA TIONS 29
'The kernel of a hcimomorphism may be viewed as a measure of the
extent to which the homomorphism fails to be one-to-one (hence, fails to
be ~ isomorphism). In more concrete terms, we have
Theorem 2-10. A homomorphism f from a ring R into a ring R' is an
isomorphism if and only ifker f = {O} .
Proof. First, iffis a one-to-one function andf(a) ,;;,. 0= feO), then a = O,
whence ker f = {O}. On the other hand, supposéthat the kernel consists
exactly of O. Uf(a) = f(b), theno.~.,
fea - b) = fea) - f(b) = O,';
which means that a - bE ker f. Since ker f = {O},\vemust have a - b = O,
or a = b, making f a one-to-one function. ,:< :
Two rings R and R' are said to be isomorpIÚ~;'-:denoted by R ~ R', if
there exists an isomorphism fro'm the ring R ontP the ring R ':.. Although
thisdefinition is unsymmetric in that it makes meil.t~on of a furistion from
~ne particular'ring to another, let us remark that iff: R --+ R'isaone~to-one,
onto; homomorphic mapping, the function f -1: R" --+ Ralso enjoys these
properties. We may therefore ignore the apparent lack of symmetry and
merelyspeak of two rings R and R' as being isomorphic without specifying .
one ring as isomorphic to the other; notationally, this situation is recognized
by writing either R ~ R' or R' !:::: R.
. Isomorphic rings are indistinguishable from the structural point of view,
even though they may differ in the notation for and nature of their elements
'and operations. Two such rings, although not in gerieral formally identical,'
are the same forall purposes; the underlying feature is the existence of a
mapping which transports the algebraic structure of one ring to the other.
Inpractice, we shall often identify isomorphic. rings without explicit mention.
This seems to be a natural placeto insert an example.
f: Z --+ R given by f(n)·= nI: (At the risk ofbeing repetitious, let us again
emphasize that nI means the n-fold sum of 1.) A simple computation shows
that f, so defined, is a homomorphism from the ring Z of integers into the
ring R:
f(n '+ m) = (n + m)l= nI + mI = f(n) + f(m)
and
f(nm) = (nm)1 = n(ml) = (nI) (mI) = f(n)f(m).
Since ker f constitutes an ideal of Z, a principal ideal ring, it follows that
kerf = {ri E Zlnl = O} = (P)
for sorne nonnegative integer p. A moment's reflection should. convince
the reader that the integer p is just the characteristic of R. In particular,
 28 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
f(b) must be members of S'. Since S' is asubring of R', it follows at once
that
fea - b) = fea) - f(b) E S'
and
f(ab) = f(a)f(b) E S'.
. , This means that a - b and ab líe in f-l(S'), from which we conc1ude.that
f-l(S') forms a subring of R.
Left unresolved is the matter ofreplacing the term "subring" in Theorem
2-8 by "ideal". It is not difficult to show that part (2) of the th~orem
remains true under such a substitution. More precisely: if /' is an ideal of
R', then the subringf-l(!') is an ideal of R. For instance, suppo~e·that
a Ef-l(!'), so thatf(a) E /', and let r be an arbitrary element of R. >.Then,
f(ra) = f(r)f(a) E/';.in other words, the product ra is inf-l(/,). Likéwise,
ar E f-l(/,), which helps to make f-l(!') an ideal of R . · .:.:..
. Without further restriction, it cannot be inferred that the image'f(l)
will be an ideal of R', whenever 1 is an ideal of R. One would need to know
that r'f(a) Ef(l) for all r' E R' and a E l. In general, there isno way of
replacing r' by som~f(r) in order to exploit the fact that l is an ideal. The
answer is o bvious : j ust take f to be an onto mapping.
Surnmarizing these remarks, we may now state:
CoroUary. 1) For each ideal /' of R', the subring f-l(/,) is an ideal
of R.
2) Ifj(R) = R', then for each ideal l of R, the subringf(I) is an ideal
ofR'.
To go still further, we need to introduce a new idea.
Definition 2-8. Let f be a homomorphism from the ring R into the
ring R'. The kernel off, denoted by ker j,consistsof those elements in
R which are mapped by f onto the zero element of the ring R': . Example 2-7. Consider an arbitrary ring R with idelltity and the mapping
ker f= {a E Elf(a) = O}.
Theorem 2-7 indicates that ker f is a nonempty subset of R, since, if
nothing else, O E ker f. Except for the case .of the trivial homomorphism,
the kernelwill alwa,ys turn out to be a proper subset of R.
As one might suspect, the kernel of a ring homomorphism forms an
ideal.
Theorem 2-9; The kernel ker Iof a homomorphism f from a ring R
into a ring R' is an ideal'of R.
Proof. We already know that the trivjal subring {O} forms an ideal of R'.
Since ker f = f-l(O), the conclusion follows from the last corollary.
IDEALS AND THEIR OPERA TIONS 29
'The kernel of a hcimomorphism may be viewed as a measure of the
extent to which the homomorphism fails to be one-to-one (hence, fails to
be ~ isomorphism). In more concrete terms, we have
Theorem 2-10. A homomorphism f from a ring R into a ring R' is an
isomorphism if and only ifker f = {O} .
Proof. First, iffis a one-to-one function andf(a) ,;;,. 0= feO), then a = O,
whence ker f = {O}. On the other hand, supposéthat the kernel consists
exactly of O. Uf(a) = f(b), theno.~.,
fea - b) = fea) - f(b) = O,';
which means that a - bE ker f. Since ker f = {O},\vemust have a - b = O,
or a = b, making f a one-to-one function. ,:< :
Two rings R and R' are said to be isomorpIÚ~;'-:denoted by R ~ R', if
there exists an isomorphism fro'm the ring R ontP the ring R ':.. Although
thisdefinition is unsymmetric in that it makes meil.t~on of a furistion from
~ne particular'ring to another, let us remark that iff: R --+ R'isaone~to-one,
onto; homomorphic mapping, the function f -1: R" --+ Ralso enjoys these
properties. We may therefore ignore the apparent lack of symmetry and
merelyspeak of two rings R and R' as being isomorphic without specifying .
one ring as isomorphic to the other; notationally, this situation is recognized
by writing either R ~ R' or R' !:::: R.
. Isomorphic rings are indistinguishable from the structural point of view,
even though they may differ in the notation for and nature of their elements
'and operations. Two such rings, although not in gerieral formally identical,'
are the same forall purposes; the underlying feature is the existence of a
mapping which transports the algebraic structure of one ring to the other.
Inpractice, we shall often identify isomorphic. rings without explicit mention.
This seems to be a natural placeto insert an example.
f: Z --+ R given by f(n)·= nI: (At the risk ofbeing repetitious, let us again
emphasize that nI means the n-fold sum of 1.) A simple computation shows
that f, so defined, is a homomorphism from the ring Z of integers into the
ring R:
f(n '+ m) = (n + m)l= nI + mI = f(n) + f(m)
and
f(nm) = (nm)1 = n(ml) = (nI) (mI) = f(n)f(m).
Since ker f constitutes an ideal of Z, a principal ideal ring, it follows that
kerf = {ri E Zlnl = O} = (P)
for sorne nonnegative integer p. A moment's reflection should. convince
the reader that the integer p is just the characteristic of R. In particular,
 I
IDEALS AND THEIR OPERA TIONS 31
30 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS

any ring R with identity which is of characteristic zero will contain a subring
isomorphic to the integers; more specifically, Z ~ Zl, where 1 is the
identity of R.
Suppose that f is a homomorphism from the ring R onto the ring R'.
We have already observed that each ideal l of the ring R determines an
ideal f(I) of the ring R'. It goes without saying that ring theory would be
considerably simplified ifthe ideals of R were in a one-to-one correspondence
with those of R' in this manner. Unfortunately, this need not be the case.
The difficulty is refiected in the fact that if l and J are two ideals of R
with l ~ J ~ l + kerJ, thenf(I) = f(J). The quickest way to see this is
to notice tbat
f(l) ~ f(J) ~ f(l + kerf) = f(I) + f(kerf) = f(l),
from which we conclude that all the inclusions are actually equalities. In
brief, distinct ideals of R may have the same image in R'.
This disconcerting situation could be remedied by either demanding
that kerf = {O} or else narrowing our view to coilsider only ideals l with
ker f ~ l. In either event, it follows that l ~ J ~ l + ker f = l and, in
consequence, l = J. The first of the restrictions just cited has the effect of
making the function f one-to-one, in which case R and R' are isomorphic
rings (and it then comes as no surprise to find their ideals in one-to-one
correspondence). The second possibility is the subject of our next theorem.
We tum aside briefiy to establish a preliminary lemma which will
pro vide the key to later success.
Lemma. Letfbe a homomorphism froro the ring R onto the ring R'.
If l is any ideal of R such that ker f ~ 1, then l = f - 1 (J(l) ).
Proof. Suppose that the element a E r1(j{l)), so that f{a} E f{l). Then
f(a) = f(r) for sorne choice ofr in l. As a tesult, we will havef(a - r) = 0,
or, what amounts to the same thing, a - rE ker f ~ l. This implies that
a E l, yielding the inclusion f-1(J(I))~.-I. Since the reverse inclusion
always holds, the desired equality follows.
Here now is one of the main results of this section.
such thatf(l) = /'. To·accomplish this, it is sufficient to take l = f-1(/,).
By the corollary to Theorem 2-8,1 -1(/,) certainly forms an ideal of R and,
since O E /',
ker f = f-1(0) ~ f- 1(/,).
Inasmuch as the function f is assumed to be an onto map, it also follows
that f(I) = f(J-1(/,)) = /'.
Next, we argue that this correspondence is one-to-one. To make things
more specific, let ideals l and J of R be given, where ker f ~ l, ker ~ J, f
and satisfying f(I) = f(J). From the elementary lernma just estabhshed,
we see that
l = f-1(J(I)) = f-1(J(J)) = J.
One finds in this way that fue correspondence l oH- f(I), where kerf ~ l, is
indeed one-to-one, completing the proof.
Before announcing our next result, another definition is necessary.
Definition 2-9. A ring R is said to be imbedded in a ring R' if there
exists sorne subring S' of R' such that R ~ .S'.
In general if a ring R is imbedded in a ring R', then R' is referred to as
an extension ~f R and we say that R can be extended to R'. The .most
important cases are those in which one passes ~rom a given. ring R too an
extension possessing sorne property not present In R. As a .sunple apph~a­
tion, let us prove that an arbitrary ring can be imbedded In an extenslon
ring with identity.
Theorem 2-12. (Dofroh Extension Theorein). Any ring R can be im-
bedded in a ring wiih identity.
Proof. Consider the Cartesian product R x Z, where
:,RxZ= {(r,n)lrER;nEZ}.
If addition and multiplication are defined by
(a, n) + (b, m) = (a + b, n + m),
(a, n)(b, m) = (ab + ma + nb, nm),

Theorem 2-11. (Correspondence Theorem). Let f be a homomorphism then it is a simple matter to verify that R x Z forms a ring; we ~ea.ve t.he
from the ring R onto the ring R'. Then there is a one-to-one correspon- actual details as an exercise. Notice that this system has a multIphcatIve
del1ce between those ideals l of R such that ker f ~ l and the set of all identity, namely, the pair (O, 1); for
ideal s /' of R'; specifically, /' is given by /' = f(l). (a, n)(O, 1) = (aO + la + nO, nI) = (a, n),
Proof. Our first concern is to show that the indicated correspondence
and, similarly,
actually maps onto the set of all ideals of R'. In other words, starting with
an ideal /' of R', we must produce sorne ideal l of the ring R, with ker f ~ l, (O, l)(a, n) = (a, n).
 I
IDEALS AND THEIR OPERA TIONS 31
30 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS

any ring R with identity which is of characteristic zero will contain a subring
isomorphic to the integers; more specifically, Z ~ Zl, where 1 is the
identity of R.
Suppose that f is a homomorphism from the ring R onto the ring R'.
We have already observed that each ideal l of the ring R determines an
ideal f(I) of the ring R'. It goes without saying that ring theory would be
considerably simplified ifthe ideals of R were in a one-to-one correspondence
with those of R' in this manner. Unfortunately, this need not be the case.
The difficulty is refiected in the fact that if l and J are two ideals of R
with l ~ J ~ l + kerJ, thenf(I) = f(J). The quickest way to see this is
to notice tbat
f(l) ~ f(J) ~ f(l + kerf) = f(I) + f(kerf) = f(l),
from which we conclude that all the inclusions are actually equalities. In
brief, distinct ideals of R may have the same image in R'.
This disconcerting situation could be remedied by either demanding
that kerf = {O} or else narrowing our view to coilsider only ideals l with
ker f ~ l. In either event, it follows that l ~ J ~ l + ker f = l and, in
consequence, l = J. The first of the restrictions just cited has the effect of
making the function f one-to-one, in which case R and R' are isomorphic
rings (and it then comes as no surprise to find their ideals in one-to-one
correspondence). The second possibility is the subject of our next theorem.
We tum aside briefiy to establish a preliminary lemma which will
pro vide the key to later success.
Lemma. Letfbe a homomorphism froro the ring R onto the ring R'.
If l is any ideal of R such that ker f ~ 1, then l = f - 1 (J(l) ).
Proof. Suppose that the element a E r1(j{l)), so that f{a} E f{l). Then
f(a) = f(r) for sorne choice ofr in l. As a tesult, we will havef(a - r) = 0,
or, what amounts to the same thing, a - rE ker f ~ l. This implies that
a E l, yielding the inclusion f-1(J(I))~.-I. Since the reverse inclusion
always holds, the desired equality follows.
Here now is one of the main results of this section.
such thatf(l) = /'. To·accomplish this, it is sufficient to take l = f-1(/,).
By the corollary to Theorem 2-8,1 -1(/,) certainly forms an ideal of R and,
since O E /',
ker f = f-1(0) ~ f- 1(/,).
Inasmuch as the function f is assumed to be an onto map, it also follows
that f(I) = f(J-1(/,)) = /'.
Next, we argue that this correspondence is one-to-one. To make things
more specific, let ideals l and J of R be given, where ker f ~ l, ker ~ J, f
and satisfying f(I) = f(J). From the elementary lernma just estabhshed,
we see that
l = f-1(J(I)) = f-1(J(J)) = J.
One finds in this way that fue correspondence l oH- f(I), where kerf ~ l, is
indeed one-to-one, completing the proof.
Before announcing our next result, another definition is necessary.
Definition 2-9. A ring R is said to be imbedded in a ring R' if there
exists sorne subring S' of R' such that R ~ .S'.
In general if a ring R is imbedded in a ring R', then R' is referred to as
an extension ~f R and we say that R can be extended to R'. The .most
important cases are those in which one passes ~rom a given. ring R too an
extension possessing sorne property not present In R. As a .sunple apph~a­
tion, let us prove that an arbitrary ring can be imbedded In an extenslon
ring with identity.
Theorem 2-12. (Dofroh Extension Theorein). Any ring R can be im-
bedded in a ring wiih identity.
Proof. Consider the Cartesian product R x Z, where
:,RxZ= {(r,n)lrER;nEZ}.
If addition and multiplication are defined by
(a, n) + (b, m) = (a + b, n + m),
(a, n)(b, m) = (ab + ma + nb, nm),

Theorem 2-11. (Correspondence Theorem). Let f be a homomorphism then it is a simple matter to verify that R x Z forms a ring; we ~ea.ve t.he
from the ring R onto the ring R'. Then there is a one-to-one correspon- actual details as an exercise. Notice that this system has a multIphcatIve
del1ce between those ideals l of R such that ker f ~ l and the set of all identity, namely, the pair (O, 1); for
ideal s /' of R'; specifically, /' is given by /' = f(l). (a, n)(O, 1) = (aO + la + nO, nI) = (a, n),
Proof. Our first concern is to show that the indicated correspondence
and, similarly,
actually maps onto the set of all ideals of R'. In other words, starting with
an ideal /' of R', we must produce sorne ideal l of the ring R, with ker f ~ l, (O, l)(a, n) = (a, n).
 .~

;1
;1

32 FIRST COURSB IN RINGS AND IDEALS IDEALS AND THEIR OPERATIONS 33

Next, consider the subset R x {O} of R X Z consisting of aH pairs of the As a preliminary step to demonstrating that g also preserves multiplication,
form (a, O). -Sin ce notice that
f(ab)u Z ) = f(abu)f(u) f(abu).
(a, O) (b O) (a - b, O),
(a, O)(b, O) (ab, O), From 1rus we are able to conclude that

e it is evident that R X {O} constitutes a subring of R x Z. A straightforward g(ab) f(abu) = f(abu Z) = f(au)(bu»)
caIculation, wruch we omit, shows that R x {O} is isomorphic to the given = f(au)f(bu) = g(a)g(b).
ring R under the mapping f: R -¡. R x {O} defined by fea) = (a, O). This The crucial third equality is justified by the fact that u E cent R, hence,
process
.
of extension therefore imbeds R in R x Z, a ring with .identity. commutes with b. ...
A point to be made in connection with the preceding theorem is that As regards the uniqueness assertion, let us assume that there is another
the imbedding process may be carried out even if the given ringhas. an homomorphic extension offto the set R'i9all it h. Sincefan'd h must agree
identity to start with. Of course, in this case the construction has no on 1 and, more specifically, at the elemept u, h(u) = f(u) = -1. With this
particular merit; indeed, the original identity element only serves to introduce in mind, it follows that _,,:', '
divisors of zero into the extended ringo h(a) h(a)h(u) = h(au),=f(au) = g(a)
Although Theorem 2-12 shows that we could confine our'study to rings
with identity, it lS nonetheless desirable to develop as much Qf the theory for all a E R and so h and g are the sa~~ 'fl;J,nction. Hence, tl1ere.i:;¡ one and
as possible without the assumption of such an element. Thus,unless an only one way of extendingfhomomorphicálly from the ideallto'the whole
explicit statement is rnade to the contrary, the subsequent discussions will ring R.- .
not presuppose the existence of a multiplicative identity. _ Before closing the present chapter, there is another type of direct sum
We now talce a brief look at a different problem, namely, the problem whichdeserves mention. To this purpose, let R I, R z' ... , R" be a finite
of extending a function from a subring to the entire ringo In practice, one number of rings (not necessarily subrings of a common ring) and consider
is usually con cerned with extensions which retain the characteristic features their Cartesian product R x R¡ consisting of all ordered n-tuples
orthe given function. The theorem below, for instance, presents a situation (al' az' Oo., a"), with al E Rí' One can easily convert R into a ring by
in which it is possible to extend a homomorphism in such a way that the performing the ring operations componentwise; in other words, if
extended function also preserves both ring operations. (al' az' : .. , a") and (b l , bz' ... , b,,) are two elements of R, simply define
Theorem 2-13. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R andf a homomorphism (al' az, : .. , all ) + (b l , bz, ... ,b,,) (al + b l , al + bz, ... , a" + b,,)
from 1 onto R', a ring with identity. If 1 S;; cent R, then there is a
unique homomorphic extension of f to all of R. and
(al' az, ... , all)(bl,b z' ... , b,,) = (a l b l , azb z, ... , a"b").
Prooj As a start, we choose the element u E 1 so ihat f(u) = 1. Since 1
constitutes an ideal of R, the product au wi11lie in the set 1 for each choice The ring so obtained is caBed the external direct sum of R l , R z, , .. , R"
of a E R. It is therefore possible to define a new function g: R -¡. R' by and is convenientIy written R = RI Rz+ + ... + R". (Let us caution
setting g(a) f(au) for all a in R. If the element a happens to belong to that the notation is not standard in this matter.) In brief, the situation is
1, then this: An external direct sum is a new ring constructed from a given set of
rings, and an interna! direct sum is a representation of a given ring as a sum
g(a) f(au), = f(a)f(u) = f(a)1 fea), of certain of its ideals. The connection between these two types of direct
showing that g actual1y extends the original functionj sums will be made c1ear in the next paragraph.
The next thing to confirm lS that both ring operations are _preserved If R is the external direct sum of the rings R¡ (i = 1, 2, .,. , n), then the
by g. The case of addition is fairly obvious: if a, b E R, then individual R¡ need not be subríngs, or even subsets, of R. However, there is
an ideal of R which is the isomorphic image of Rí' A straightforward
g(a + b) = f(a + b)u) f(au + bu) calculation will convillce the reader that the set
= f(au) + f(bu) = g(a) + g(b). I¡ = {(O, ... , O, al' 0, ... ,Olla; E RJ
I1
!

I1
 .~

;1
;1

32 FIRST COURSB IN RINGS AND IDEALS IDEALS AND THEIR OPERATIONS 33

Next, consider the subset R x {O} of R X Z consisting of aH pairs of the As a preliminary step to demonstrating that g also preserves multiplication,
form (a, O). -Sin ce notice that
f(ab)u Z ) = f(abu)f(u) f(abu).
(a, O) (b O) (a - b, O),
(a, O)(b, O) (ab, O), From 1rus we are able to conclude that

e it is evident that R X {O} constitutes a subring of R x Z. A straightforward g(ab) f(abu) = f(abu Z) = f(au)(bu»)
caIculation, wruch we omit, shows that R x {O} is isomorphic to the given = f(au)f(bu) = g(a)g(b).
ring R under the mapping f: R -¡. R x {O} defined by fea) = (a, O). This The crucial third equality is justified by the fact that u E cent R, hence,
process
.
of extension therefore imbeds R in R x Z, a ring with .identity. commutes with b. ...
A point to be made in connection with the preceding theorem is that As regards the uniqueness assertion, let us assume that there is another
the imbedding process may be carried out even if the given ringhas. an homomorphic extension offto the set R'i9all it h. Sincefan'd h must agree
identity to start with. Of course, in this case the construction has no on 1 and, more specifically, at the elemept u, h(u) = f(u) = -1. With this
particular merit; indeed, the original identity element only serves to introduce in mind, it follows that _,,:', '
divisors of zero into the extended ringo h(a) h(a)h(u) = h(au),=f(au) = g(a)
Although Theorem 2-12 shows that we could confine our'study to rings
with identity, it lS nonetheless desirable to develop as much Qf the theory for all a E R and so h and g are the sa~~ 'fl;J,nction. Hence, tl1ere.i:;¡ one and
as possible without the assumption of such an element. Thus,unless an only one way of extendingfhomomorphicálly from the ideallto'the whole
explicit statement is rnade to the contrary, the subsequent discussions will ring R.- .
not presuppose the existence of a multiplicative identity. _ Before closing the present chapter, there is another type of direct sum
We now talce a brief look at a different problem, namely, the problem whichdeserves mention. To this purpose, let R I, R z' ... , R" be a finite
of extending a function from a subring to the entire ringo In practice, one number of rings (not necessarily subrings of a common ring) and consider
is usually con cerned with extensions which retain the characteristic features their Cartesian product R x R¡ consisting of all ordered n-tuples
orthe given function. The theorem below, for instance, presents a situation (al' az' Oo., a"), with al E Rí' One can easily convert R into a ring by
in which it is possible to extend a homomorphism in such a way that the performing the ring operations componentwise; in other words, if
extended function also preserves both ring operations. (al' az' : .. , a") and (b l , bz' ... , b,,) are two elements of R, simply define
Theorem 2-13. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R andf a homomorphism (al' az, : .. , all ) + (b l , bz, ... ,b,,) (al + b l , al + bz, ... , a" + b,,)
from 1 onto R', a ring with identity. If 1 S;; cent R, then there is a
unique homomorphic extension of f to all of R. and
(al' az, ... , all)(bl,b z' ... , b,,) = (a l b l , azb z, ... , a"b").
Prooj As a start, we choose the element u E 1 so ihat f(u) = 1. Since 1
constitutes an ideal of R, the product au wi11lie in the set 1 for each choice The ring so obtained is caBed the external direct sum of R l , R z, , .. , R"
of a E R. It is therefore possible to define a new function g: R -¡. R' by and is convenientIy written R = RI Rz+ + ... + R". (Let us caution
setting g(a) f(au) for all a in R. If the element a happens to belong to that the notation is not standard in this matter.) In brief, the situation is
1, then this: An external direct sum is a new ring constructed from a given set of
rings, and an interna! direct sum is a representation of a given ring as a sum
g(a) f(au), = f(a)f(u) = f(a)1 fea), of certain of its ideals. The connection between these two types of direct
showing that g actual1y extends the original functionj sums will be made c1ear in the next paragraph.
The next thing to confirm lS that both ring operations are _preserved If R is the external direct sum of the rings R¡ (i = 1, 2, .,. , n), then the
by g. The case of addition is fairly obvious: if a, b E R, then individual R¡ need not be subríngs, or even subsets, of R. However, there is
an ideal of R which is the isomorphic image of Rí' A straightforward
g(a + b) = f(a + b)u) f(au + bu) calculation will convillce the reader that the set
= f(au) + f(bu) = g(a) + g(b). I¡ = {(O, ... , O, al' 0, ... ,Olla; E RJ
I1
!

I1

34 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
(that is, the set consisting of aH n-tuples with zeroes in all places but the
ith) forms an ideal of R naturally isomorphic to R¡ under the mapping
which sends (O, ... , O, a¡, O, ... ,O) to the element a¡. Since
(al' a 2 , ••• , a n ) = (al' O, O, ... , O) + (O, a 2 , O, ... ,O) + '" +
it should also be c1ear that every member of R is uniquely representable as
a sum of elements from the ideals l¡. Taking note of Theorem 2-4, this
means that R is the internal direct sum of the ideals 1¡ and so
RI ..j.. R 2 ..j.. ••• ..j.. Rn = 11 E!11 2 E!1'" E!1 In
In summary, the external direct sum R of the rings R I , R 2 , •• , , Rn is also
the internal direct sum of the ideals 11 , 12 , ...• 1" and, for each i, R¡ and
1¡ are isomorphic.
In view of the isomorphism just explained, we shall henceforth refer to
the ring R as being a direct sum, not qualífying it with the adjective
"internal" or "external", and rely exc1usively on the ®-notation. The term
"internal" merely reflects the fact that the individual summands, and not
isomorphic copies of them, líe in R.
We take this opportunity to introduce the simple, but nonetheless useful,
notion of a direct summand of a ringo In formal terms, an ideal 1 of the
ring R is said to be a direct summand of R if there exists another ideal J
of R such that R = 1 E!1 J. For future use, let us note that should the ideal
1 happen to have an identity element, say the e1ement e E 1, then it will
automatically be a direct summand of R. Theargument proceeds as follows.
For any choice of r E R, the product re E 1. The assumption that e serves
as an identity for 1 then ensures that e(re) = re; At the same time (and for
the samereasons), (er)e = ero Combining these pieces, we get re := ere = er,
which makes it plain that the element e lies in the eenter of R. This is the
key point in showing that the set J = {r - reir E R} forms an ideal oCR;
the details are left to the reader. We contend that the ring R is actuaHy the
direct sum of 1 and J. Certainly, eaeh element r of Rcmay be written as
r = re + (r - re), where re E 1 and r - re E J. Since 1 n J = {O}, this is
the only way r can be expressed as a sum of elements of 1 and J. (A moment's
thoughtshowsthatifa El n J,saya = r - re,thena = ae = (r - re)e =
r(e - e2 ) = O.) It is also true that the ideal 1 = eR = Re, but we did not
need this faet here.
As a further application of the idea of a direct summand, let us record
Theorem 2-14. If the ring R is a direct summand in every extension
ring containing it as an ideal, then R has an identity.
Proof. To set this result in evidence, we first imbed R in the extension ring
R' = R x Z in the standard way (see Theorem 2-12). Then, R ~ R x {O},
where, as is easily verified, R x {O} constitutes an ideal of R'. We may
PROBLEMS 35
therefore regard R as being an ideal of the ring R'. Our hypothesis now
comes into play and asserts that R' = R E!1 J fór a suitable ideal J ~f R'.
It is thus possible to choose an element (e, n) in J so that (O, -1) = (r, O) +
(e, n), for sorne r E R. The last-written equation tells us that e = - r and
(O, O, ... , O, a n), n = -1; what is important is the resulting conc1usion that (e, -1) E J.
For arbitrary rE R, the product (r, O){e, -1) = (re - r, O) will consequently
be in both R and J (each being an ideal of R'). The fact that R n J = {O}
forces (re - r, O) = (O, O); hence, re = r. In a like fashion, we obtain
er = r, proving that R admits the element e as an identity.
(R¡ ~ 1J
PROBLEMS
1. If 1 is a right ideal and J a left ideal of the ring R such that 1 n J = {O}, prove
that ab = O for aH a E 1, b E J.
2. Given an ideal 1 oC the ring R, define the set C(I) by
C(I) = {r E Rlra - ar E 1 Cor all QE R}.
Verify that C(I) forms a subring of R.
3. a) Show by example that if 1 and J are both ideals of the ring R, then 1 u J need
not bean ideal oC R.
I~ b) If {1¡} (i = 1, 2, ...) is a colIection of ideal s ofthe ring R such thatI 1 ~ 12 ~ ...
~ In ~ ... , prove that u li is also an ideal of R.
4. Consider the ring Mn(R) oC n x n matrices over R, a ring with identity. A square
matrix (alj) is said to be upper triqngular if aij = O for i > j and strictly upper
triangular if a¡] = O Cor i ~ j. Let T,,(R) and T~(R) denote the sets of aH upper
triangular.and strictIy upper triangular matrices in Mn(R), respectively. Prove
each of the following:
a) T,,(R) and T~(R) are both subrings of Mn(R).
b) T:'(R) is an ideal of the ring T,,(R).
e) A matrix (aij) E T" (R) is invertible in T" (R) if and only if aií is invertible in R
Cor i = 1,2, ... , n. [Hint: Induct on the order n.]
d) Any matrix (a¡j) E T~(R) is nilpotent; in particular, (a¡])n = O.
5. Let 1 b¡: an ideal of R, a commutative ring with identity. For an element a E R,
the ideal generated by the set 1 u {a} is denoted by (1, a). Assurning that a rt 1,
show that
(1, a) = {i + rali E 1, r E R}.
6. In the ring Z of integers consider the principal ideals (n) and (m) generated by
the integers n and m. Using the notation of the previous probJem, verify that
((nj, m) = ((m), n) = (n) + (m) = (n, m) = (d),
where d is the greatest common divisor of n and m.

34 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
(that is, the set consisting of aH n-tuples with zeroes in all places but the
ith) forms an ideal of R naturally isomorphic to R¡ under the mapping
which sends (O, ... , O, a¡, O, ... ,O) to the element a¡. Since
(al' a 2 , ••• , a n ) = (al' O, O, ... , O) + (O, a 2 , O, ... ,O) + '" +
it should also be c1ear that every member of R is uniquely representable as
a sum of elements from the ideals l¡. Taking note of Theorem 2-4, this
means that R is the internal direct sum of the ideals 1¡ and so
RI ..j.. R 2 ..j.. ••• ..j.. Rn = 11 E!11 2 E!1'" E!1 In
In summary, the external direct sum R of the rings R I , R 2 , •• , , Rn is also
the internal direct sum of the ideals 11 , 12 , ...• 1" and, for each i, R¡ and
1¡ are isomorphic.
In view of the isomorphism just explained, we shall henceforth refer to
the ring R as being a direct sum, not qualífying it with the adjective
"internal" or "external", and rely exc1usively on the ®-notation. The term
"internal" merely reflects the fact that the individual summands, and not
isomorphic copies of them, líe in R.
We take this opportunity to introduce the simple, but nonetheless useful,
notion of a direct summand of a ringo In formal terms, an ideal 1 of the
ring R is said to be a direct summand of R if there exists another ideal J
of R such that R = 1 E!1 J. For future use, let us note that should the ideal
1 happen to have an identity element, say the e1ement e E 1, then it will
automatically be a direct summand of R. Theargument proceeds as follows.
For any choice of r E R, the product re E 1. The assumption that e serves
as an identity for 1 then ensures that e(re) = re; At the same time (and for
the samereasons), (er)e = ero Combining these pieces, we get re := ere = er,
which makes it plain that the element e lies in the eenter of R. This is the
key point in showing that the set J = {r - reir E R} forms an ideal oCR;
the details are left to the reader. We contend that the ring R is actuaHy the
direct sum of 1 and J. Certainly, eaeh element r of Rcmay be written as
r = re + (r - re), where re E 1 and r - re E J. Since 1 n J = {O}, this is
the only way r can be expressed as a sum of elements of 1 and J. (A moment's
thoughtshowsthatifa El n J,saya = r - re,thena = ae = (r - re)e =
r(e - e2 ) = O.) It is also true that the ideal 1 = eR = Re, but we did not
need this faet here.
As a further application of the idea of a direct summand, let us record
Theorem 2-14. If the ring R is a direct summand in every extension
ring containing it as an ideal, then R has an identity.
Proof. To set this result in evidence, we first imbed R in the extension ring
R' = R x Z in the standard way (see Theorem 2-12). Then, R ~ R x {O},
where, as is easily verified, R x {O} constitutes an ideal of R'. We may
PROBLEMS 35
therefore regard R as being an ideal of the ring R'. Our hypothesis now
comes into play and asserts that R' = R E!1 J fór a suitable ideal J ~f R'.
It is thus possible to choose an element (e, n) in J so that (O, -1) = (r, O) +
(e, n), for sorne r E R. The last-written equation tells us that e = - r and
(O, O, ... , O, a n), n = -1; what is important is the resulting conc1usion that (e, -1) E J.
For arbitrary rE R, the product (r, O){e, -1) = (re - r, O) will consequently
be in both R and J (each being an ideal of R'). The fact that R n J = {O}
forces (re - r, O) = (O, O); hence, re = r. In a like fashion, we obtain
er = r, proving that R admits the element e as an identity.
(R¡ ~ 1J
PROBLEMS
1. If 1 is a right ideal and J a left ideal of the ring R such that 1 n J = {O}, prove
that ab = O for aH a E 1, b E J.
2. Given an ideal 1 oC the ring R, define the set C(I) by
C(I) = {r E Rlra - ar E 1 Cor all QE R}.
Verify that C(I) forms a subring of R.
3. a) Show by example that if 1 and J are both ideals of the ring R, then 1 u J need
not bean ideal oC R.
I~ b) If {1¡} (i = 1, 2, ...) is a colIection of ideal s ofthe ring R such thatI 1 ~ 12 ~ ...
~ In ~ ... , prove that u li is also an ideal of R.
4. Consider the ring Mn(R) oC n x n matrices over R, a ring with identity. A square
matrix (alj) is said to be upper triqngular if aij = O for i > j and strictly upper
triangular if a¡] = O Cor i ~ j. Let T,,(R) and T~(R) denote the sets of aH upper
triangular.and strictIy upper triangular matrices in Mn(R), respectively. Prove
each of the following:
a) T,,(R) and T~(R) are both subrings of Mn(R).
b) T:'(R) is an ideal of the ring T,,(R).
e) A matrix (aij) E T" (R) is invertible in T" (R) if and only if aií is invertible in R
Cor i = 1,2, ... , n. [Hint: Induct on the order n.]
d) Any matrix (a¡j) E T~(R) is nilpotent; in particular, (a¡])n = O.
5. Let 1 b¡: an ideal of R, a commutative ring with identity. For an element a E R,
the ideal generated by the set 1 u {a} is denoted by (1, a). Assurning that a rt 1,
show that
(1, a) = {i + rali E 1, r E R}.
6. In the ring Z of integers consider the principal ideals (n) and (m) generated by
the integers n and m. Using the notation of the previous probJem, verify that
((nj, m) = ((m), n) = (n) + (m) = (n, m) = (d),
where d is the greatest common divisor of n and m.
 ---------~~-- --- - -~-~-~--~----~-~~-
---------~ ~---

,1

1
"

36 FIRST COURSE iN RINGS AND IDEALS

I. PROBLEMS ,37
7. Suppose that 1 is ~ left ideal and J a right ideal of the ring R. Consider the set
a) Irl ¡;; J, then l:K ¡;; J:X and X:1 ;;¡ X:J.
1J = fE a¡b¡ja¡ El; b¡ E J}, b) l:Jn+1 = (l:J"):J(l:J):J"foranynEZ+.
e) l:J R ifand only if J ¡;; 1.
where I: represents a finite sum of one or more terms. Establish that 1J is a two-
d) l:J 1:(1 + J).
sided ideal of R and, whenever 1 and J are themselves two-sided, tbat IJ.¡;; 1 n J.
16. If 1 is a right ideal of R, a ring with identity, show tbat 1:/ R {a E R IRa s; 1}
8. If S is any giv~n nonempty subset of the ring R, then
i8 the largest two-sided ideal of R contained in 1.
ann,S = {rE Rlar O for aIl a E S} 17. Given that f is a homomorphism from the ring R onto the ring R', prove that
a) f(eent R) S; cent R'. . .
is called the right ann,ihilator of S (in R); Similarly,
b) If R 18 a principal ideal ríng, then the same is true of R'. [Hint: For any a E R,
ann¡S = {r E Rlra = O for all a E S} f(a») (f(a».] . ,.., ,
e) Ir the element a E R is nilpotent, then its'image fea) is nilpotent in R'.
is the lefl annihilator of S. When R is a commutative ring, we simply,siJeak onhe
annihi/ator of S and use the notation aní:l S. Prove the assertions below: 18. Let R be a ring witl:J identity. For eaeh invértible element a E R, show that the
a) ann,S (ann/ S) is a 'right (left) ideal of R. . funetionf.: R ..... R defined by f.(x) = axa~'11s an automorphism of R.
b) If S is a right (left) ideal of R; tben ann,S (ann S) i8 an ideal of R. 19. Let f be a homomorphism from the ríng R Íj1to itself and S be Jhe set of elements
e) If S is an ideal of R, then ann,S and, ann I S are both ideals of R. that are left fixe;d by f; in symbols,
d) When R has an identity elernent, ann,R = annlR = {O}.
S {a E Rlf(a) = a}.
9. Le! 11,1 2 , ... ,1. be ideals ofthe ring R with R = 11 + 12 + ... + In' Show
Establish that S forms a subring of R.
tbat this sum is direct if and only if al + a2 + ... + ah = O, with a¡ E 1¡, implies
tbat each a¡ = O; 20. If f is a homomórphism from the ring R into the ríng R', wpere R has positi've .
characterístie, verify that eharf(R) ~ char R.
10. lf P(X) is the ring of all subsets of a given set X, prove tllat
a) the collection of all finite subsets of X forms an ideal of P(X); 21. Letfbe a homomorphism from the cornmutative rÍng R onto the ríng R'. If 1 and
b) for each subset Y ¡;; X, P(Y) ánd P(X ~ Y) are both principal ideals of P(X), , Jare ídeals of R, verífy each ofthe following:
with P(X) P(Y) Ea P(X ~ Y). a) f(l + J) = f(1) + f(J);
b) f(1J) f(1)f(1);
11. Suppose tbat R is a commutative ring with identity and that the element a E R e) f(l n J) f(1) n f(J), with equality if eíther 1 ;;¡ ker f or J ;;¡ ker f;
is an idempotent dilferellt from Oor 1. Prove that R is the direct Sum of the principal d) f(l:J) S; f(l) :f(J), with equality if 1 ;;¡ ker f.
ideals (a) and (1 a).
22. Sho'l'{ that the relation R ~ R' is añ equivalenee relation on any set üf rings.
12; Le! 1, J and X be ideaIs of the ring R. Prove that
a) l(J + K) = 1J + IX, (1 + J)X = IX + JX; 23. Let R be an arbitrary ringo For each fixed element a E R, define the left-multiplica-
b) if 1 ;2 J, ihen 1 n (J + K) J + (1 n X). ' tion function T,,: R ..... R by taking T,,(x) ax. If TR denotes th!; set of all such
funetions, prove the following:
13. Establish that in the ring Z, if 1 = (12) and J = (21), then a) T" is a (group) homomorphism of the additive group of R into itself;
b) TI! forms a ríng, where multiplicatíon is taken to be funetional eomposition;
1 +J = (3), 1n J (841 IJ (252), l:J = (4), J:1 = (7). e) Híe mappingf(a) = T" determines a homomorphism of R onto the ring TR ;
[Hint: In general, (a):(b) = (e), where e = afgcd (a, b).] d) the kernel offis the ideal annlR; .
e) iUor each O =1= a E R, there exists so me b E R such that ab =1= O, then R ~ TR •
14. Given ideals 1 and J of the ring R, verify tbat . (In particular, part(e) holds whenever R has an identity eIement.)
a) 0:,1 ann/1, and 0:/1 = ann,l (notation as in Problem 8);
b) l:J (1:/ J) is tbe largest ideal of R with the property that (1 :,J)J ¡;; 1 24. Let R be an arbitrary ring and R x Z be the exten8ion ríng eonstructed in Theorern
(J(l:/ J) ¡;; 1). 2-12. Establish that
a) R)( {O} ii an ideal of R x Z;
15. Le! 1,J and X beideals of R, acornmutative ríng with identity. Pro ve thefollowing b) Z~ {O}xZ;
assertíons: e) if a is an idempotent element of R, then the pair (-a, 1) is idempotent in R x Z,
while (a, O) is a zero divisor.
 ---------~~-- --- - -~-~-~--~----~-~~-
---------~ ~---

,1

1
"

36 FIRST COURSE iN RINGS AND IDEALS

I. PROBLEMS ,37
7. Suppose that 1 is ~ left ideal and J a right ideal of the ring R. Consider the set
a) Irl ¡;; J, then l:K ¡;; J:X and X:1 ;;¡ X:J.
1J = fE a¡b¡ja¡ El; b¡ E J}, b) l:Jn+1 = (l:J"):J(l:J):J"foranynEZ+.
e) l:J R ifand only if J ¡;; 1.
where I: represents a finite sum of one or more terms. Establish that 1J is a two-
d) l:J 1:(1 + J).
sided ideal of R and, whenever 1 and J are themselves two-sided, tbat IJ.¡;; 1 n J.
16. If 1 is a right ideal of R, a ring with identity, show tbat 1:/ R {a E R IRa s; 1}
8. If S is any giv~n nonempty subset of the ring R, then
i8 the largest two-sided ideal of R contained in 1.
ann,S = {rE Rlar O for aIl a E S} 17. Given that f is a homomorphism from the ring R onto the ring R', prove that
a) f(eent R) S; cent R'. . .
is called the right ann,ihilator of S (in R); Similarly,
b) If R 18 a principal ideal ríng, then the same is true of R'. [Hint: For any a E R,
ann¡S = {r E Rlra = O for all a E S} f(a») (f(a».] . ,.., ,
e) Ir the element a E R is nilpotent, then its'image fea) is nilpotent in R'.
is the lefl annihilator of S. When R is a commutative ring, we simply,siJeak onhe
annihi/ator of S and use the notation aní:l S. Prove the assertions below: 18. Let R be a ring witl:J identity. For eaeh invértible element a E R, show that the
a) ann,S (ann/ S) is a 'right (left) ideal of R. . funetionf.: R ..... R defined by f.(x) = axa~'11s an automorphism of R.
b) If S is a right (left) ideal of R; tben ann,S (ann S) i8 an ideal of R. 19. Let f be a homomorphism from the ríng R Íj1to itself and S be Jhe set of elements
e) If S is an ideal of R, then ann,S and, ann I S are both ideals of R. that are left fixe;d by f; in symbols,
d) When R has an identity elernent, ann,R = annlR = {O}.
S {a E Rlf(a) = a}.
9. Le! 11,1 2 , ... ,1. be ideals ofthe ring R with R = 11 + 12 + ... + In' Show
Establish that S forms a subring of R.
tbat this sum is direct if and only if al + a2 + ... + ah = O, with a¡ E 1¡, implies
tbat each a¡ = O; 20. If f is a homomórphism from the ring R into the ríng R', wpere R has positi've .
characterístie, verify that eharf(R) ~ char R.
10. lf P(X) is the ring of all subsets of a given set X, prove tllat
a) the collection of all finite subsets of X forms an ideal of P(X); 21. Letfbe a homomorphism from the cornmutative rÍng R onto the ríng R'. If 1 and
b) for each subset Y ¡;; X, P(Y) ánd P(X ~ Y) are both principal ideals of P(X), , Jare ídeals of R, verífy each ofthe following:
with P(X) P(Y) Ea P(X ~ Y). a) f(l + J) = f(1) + f(J);
b) f(1J) f(1)f(1);
11. Suppose tbat R is a commutative ring with identity and that the element a E R e) f(l n J) f(1) n f(J), with equality if eíther 1 ;;¡ ker f or J ;;¡ ker f;
is an idempotent dilferellt from Oor 1. Prove that R is the direct Sum of the principal d) f(l:J) S; f(l) :f(J), with equality if 1 ;;¡ ker f.
ideals (a) and (1 a).
22. Sho'l'{ that the relation R ~ R' is añ equivalenee relation on any set üf rings.
12; Le! 1, J and X be ideaIs of the ring R. Prove that
a) l(J + K) = 1J + IX, (1 + J)X = IX + JX; 23. Let R be an arbitrary ringo For each fixed element a E R, define the left-multiplica-
b) if 1 ;2 J, ihen 1 n (J + K) J + (1 n X). ' tion function T,,: R ..... R by taking T,,(x) ax. If TR denotes th!; set of all such
funetions, prove the following:
13. Establish that in the ring Z, if 1 = (12) and J = (21), then a) T" is a (group) homomorphism of the additive group of R into itself;
b) TI! forms a ríng, where multiplicatíon is taken to be funetional eomposition;
1 +J = (3), 1n J (841 IJ (252), l:J = (4), J:1 = (7). e) Híe mappingf(a) = T" determines a homomorphism of R onto the ring TR ;
[Hint: In general, (a):(b) = (e), where e = afgcd (a, b).] d) the kernel offis the ideal annlR; .
e) iUor each O =1= a E R, there exists so me b E R such that ab =1= O, then R ~ TR •
14. Given ideals 1 and J of the ring R, verify tbat . (In particular, part(e) holds whenever R has an identity eIement.)
a) 0:,1 ann/1, and 0:/1 = ann,l (notation as in Problem 8);
b) l:J (1:/ J) is tbe largest ideal of R with the property that (1 :,J)J ¡;; 1 24. Let R be an arbitrary ring and R x Z be the exten8ion ríng eonstructed in Theorern
(J(l:/ J) ¡;; 1). 2-12. Establish that
a) R)( {O} ii an ideal of R x Z;
15. Le! 1,J and X beideals of R, acornmutative ríng with identity. Pro ve thefollowing b) Z~ {O}xZ;
assertíons: e) if a is an idempotent element of R, then the pair (-a, 1) is idempotent in R x Z,
while (a, O) is a zero divisor.
 38 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
25. Suppose that R is a ring of characteristic n. If addition and multiplication are
defined in R x Z" = {(x, a)lx E R; a E Z,,} by
(x, a) + (y,h) = (x + y,a +" h),
(x, a)(y, h) = (xy + ay + hx, a'"h),
prove that R x Z. is an extension ring of R of characteristic n. Also show that
R x Z" has an identity element.
26. Leí R = R¡ Ef> R2 Ef> ... Ef> R" be the (external) direct sum of a finite number of
rings R¡ with identity (i = 1, 2, '" , n). '
a) For fixed i, define the mapping "'¡: R -> R¡ a~ folIows: if a = (a¡, a2, ... , a,,),
where aj E Rj , then 1l¡(a) = al' Prove that 1li is a homomorphism from the
ring R onto Ri'
b) Sh~w that every ideal l of R is of the form l = 1 ¡ Ef> l2 Ef> ... Ea l", with li
an Ideal of R¡. [Hint: Take l¡ = 1l¡(l). If h¡ E l¡, then there exists sorne (h¡, oo.,
h¡, ... , h.) E l. It folIows that (h¡, ... , h¡, ... , h")(O, ... , 1, '" ,O) = (O, .oo , h¡,
... , O) E l.]
27. A nonempty subset A of a ring R is termed an adeal of R if
(i) a, h E A imply a + h E A,
(ii) /' E R and a E A imply both ar E A and ra E A.
Prove that
a) An adeal A of R is an ideal of R if for each a e A there is an integer n =1= O,
dep~nding upon a, such that na E aR + Ra. (This condition is satisfied, in
particular, if R has a multiplicative identity.)
b) Whenever R is a commutative ring, the condition in part (a) is a necessary as
weIl as sufficient condition for an adeal to be an ideal. [Hint: For any a'E R,
the set A = {naln e Z +} + aR is an adeal of R; hence, an ideal of R.]
28. Let R be a ring with identity and M"(R) be the ring 6f n x n matrices over R.
Prove the folIowing:
a) If lis an idéal of the ring R, then M"(l) is an ideal of the matrix ring M"(R).
b) Every ideal'of M,,(R) is of the fO rm M"(I), where, lis
an ideal of R. [Hint: Let
Fij(a) denote the matrix in M"(R) having a as its ijth entry and zeroes elsewhere.
For a:ny ideal "ft in M"(R), let 1 be the set of elements in R which appear as
entríes for the matrices in~. Given any a El, say a is the rsth entry of a
matrix A E"ft, it foIlows that F¡ia) = F;,(1)AF.i1) e Jt.]
c) If R is a simple ring, then so is the matrix ring M" (R).
29. Let R be a ring with the prbperty that every subring of R is necessarily an ideal of
R. (The ring Z, for instan ce, enjoys this property.) If R contains no divisors of zero,
prove that muItiplication is commutative. [Hint: Given O =1= a e R, consider the
subring S generated bya. For arbitrary h eR, ab = r e S, so that ar = ra.]
THREE
THE CLASSICAL ISOMORPHISM THE®REMS
In this chapter we shall discuss a nurnber of significant resuIts having to
do with the relationship between homomorphisms and quotient rings (which
we shall shortly define). Ofthese results perhaps the rnost crucial is Theorern
3-7, comrnonly known as the Fundamental Homomorphism Theorem for
Rings. The importance of this result would be difficult to overemphasize,
for 'it stand s 'as the cornerstone upon which much of the succeeding theory
rests. ,
The notion of an ideal carries with it a natural equivalence relation.
For, given an ideal 1 of the ring R, it is a routine matter to check that the
relation defined by a == b if and only if a - b E 1 is actually an equivalence
relation on R. As such, this relation induces a partition of R into equivalence
classes, the exact nature of which is determined below.
Theorem 3-1. If 1 is an ideal of the ring R, then the equivalence class
of b E R for the relation == is the set
b + 1 = {b + il'ie l}.
Proo! Let [b] = {x E Rlx == b}. If a = b + i is any member of b +
l,
then a - b = i E l. By definition of ==, this implies that a E [b], and so
b + 1 S;; [b]. On the other hand, if x E [b], we must have x. - b = i for
sorne i in l, whence x = b +- i E b + l. Thus, the inclusion [b] S;; b + 1
also holds and equality follQws.
The usual practice is to speak of any set oL the form b + 1 as a coset
of 1 in R, and to refer to the element b as a representative of b + l. For
future reference we next li~t sorne of the basic. properties of cosets; these
are well-known facts about equivalence classes (see Appendix A) translated
into the present notation.
Theorem 3-2. If 1 is an ideal of the ring R and ~, b E R, then each of
the following is true:
1) a + 1 = 1 if and only if a E l.
2) a + 1 = b + 1 if and only if a - b E l.
3) Either a + 1 = b + 1 or else a + 1 and b + 1 are disjoint.
39
 38 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
25. Suppose that R is a ring of characteristic n. If addition and multiplication are
defined in R x Z" = {(x, a)lx E R; a E Z,,} by
(x, a) + (y,h) = (x + y,a +" h),
(x, a)(y, h) = (xy + ay + hx, a'"h),
prove that R x Z. is an extension ring of R of characteristic n. Also show that
R x Z" has an identity element.
26. Leí R = R¡ Ef> R2 Ef> ... Ef> R" be the (external) direct sum of a finite number of
rings R¡ with identity (i = 1, 2, '" , n). '
a) For fixed i, define the mapping "'¡: R -> R¡ a~ folIows: if a = (a¡, a2, ... , a,,),
where aj E Rj , then 1l¡(a) = al' Prove that 1li is a homomorphism from the
ring R onto Ri'
b) Sh~w that every ideal l of R is of the form l = 1 ¡ Ef> l2 Ef> ... Ea l", with li
an Ideal of R¡. [Hint: Take l¡ = 1l¡(l). If h¡ E l¡, then there exists sorne (h¡, oo.,
h¡, ... , h.) E l. It folIows that (h¡, ... , h¡, ... , h")(O, ... , 1, '" ,O) = (O, .oo , h¡,
... , O) E l.]
27. A nonempty subset A of a ring R is termed an adeal of R if
(i) a, h E A imply a + h E A,
(ii) /' E R and a E A imply both ar E A and ra E A.
Prove that
a) An adeal A of R is an ideal of R if for each a e A there is an integer n =1= O,
dep~nding upon a, such that na E aR + Ra. (This condition is satisfied, in
particular, if R has a multiplicative identity.)
b) Whenever R is a commutative ring, the condition in part (a) is a necessary as
weIl as sufficient condition for an adeal to be an ideal. [Hint: For any a'E R,
the set A = {naln e Z +} + aR is an adeal of R; hence, an ideal of R.]
28. Let R be a ring with identity and M"(R) be the ring 6f n x n matrices over R.
Prove the folIowing:
a) If lis an idéal of the ring R, then M"(l) is an ideal of the matrix ring M"(R).
b) Every ideal'of M,,(R) is of the fO rm M"(I), where, lis
an ideal of R. [Hint: Let
Fij(a) denote the matrix in M"(R) having a as its ijth entry and zeroes elsewhere.
For a:ny ideal "ft in M"(R), let 1 be the set of elements in R which appear as
entríes for the matrices in~. Given any a El, say a is the rsth entry of a
matrix A E"ft, it foIlows that F¡ia) = F;,(1)AF.i1) e Jt.]
c) If R is a simple ring, then so is the matrix ring M" (R).
29. Let R be a ring with the prbperty that every subring of R is necessarily an ideal of
R. (The ring Z, for instan ce, enjoys this property.) If R contains no divisors of zero,
prove that muItiplication is commutative. [Hint: Given O =1= a e R, consider the
subring S generated bya. For arbitrary h eR, ab = r e S, so that ar = ra.]
THREE
THE CLASSICAL ISOMORPHISM THE®REMS
In this chapter we shall discuss a nurnber of significant resuIts having to
do with the relationship between homomorphisms and quotient rings (which
we shall shortly define). Ofthese results perhaps the rnost crucial is Theorern
3-7, comrnonly known as the Fundamental Homomorphism Theorem for
Rings. The importance of this result would be difficult to overemphasize,
for 'it stand s 'as the cornerstone upon which much of the succeeding theory
rests. ,
The notion of an ideal carries with it a natural equivalence relation.
For, given an ideal 1 of the ring R, it is a routine matter to check that the
relation defined by a == b if and only if a - b E 1 is actually an equivalence
relation on R. As such, this relation induces a partition of R into equivalence
classes, the exact nature of which is determined below.
Theorem 3-1. If 1 is an ideal of the ring R, then the equivalence class
of b E R for the relation == is the set
b + 1 = {b + il'ie l}.
Proo! Let [b] = {x E Rlx == b}. If a = b + i is any member of b +
l,
then a - b = i E l. By definition of ==, this implies that a E [b], and so
b + 1 S;; [b]. On the other hand, if x E [b], we must have x. - b = i for
sorne i in l, whence x = b +- i E b + l. Thus, the inclusion [b] S;; b + 1
also holds and equality follQws.
The usual practice is to speak of any set oL the form b + 1 as a coset
of 1 in R, and to refer to the element b as a representative of b + l. For
future reference we next li~t sorne of the basic. properties of cosets; these
are well-known facts about equivalence classes (see Appendix A) translated
into the present notation.
Theorem 3-2. If 1 is an ideal of the ring R and ~, b E R, then each of
the following is true:
1) a + 1 = 1 if and only if a E l.
2) a + 1 = b + 1 if and only if a - b E l.
3) Either a + 1 = b + 1 or else a + 1 and b + 1 are disjoint.
39
 40 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS THE CLASSICAL ISOMORPHISM THEOREMS 41

Given an ideal 1 of the ring R, let us employ the symbol Rjl to denote Proo! The fact that nat¡ is a homomorphism follows directly from the
the collection of all cosets of 1 in R; that is, . manner in which the operations aredefined in the quotient ring:
R.jl = {a -: IlaER}. nat¡(a + b) = a + b + 1 = (a + 1) + (b + 1)
The set Rjl can be endowed with the structure of a ring in a natural way; = nat¡'(a) + nat¡(b); ¡'""

all we need do is define addition and multiplication as follows: nat¡(ab) = ab + 1 = (a + l)(b + 1)

= nat¡(a) nat¡(b).
(a + 1) +
+ 1) (b = (a + b) + 1,
(a + l)(b + 1) = db + 1. That nat¡ carries R ont~ Rjl is all but obvious; indeed, every element of
Rjl is a coset a + 1, with a E R, and so by definition nat¡(a) = a + 1.
One is faced with the usual problem of showing that these operatio~s are Inasmüch as the coset 1 =0 + 1 serves as the zero element for the
actually well-defined, so that thesum and product of the two cosets a + 1 ring Rj1, we necessarily have
and b + 1 do not depend on their particular representatives a and b. To
tbis end, suppose that . ';' o" " ker (nat¡) ~. {a E Rlnat¡(a) = l}
~ .. ' . = . {a E Rla+ 1 = l} = 1.
ci+l=.a'+l and .b + 1 = b' + l. .

Then a - a' = i l and b - b' = í2 for sorne il , i 2 .E l. From this we conclude
that
(a + b) - (a' +b' ) = (a ~. a') + (b - b')
= i l + i 2 El,
which, by Theorem 3-2, indicates that (a + b) + 1 = (a' + 6' ) + l. The
net result is that (a + 1) + (b + 1) = (a' + 1) + (b' + 1). With regard
to the multiplication of cosets, we observe that
ab - a'b' = a(b - b') + (a - a')b'
':'" ai 2 + ilb'El,
sincro both the products ai2and tI b' must be i~ 1. The implication, of course,
is that ab + 1 = a'b' + 1; hence, our definition of multiplication in Rj1 is
meaningful.
The verifiGatiqn that Rjl, under the operations defined abo ve, forms a
ring is easy and the details are left to the reader. To assure completeness,
we simply state . are the same; every ideal determines a homomorphism, and every homo-
Theorem 3-3. If1 is an ideal of the ring R, then Rj1 is also a ring, known
as the quotient ring (or factor ring) of R by l.
In Theorem 2-9 we saw that certain ideals occur as kernels of homo-.
morphisms. Let us now demonstrate that every ideal does indeed arise in
this manner.
Theorem 3-4. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. Then the mapping
nat f : R --¡. Rj1 defined by nat¡{a) = a
is a homomorphism of R onto the quotient ring Rjl; the kernel of natf
is precisely. the set l. . (a + (n))(b + (n))
The
.
last eq;~ality
.. :.
was achieved by invoking Theorem 3-2.__" ":
It is customary to speak of the function nat¡, which:~ssigns to each
element of R the coset in Rjl of which it is the representativé,as the natural,
or canonical, mapping of R onto the quotient ring Rj1. When there is no
danger of confusion, we shall omit the subscript 1 in writing this mapping.
There are two standard techniques for investigating the structure of a
particular ringo One method calls for finding all the ideals of the ring, in
the hope of gaining information about the ring through its local structure.
The other approach is to deternrine all homomorphisms from the given ring
hito a simpler ring; the idea here is that the homomorphi'c images will tend
to reflect sorne of the algebraic properties of the original ringo (The reader
is warned to proceed with sorne care, since, for example, it is quite possible
for multiplication to be commutative in the image ring, without the given
ring being commutative.) Although these lines of attack aim in different
. directions, Theorems 2-9 and 3-4 show that for all practical purposes the'se .
morphism determines an ideal.
Example 3-1. A simple illustration to keep in mind when working with
quotient rings is provided by the ring Z of integers and the principal ideal
(n), where n is a positive integer. The cosets of (n) in Z take the form
a + (n) = {a + lenlle E Z}>
from which it is clear that the cosets of (n)are precisely the congruence
classes modulo n. What we earlier described as the operations for con-
+1 gruence classes in Z" can now be vie:-ved as coset operations in Zj(n):
(a + (n)) + (b + (n)) = a + b + (n), _
= ab + (n).'
 40 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS THE CLASSICAL ISOMORPHISM THEOREMS 41

Given an ideal 1 of the ring R, let us employ the symbol Rjl to denote Proo! The fact that nat¡ is a homomorphism follows directly from the
the collection of all cosets of 1 in R; that is, . manner in which the operations aredefined in the quotient ring:
R.jl = {a -: IlaER}. nat¡(a + b) = a + b + 1 = (a + 1) + (b + 1)
The set Rjl can be endowed with the structure of a ring in a natural way; = nat¡'(a) + nat¡(b); ¡'""

all we need do is define addition and multiplication as follows: nat¡(ab) = ab + 1 = (a + l)(b + 1)

= nat¡(a) nat¡(b).
(a + 1) +
+ 1) (b = (a + b) + 1,
(a + l)(b + 1) = db + 1. That nat¡ carries R ont~ Rjl is all but obvious; indeed, every element of
Rjl is a coset a + 1, with a E R, and so by definition nat¡(a) = a + 1.
One is faced with the usual problem of showing that these operatio~s are Inasmüch as the coset 1 =0 + 1 serves as the zero element for the
actually well-defined, so that thesum and product of the two cosets a + 1 ring Rj1, we necessarily have
and b + 1 do not depend on their particular representatives a and b. To
tbis end, suppose that . ';' o" " ker (nat¡) ~. {a E Rlnat¡(a) = l}
~ .. ' . = . {a E Rla+ 1 = l} = 1.
ci+l=.a'+l and .b + 1 = b' + l. .

Then a - a' = i l and b - b' = í2 for sorne il , i 2 .E l. From this we conclude
that
(a + b) - (a' +b' ) = (a ~. a') + (b - b')
= i l + i 2 El,
which, by Theorem 3-2, indicates that (a + b) + 1 = (a' + 6' ) + l. The
net result is that (a + 1) + (b + 1) = (a' + 1) + (b' + 1). With regard
to the multiplication of cosets, we observe that
ab - a'b' = a(b - b') + (a - a')b'
':'" ai 2 + ilb'El,
sincro both the products ai2and tI b' must be i~ 1. The implication, of course,
is that ab + 1 = a'b' + 1; hence, our definition of multiplication in Rj1 is
meaningful.
The verifiGatiqn that Rjl, under the operations defined abo ve, forms a
ring is easy and the details are left to the reader. To assure completeness,
we simply state . are the same; every ideal determines a homomorphism, and every homo-
Theorem 3-3. If1 is an ideal of the ring R, then Rj1 is also a ring, known
as the quotient ring (or factor ring) of R by l.
In Theorem 2-9 we saw that certain ideals occur as kernels of homo-.
morphisms. Let us now demonstrate that every ideal does indeed arise in
this manner.
Theorem 3-4. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. Then the mapping
nat f : R --¡. Rj1 defined by nat¡{a) = a
is a homomorphism of R onto the quotient ring Rjl; the kernel of natf
is precisely. the set l. . (a + (n))(b + (n))
The
.
last eq;~ality
.. :.
was achieved by invoking Theorem 3-2.__" ":
It is customary to speak of the function nat¡, which:~ssigns to each
element of R the coset in Rjl of which it is the representativé,as the natural,
or canonical, mapping of R onto the quotient ring Rj1. When there is no
danger of confusion, we shall omit the subscript 1 in writing this mapping.
There are two standard techniques for investigating the structure of a
particular ringo One method calls for finding all the ideals of the ring, in
the hope of gaining information about the ring through its local structure.
The other approach is to deternrine all homomorphisms from the given ring
hito a simpler ring; the idea here is that the homomorphi'c images will tend
to reflect sorne of the algebraic properties of the original ringo (The reader
is warned to proceed with sorne care, since, for example, it is quite possible
for multiplication to be commutative in the image ring, without the given
ring being commutative.) Although these lines of attack aim in different
. directions, Theorems 2-9 and 3-4 show that for all practical purposes the'se .
morphism determines an ideal.
Example 3-1. A simple illustration to keep in mind when working with
quotient rings is provided by the ring Z of integers and the principal ideal
(n), where n is a positive integer. The cosets of (n) in Z take the form
a + (n) = {a + lenlle E Z}>
from which it is clear that the cosets of (n)are precisely the congruence
classes modulo n. What we earlier described as the operations for con-
+1 gruence classes in Z" can now be vie:-ved as coset operations in Zj(n):
(a + (n)) + (b + (n)) = a + b + (n), _
= ab + (n).'
42 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
THE CLASSICAL ISOMORPHISM THEOREMS 43

In short, the ring Zn of integers modulo n could just as well be interpreted A routíne computation, involving the definitíon of the operations in
as the quotient ring of Z by (n). Rjl, confirms thatlis indeed a homomorphism:
As regards the incidence of ideals in a quotient ringí it should be noted l((a + l) + (b + l)) = J(a + b + l) ~ f(a + b) _
that the Correspondence Theorem applies, in particular, to the case in = f(a) + f(b) = f(a + l) + f(b + l);
which we start with an ideall of the ring R and take the hornomorphism and, likewíse,
fto be the natural mapping nat¡:R --+ Rjl. Since ker(nat¡) = l, the l((a + l)(b + l)) = J(ab + 1) ~f(ab) _
conclusion of the Correspondence Theorem is modified slightly. = f(a)f(b) = f(a + l)f(b + l).
Theorem 3-5. Let l be an ideal ofthe dng R. Then there is a one-to-one In this connection, notice that for each element a E R,
correspondence between those ideals J of R such that l f; J and the
set of all ideals J' of the quotient ring Rjl; specifically, J' is given by f(a) = J(a + l) = l(nat¡ (a)) = (Jo nat¡ )(a)
J' = nat¡J. whence the equality f = lo nat¡. It only remaíns to show that thís fac-
Viewed otherwise, ,Theorem 3-5 asserts that the ideals of Rjl have the torízation ís uníque. Suppose also thatf = g o nat¡ for sorne other function
form Jjl, where J is an ideal of R containing l. In this context, Jjl and g: Rjl --+ R'. But then
nat¡J are both used to designate the set {a + lla E J}. l(a + 1) = f(a) = (g o nat¡ Ha) = g(a + l)
By way of an application ofthese ideas, consider the following statement:
The ring Zn of integers modulo n has exactly one ideal for each positive for all a in R, and so g = J. The índuced mappinglís thus the only functíon
divisor m of n, and no other ideals. In the first place, since Zn = Zj(n), from the quotient ríng Rjl into R' satisfyíng the equatíon f = Jo nat¡.
Theorem 3-5 tells us that there is a one-to-one corresponden ce between Corollary. The induced mapping 1 ís an isomorphísm íf and only íf
those ideals of the ring Z which contain (n) and the set of ideal s of Z". But kerf f; l.
the ideal s of Z are just the principal ideals (m), where m ís a nonnegative
ínteger. The outcome ís that there ís a one-to-one correspondence between Proa! What is requíred here ís an explicit description of the kernel of J,
the ídeals of Z" and those ídeals (m) of Z such that (m) ;;2 (n); thís last to wit
inclusion occurs íf and only if m dívides n. ker 1 = {a + l~(a + l) = O}
= {a + l f(a) = O}
Theorem 3-6. (Factorízation of Homomorphísms). Let f be a homo- = {a .+ l a E ker f} = nat¡(ker f).
morphism of the ríng R onto the ring R', and l be an' ídeal of R such
that l f; ker! Then there exísts a uníque homomorphísmJ: Rjl --+ R' With reference to Theorem 2-10 a necessary and sufficient condítíon for
with the property thatf = lo nat¡. 1 to be an isomorphism is that' ker 1 = l. In the present settíng, thís
amounts to the demand that nat¡(ker f) = l; which in tum'Ís equivalent
Proa! To start, we define a functíonJ: Rjl --+ R', called the induced mapping, to the ínclusíon ker f f; l;
by taking
l(a + l) = f(a) (a E R). In víew of the equalíty f = lo nat¡, the conclusíon of Theorem 3-Q is
sometímes expressed by sayíng that the homomorphísm f can be factored
Thefirst question to be raised is whether or not 1 is actually well-defined. through the quotient ríng Rjl or, alternatively, that f can be factored by
That is to say, we must establísh that this function has values which depend nat¡. What we have proved, ín a technical sense, is that there exists one
only upon the cosets of l and in no way on their particular representatives. and only one function 1 whích makes the following diagram of maps
In order to see this, let us assume a + l = b + l. Then a - b E l f; ker! commutative:
This means that
R-LR'
f(a) = f(a - b + b) = f(a - b) + f(b) =
and, by the manner in which 1 was defined, that l(a + l) = J(b + l).
f(b)
-E~tl\
Rjl
11
Hence, the functionlis constant on the cosets of l, as we wished to demon- (Speakíng informally, a "mapping díagram" is commutative íf, whenever
strate. there are two sequences of arrows in the díagram leading from one ríng to
42 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
THE CLASSICAL ISOMORPHISM THEOREMS 43

In short, the ring Zn of integers modulo n could just as well be interpreted A routíne computation, involving the definitíon of the operations in
as the quotient ring of Z by (n). Rjl, confirms thatlis indeed a homomorphism:
As regards the incidence of ideals in a quotient ringí it should be noted l((a + l) + (b + l)) = J(a + b + l) ~ f(a + b) _
that the Correspondence Theorem applies, in particular, to the case in = f(a) + f(b) = f(a + l) + f(b + l);
which we start with an ideall of the ring R and take the hornomorphism and, likewíse,
fto be the natural mapping nat¡:R --+ Rjl. Since ker(nat¡) = l, the l((a + l)(b + l)) = J(ab + 1) ~f(ab) _
conclusion of the Correspondence Theorem is modified slightly. = f(a)f(b) = f(a + l)f(b + l).
Theorem 3-5. Let l be an ideal ofthe dng R. Then there is a one-to-one In this connection, notice that for each element a E R,
correspondence between those ideals J of R such that l f; J and the
set of all ideals J' of the quotient ring Rjl; specifically, J' is given by f(a) = J(a + l) = l(nat¡ (a)) = (Jo nat¡ )(a)
J' = nat¡J. whence the equality f = lo nat¡. It only remaíns to show that thís fac-
Viewed otherwise, ,Theorem 3-5 asserts that the ideals of Rjl have the torízation ís uníque. Suppose also thatf = g o nat¡ for sorne other function
form Jjl, where J is an ideal of R containing l. In this context, Jjl and g: Rjl --+ R'. But then
nat¡J are both used to designate the set {a + lla E J}. l(a + 1) = f(a) = (g o nat¡ Ha) = g(a + l)
By way of an application ofthese ideas, consider the following statement:
The ring Zn of integers modulo n has exactly one ideal for each positive for all a in R, and so g = J. The índuced mappinglís thus the only functíon
divisor m of n, and no other ideals. In the first place, since Zn = Zj(n), from the quotient ríng Rjl into R' satisfyíng the equatíon f = Jo nat¡.
Theorem 3-5 tells us that there is a one-to-one corresponden ce between Corollary. The induced mapping 1 ís an isomorphísm íf and only íf
those ideals of the ring Z which contain (n) and the set of ideal s of Z". But kerf f; l.
the ideal s of Z are just the principal ideals (m), where m ís a nonnegative
ínteger. The outcome ís that there ís a one-to-one correspondence between Proa! What is requíred here ís an explicit description of the kernel of J,
the ídeals of Z" and those ídeals (m) of Z such that (m) ;;2 (n); thís last to wit
inclusion occurs íf and only if m dívides n. ker 1 = {a + l~(a + l) = O}
= {a + l f(a) = O}
Theorem 3-6. (Factorízation of Homomorphísms). Let f be a homo- = {a .+ l a E ker f} = nat¡(ker f).
morphism of the ríng R onto the ring R', and l be an' ídeal of R such
that l f; ker! Then there exísts a uníque homomorphísmJ: Rjl --+ R' With reference to Theorem 2-10 a necessary and sufficient condítíon for
with the property thatf = lo nat¡. 1 to be an isomorphism is that' ker 1 = l. In the present settíng, thís
amounts to the demand that nat¡(ker f) = l; which in tum'Ís equivalent
Proa! To start, we define a functíonJ: Rjl --+ R', called the induced mapping, to the ínclusíon ker f f; l;
by taking
l(a + l) = f(a) (a E R). In víew of the equalíty f = lo nat¡, the conclusíon of Theorem 3-Q is
sometímes expressed by sayíng that the homomorphísm f can be factored
Thefirst question to be raised is whether or not 1 is actually well-defined. through the quotient ríng Rjl or, alternatively, that f can be factored by
That is to say, we must establísh that this function has values which depend nat¡. What we have proved, ín a technical sense, is that there exists one
only upon the cosets of l and in no way on their particular representatives. and only one function 1 whích makes the following diagram of maps
In order to see this, let us assume a + l = b + l. Then a - b E l f; ker! commutative:
This means that
R-LR'
f(a) = f(a - b + b) = f(a - b) + f(b) =
and, by the manner in which 1 was defined, that l(a + l) = J(b + l).
f(b)
-E~tl\
Rjl
11
Hence, the functionlis constant on the cosets of l, as we wished to demon- (Speakíng informally, a "mapping díagram" is commutative íf, whenever
strate. there are two sequences of arrows in the díagram leading from one ríng to

44 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
another, the composition of mappings along these paths produces the same
function.)
A rather simple observation, with far-reaching implications, is that
whenever 1 = ker f, so that both the Factorization Theorem and its Corol-
lary are applicable, f induces a mapping J under which Rjl and R' are
isomorphic rings. We surnmarize all this in the following theorem, a result
which ~ll be invokedon many occasions in the sequel.
Tlieorem 3-7. (Fundamental Homomorphism Theorem). If f is a
homomorphism from the ring R ont6 the ring R', then Rjker f ~ R'.
Theorem 3-7 states that the images of R under ho~omorphisms can
be duplicated (up to isomorphism) by quotient rings of R; to put it another
way,every homomorpi?ism of R is "essentially" a natural mapping. Thus,
the problem of determination of all homomorphic images of a ring has
been 'reduced to the determination of its quotient rings.
Let us use Theorem 3-7 to prove that any homomorphism onto the
ring of integers is uniquely determined by its kernel. As the starting point
of our endeavor, we establish a leIhma which is of independent interest.
Lemma. The only nontrivial homomorphism from the ring Z of
integersinto itself is the identity map izo
Proof. Because each po si ti ve integer n may be written as n = 1 + 1 + oo.
+ 1 (n summands), the operation-preserving nature of f implies that
f(n) = nf(l), On the other hand, if n is an arbitrary negative integer, then
-n EZ+ and so
f(n) =f(-(-n)) = -f(-n) = -(-n)f(1) = nf(1).
Plainly,f(O) = O = Of(1). The upshot is thatf(n) = nf(l) for every n in Z.
Because f is not identically zero, we must have f(l) = 1; ·to 'see that this
is so, sÍluply apply the cancellation láw to the relation f(m) = f(m1) =
f(m)f(1), where f(m) =1= O. One finds in this way that f(n) = n == iz(n) Cor
all n E Z, making f the identity map on Z.
Corollary. There is at most one homomorphism under which an
arbitrary ring R is isomorphic to the ring Z.
Proo.f Suppose that the rings R and Z are ísomorphic under two functions
f, g: R -> Z. Then the composition .f o g - 1 is a homomorphic mapping
from the ring Z onto itself. Knowing this, the ¡emma just pro ved implies
thatfog-l = iz , orf= g.
We now ha ve the necessary information to prove the following result.
Theorem 3-8. Any homomorphism from an arbitrary ring R onto the
ring Z ofintegers is uniquely determined by its kernel.
,"1"" ......
'.
j
( THE CLASSICAL ISOMORPHISM THEOREMS 45
l'
Proof. Letfand g be two homomorphisms from the ring R onto Z·with
the property that kerf= ker g. Our aim, ofcourse, is to show thatfand g
must be the same function. Now, by Theorem 3-7, the quotient rings
Rjker f and Rjker g are both isomorphic to the ring of integers via the
induced mappingsJand g, respectively. The assl,lmption thatfand g have
a. common kernel, when oombined with the preceding corollary, forces
J = g. It follows at once from the factorizatiQns .
f = .Jo natk~r J' g = g o natkerg
that the functions f and g are themselves identical.
The next two theorems are somewhat deeper result.s than usual and
require the full force of our accumulated machinery. They c0mprise what
. .~ r are often called the First and Second Isomorphism Theorems and have
important applications in the sequel. (The reader is caütioned' that there
seems to be no universally accepted numbering for these,thecirems.)
Theorem 3-9. Letfbe a·homomorphism of the rih~ R'cinto th~ ring
R' and let 1 be an ideal of R. If ker f S;; 1, then Rjl ~ R' j f(1).
Proof. Before becoming in volved in the details of the proof, let us remark
that the corollary to Theorem 2-8 implies that f(1) is an ideal of the ring
R'; thus, it is meaningful to speak of the quotient ring R'j f(1).
Let us now define the function g: R -> R'j f(1) by g = natJ(l) of, where
nat J(l): R' -> R'j f(1) is the usual natural mapping. Thus, g merely assigns
to each element a E R the coset fea) + f(1) in R'j f(1). Since the functions
f and natJ(l) are both onto homomorphisms, their composition carries R
homomorphically onto the quotient ring R' j f(1).
The crux of the argument is to show thatker g = 1, for then the desired
conclusion would be an immediate consequence of the Fundamental
Homomorphism Theorem. Sin ce the zero element of R' j f(I) is just the
coset f(I), the kernel of g consists of those members of R which are mapped
by g onto f(1): .
ker g = {a E Rlg(a) = f(l)}
= {a E Rlf(a) + f(1) = f(1)}
= {a E Rlf(a) Ef(/)} = f-l(f(1)).
The hypothesis that ker f S 1 allows us to appeal to the lemma preceding
Theorem 2-11, from which it may be concluded that 1 = f-IU(I)). But
then 1 = ker g, completing the argument.
When applying this result, it is sometimes preferable to start with an
arbitrary ideal in R' and utilize inverse images rather than direct images.
The theorem can then be reformulated in the following way.

44 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
another, the composition of mappings along these paths produces the same
function.)
A rather simple observation, with far-reaching implications, is that
whenever 1 = ker f, so that both the Factorization Theorem and its Corol-
lary are applicable, f induces a mapping J under which Rjl and R' are
isomorphic rings. We surnmarize all this in the following theorem, a result
which ~ll be invokedon many occasions in the sequel.
Tlieorem 3-7. (Fundamental Homomorphism Theorem). If f is a
homomorphism from the ring R ont6 the ring R', then Rjker f ~ R'.
Theorem 3-7 states that the images of R under ho~omorphisms can
be duplicated (up to isomorphism) by quotient rings of R; to put it another
way,every homomorpi?ism of R is "essentially" a natural mapping. Thus,
the problem of determination of all homomorphic images of a ring has
been 'reduced to the determination of its quotient rings.
Let us use Theorem 3-7 to prove that any homomorphism onto the
ring of integers is uniquely determined by its kernel. As the starting point
of our endeavor, we establish a leIhma which is of independent interest.
Lemma. The only nontrivial homomorphism from the ring Z of
integersinto itself is the identity map izo
Proof. Because each po si ti ve integer n may be written as n = 1 + 1 + oo.
+ 1 (n summands), the operation-preserving nature of f implies that
f(n) = nf(l), On the other hand, if n is an arbitrary negative integer, then
-n EZ+ and so
f(n) =f(-(-n)) = -f(-n) = -(-n)f(1) = nf(1).
Plainly,f(O) = O = Of(1). The upshot is thatf(n) = nf(l) for every n in Z.
Because f is not identically zero, we must have f(l) = 1; ·to 'see that this
is so, sÍluply apply the cancellation láw to the relation f(m) = f(m1) =
f(m)f(1), where f(m) =1= O. One finds in this way that f(n) = n == iz(n) Cor
all n E Z, making f the identity map on Z.
Corollary. There is at most one homomorphism under which an
arbitrary ring R is isomorphic to the ring Z.
Proo.f Suppose that the rings R and Z are ísomorphic under two functions
f, g: R -> Z. Then the composition .f o g - 1 is a homomorphic mapping
from the ring Z onto itself. Knowing this, the ¡emma just pro ved implies
thatfog-l = iz , orf= g.
We now ha ve the necessary information to prove the following result.
Theorem 3-8. Any homomorphism from an arbitrary ring R onto the
ring Z ofintegers is uniquely determined by its kernel.
,"1"" ......
'.
j
( THE CLASSICAL ISOMORPHISM THEOREMS 45
l'
Proof. Letfand g be two homomorphisms from the ring R onto Z·with
the property that kerf= ker g. Our aim, ofcourse, is to show thatfand g
must be the same function. Now, by Theorem 3-7, the quotient rings
Rjker f and Rjker g are both isomorphic to the ring of integers via the
induced mappingsJand g, respectively. The assl,lmption thatfand g have
a. common kernel, when oombined with the preceding corollary, forces
J = g. It follows at once from the factorizatiQns .
f = .Jo natk~r J' g = g o natkerg
that the functions f and g are themselves identical.
The next two theorems are somewhat deeper result.s than usual and
require the full force of our accumulated machinery. They c0mprise what
. .~ r are often called the First and Second Isomorphism Theorems and have
important applications in the sequel. (The reader is caütioned' that there
seems to be no universally accepted numbering for these,thecirems.)
Theorem 3-9. Letfbe a·homomorphism of the rih~ R'cinto th~ ring
R' and let 1 be an ideal of R. If ker f S;; 1, then Rjl ~ R' j f(1).
Proof. Before becoming in volved in the details of the proof, let us remark
that the corollary to Theorem 2-8 implies that f(1) is an ideal of the ring
R'; thus, it is meaningful to speak of the quotient ring R'j f(1).
Let us now define the function g: R -> R'j f(1) by g = natJ(l) of, where
nat J(l): R' -> R'j f(1) is the usual natural mapping. Thus, g merely assigns
to each element a E R the coset fea) + f(1) in R'j f(1). Since the functions
f and natJ(l) are both onto homomorphisms, their composition carries R
homomorphically onto the quotient ring R' j f(1).
The crux of the argument is to show thatker g = 1, for then the desired
conclusion would be an immediate consequence of the Fundamental
Homomorphism Theorem. Sin ce the zero element of R' j f(I) is just the
coset f(I), the kernel of g consists of those members of R which are mapped
by g onto f(1): .
ker g = {a E Rlg(a) = f(l)}
= {a E Rlf(a) + f(1) = f(1)}
= {a E Rlf(a) Ef(/)} = f-l(f(1)).
The hypothesis that ker f S 1 allows us to appeal to the lemma preceding
Theorem 2-11, from which it may be concluded that 1 = f-IU(I)). But
then 1 = ker g, completing the argument.
When applying this result, it is sometimes preferable to start with an
arbitrary ideal in R' and utilize inverse images rather than direct images.
The theorem can then be reformulated in the following way.
 46 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS THE CLASSICAL ISOMORPHISM THEOREMS 47

Corollary 1. Let f be a homomorphism from the ring R onto the rillg From this factorization, it is easy to see that f is a homomorphism with
R'. If l' is any ideal of R', then R/ f -1(1') ~ R' / 1'. f(l) = (1 + J)/J. To confirm that the kernel ofjis precisely the set 1 Í \ J,
notice that the coset J serves as the zero element of (1 + 1)/J, and so
Proof In compliance with the corollary to Theorem 2-8,f - 1(1') forms an
ideal of R. Furthermore, ker f S; f -1(1'), so that Theorern 3-9leads directly ker f = {a E ll f (a) = J}
to the isomorphism = {a E 1a + J = J} = {a E lla E J} = 1 Í \ J.
R/r 1(I') ~ R'/f(J-1(I')) = R'/1'. The asserted isomorphism should now be evident from the Fundamental
Ariother special case, itself of interest, is the following. Homomorphism Theorem.

Corollary 2. Let 1 and J be two ideals of the ring R, with J
ljJ is an ideal of R/J and (RjJ)/(l/J) ~ R/1.
Proof As we know, if 1 is an ideal of the ring R and f is any hornomorphism
of R, thenf(l) constitutes an ideal ofthe imagef(R). In the setting at hand,
take f to be the natural. mapping natJ: R --+- RjJ; then l/J = nat J 1 forms
an ideal ofthe quotient ring R' = RjJ. Since ker (natJ) = J S; 1, Theorern
3-9 implies tbat R/l is isomorphic to (RjJ)/(l/J) under the induced mapping
g where g = nat¡!J o natJ.
The diagram displayed below may be of sorne help in visualizing the
situation described by the last corollary:
R ~R/l
~~R/J 1'
1 ~ (R/J)/(l/J)
S; l. Then We conclude tbis chapter with a brief excursion into the theory of nil
and nilpotent ideals: a (right, left, two-sided) ideal 1 of the ring R is said to
be a nil ideal if each element x in 1 is nilpotent; that is to say, if there exists
a positive integer n for which x!' = O, where n depends upon the particular
element x. As one might expect, the ideal 1 will be termed nilpotent provided
1" = {O} for sorne positive integer n. By definition, In denotes the set of all
finite sums of products of n elements taken from 1, so that 1" = {O} is
equivalent too requiring that for every choice of n elements al' a 2 , ... , a n E 1
(distinct or not), the product a 1a Z '" an = O; in particular, a n = O for all
a in 1, whence every nilpotent ideal is autornatically a nil ideal. We speak
of the ring R as being nil (ni!potent) if it is ni! (ni!potent) when regarded as
an ideal. Notice, too, that any ideal containing a nonzero idempotent element
cannot be nilpotent.
With these definitions at our disposal, we can now prove two le,?mas.

nat'/l
Lemma. 1) If R is a ni! (nilpotent) ring, then every subring and every
By virtue of our assumptions, there exists a (necessarily unique) isomorphism homomorphic image of R is ni! (nilpotent).
g: R/l --+- (R/1)/(l/J) such that 2) If R contains an ideal 1 such that 1 and R/l are both ni! (ni!potent),
then R is a pil (ni!potent) ringo
g o nat¡ = nat¡jJ o natJ'
Let us now take up the second of our general isomorphism theorems. Proof The proof of assertion (1) follows irnmediately from the definitions
and Problem i-17.' To verify(2), assume that 1 and R/l are nil rings and
Theorem 3-10. If 1 and J are ideals of the ring R, then that a E R. Then there exists sorne positive integer n for which the coset
1/(1 Í \ 1) ~ (1+ J)/J.
(a + l)n = a n +1 = 1,
Proof Reasoning as in Theorern 3-9, we seek a homornorphism f from 1
(regarded ~ a ring) onto the quotient ring (1 + 1)jJ such that ker f = 1 Í \ J. signifying that the élement a n E l. Inasrnuch as lis a nil ideal, (an)m = a nnl = O
Our candidate for this functionfis defined by declaring thatf(a) = a + J, for sorne m E Z+. This implies that a is ni!potent as a member of R and, in
a E 1. A trivial, but useful, observation is that 1 S; 1 + J, whence f can consequence, R is a ni! ringo The remainder of the proof is left to the
be obtained bycomposing the injection map i¡: 1 --+- 1 + J with the natural reader's careo
mapping natJ: 1 + J _ (1 + 1)/J. To be quite explicit, f = nat J o i¡ or,
Lemma. If NI and N 2 are two nil (nilpotent) ideals of the ring R, then
in diagrammatic language,
their sum NI + N z is likewise a ni! (nilpotent) ideal.
1 1, ,1 +J
I~ /nat, Proof With reference to Theorem 3-10, we have (NI + Nz)/N 1 ~
N z/(N 1 Í \ N 2)' The right-hand side (hence, the left-hand side) of this
(I + J)jJ equation is a nil ring, being the hornomorphic image of the nil ideal N 2'
 46 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS THE CLASSICAL ISOMORPHISM THEOREMS 47

Corollary 1. Let f be a homomorphism from the ring R onto the rillg From this factorization, it is easy to see that f is a homomorphism with
R'. If l' is any ideal of R', then R/ f -1(1') ~ R' / 1'. f(l) = (1 + J)/J. To confirm that the kernel ofjis precisely the set 1 Í \ J,
notice that the coset J serves as the zero element of (1 + 1)/J, and so
Proof In compliance with the corollary to Theorem 2-8,f - 1(1') forms an
ideal of R. Furthermore, ker f S; f -1(1'), so that Theorern 3-9leads directly ker f = {a E ll f (a) = J}
to the isomorphism = {a E 1a + J = J} = {a E lla E J} = 1 Í \ J.
R/r 1(I') ~ R'/f(J-1(I')) = R'/1'. The asserted isomorphism should now be evident from the Fundamental
Ariother special case, itself of interest, is the following. Homomorphism Theorem.

Corollary 2. Let 1 and J be two ideals of the ring R, with J
ljJ is an ideal of R/J and (RjJ)/(l/J) ~ R/1.
Proof As we know, if 1 is an ideal of the ring R and f is any hornomorphism
of R, thenf(l) constitutes an ideal ofthe imagef(R). In the setting at hand,
take f to be the natural. mapping natJ: R --+- RjJ; then l/J = nat J 1 forms
an ideal ofthe quotient ring R' = RjJ. Since ker (natJ) = J S; 1, Theorern
3-9 implies tbat R/l is isomorphic to (RjJ)/(l/J) under the induced mapping
g where g = nat¡!J o natJ.
The diagram displayed below may be of sorne help in visualizing the
situation described by the last corollary:
R ~R/l
~~R/J 1'
1 ~ (R/J)/(l/J)
S; l. Then We conclude tbis chapter with a brief excursion into the theory of nil
and nilpotent ideals: a (right, left, two-sided) ideal 1 of the ring R is said to
be a nil ideal if each element x in 1 is nilpotent; that is to say, if there exists
a positive integer n for which x!' = O, where n depends upon the particular
element x. As one might expect, the ideal 1 will be termed nilpotent provided
1" = {O} for sorne positive integer n. By definition, In denotes the set of all
finite sums of products of n elements taken from 1, so that 1" = {O} is
equivalent too requiring that for every choice of n elements al' a 2 , ... , a n E 1
(distinct or not), the product a 1a Z '" an = O; in particular, a n = O for all
a in 1, whence every nilpotent ideal is autornatically a nil ideal. We speak
of the ring R as being nil (ni!potent) if it is ni! (ni!potent) when regarded as
an ideal. Notice, too, that any ideal containing a nonzero idempotent element
cannot be nilpotent.
With these definitions at our disposal, we can now prove two le,?mas.

nat'/l
Lemma. 1) If R is a ni! (nilpotent) ring, then every subring and every
By virtue of our assumptions, there exists a (necessarily unique) isomorphism homomorphic image of R is ni! (nilpotent).
g: R/l --+- (R/1)/(l/J) such that 2) If R contains an ideal 1 such that 1 and R/l are both ni! (ni!potent),
then R is a pil (ni!potent) ringo
g o nat¡ = nat¡jJ o natJ'
Let us now take up the second of our general isomorphism theorems. Proof The proof of assertion (1) follows irnmediately from the definitions
and Problem i-17.' To verify(2), assume that 1 and R/l are nil rings and
Theorem 3-10. If 1 and J are ideals of the ring R, then that a E R. Then there exists sorne positive integer n for which the coset
1/(1 Í \ 1) ~ (1+ J)/J.
(a + l)n = a n +1 = 1,
Proof Reasoning as in Theorern 3-9, we seek a homornorphism f from 1
(regarded ~ a ring) onto the quotient ring (1 + 1)jJ such that ker f = 1 Í \ J. signifying that the élement a n E l. Inasrnuch as lis a nil ideal, (an)m = a nnl = O
Our candidate for this functionfis defined by declaring thatf(a) = a + J, for sorne m E Z+. This implies that a is ni!potent as a member of R and, in
a E 1. A trivial, but useful, observation is that 1 S; 1 + J, whence f can consequence, R is a ni! ringo The remainder of the proof is left to the
be obtained bycomposing the injection map i¡: 1 --+- 1 + J with the natural reader's careo
mapping natJ: 1 + J _ (1 + 1)/J. To be quite explicit, f = nat J o i¡ or,
Lemma. If NI and N 2 are two nil (nilpotent) ideals of the ring R, then
in diagrammatic language,
their sum NI + N z is likewise a ni! (nilpotent) ideal.
1 1, ,1 +J
I~ /nat, Proof With reference to Theorem 3-10, we have (NI + Nz)/N 1 ~
N z/(N 1 Í \ N 2)' The right-hand side (hence, the left-hand side) of this
(I + J)jJ equation is a nil ring, being the hornomorphic image of the nil ideal N 2'
 PROBLEMS 49
48 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
.after a certain, but not fixed, point. One may easily check that R constitut
Since (N I +, N 2)/N I and NI are both nil, it follows from the previous lemma a subring ?f ~he ringo S (in fact, R is not only a subring, but actually an ide:~
that NI + N 2 is necessarily a nil ideal. Similar reasoning applies to the of S): It IS III the nng R that we propose to construct our example of
nilpotent case. non-nilpotent nil ideal. ' a
Corollary. The sum of any finite number of ni] (nilpotent) ideals of the Le~ u~ den.ote b~ J the set o(sequences in R whose nth term belo'ngs to
ring R is again nil (nilpotent). . the pnnclpal Ideal III Zpn generated by p; in other words the sequence
a E J if and only if it is of the form . ,
Havjng completed the necessary preliminaries, let us now establish
a = (pr l ,pr2, ... ; prn' O, O, ... ) (r k E Zpk).
Theorem 3-11. The sum I Ni bf all the nil ideals Ni of the ring R is a
A routine ca1culation confirms that J is an ideal of R. Since each term of
nil ideal.
a is nilpotent in the appropriate ring, it follows that .
Proa! If the element a E I Ni' then, by definition; a lies in some finite sum
of nil ideal s of R; say, a E NI + N 2 + .... +. N n , wh<::re each N k is nil. ,'a" = O = (O, O, O, ... )
By virtue of the last Gorollary, the sum N f' + N 2 + ... + N n must be a for n large enough, .maki~g J a nil, ideal. (This also depends on the fact
nil ideal; hence, the element a is nilpotent. This argument shows that I Ni that a has only a fimte number of nonzero terms.) ."
is a nil ideal. . At the present stage, it is still conceivable that 1 mighLbe a nilpotent
It is possible to deduce somewhat moré; na~mely, Id~al of R. I:Iowever, we:can show that for each posit:ive.iiíteger n there
eXIst elements (sequen ces) a E 1 for which' an f O. For instance defi
Corollary. The sum of all the nilpotent ideals of the ring R is a nil b k' . ' ne
a = .{ ak } Y ta lllg ak = P If k = 1, 2, .. , ,n + 1 and ak = O if k > n + l'
ideal. ~~ ,
Proa!. Since each nilpotent ideal is a nil ideal, thesum N of all nilpotent a = (p, ... , p, p, O, : .. ) with n + 1 p's.
ideals of R is contained in I Ni' the sum of all nil ideals. But IN
i is itse1f One then obtains
a nil ideal, making N nil.
an = (O, ... , O, pn, O, ... ),
Example 3-2. For examples of nilpotent ideals~ let us turn to the rings
Zpn, where p is a fixed prime and n > 1. By virtue of the remarks on page where all the terms are zero except the (n + l)st, which is pn. Sin ce pn is a
42, Zpn has exacdy one ideal for each positive divisor of pn and no other nnonzero elemento of the ring Zpn+l, the sequence an f O, implying that
ideals; these are simply the principal ideal s (l) = lz pn (O :::; k :::; n). For J. f {O}. As thls argument holds for any n E Z+, the ideal J carinot be
O < k :::; n, we ha ve ' mlpotent.
(I)n = (pnk) = (O) = {O}, W,e sh.all retu.rn. to these ide~s at the appropriate place in the sequel,
at whlch tIme thelr Importance wI1l become dear.
so that each proper ideal of Zpn is nilpotent.
Before leaving this chapter, we should present an example to show that,
in generai, nil and nilpotent'are different concepts. PROBLEMS
Example 3-3. For a fixed prime p, let S be the collection of sequences
1. Le.t == be ~n equival.ence ~elation on the ring R. We say that ==, is eompatible
a = {a } with the property that the nth term a",E Zpn (n ~ 1). S can be (WI~ the nng operatlOns) If and only if a == b implies a + e == b + e, ae == be,
n
made into a ring by performing the operations of addition and multiplication ea =:' eb for all a, b, e E R. Prove that there is a one-to-one correspondence between
term by term : the Ideals of R and the set of compatible equivalence relations on R.
{a,,} + {b,,} = {a n + bn}, {a,,}{b,,} = {a"b,,}. '!. Ir R is an arbitrary ring and11 E Z+, prove that
a) the sets I" = {llaJa E R} and J" = {a E RJlla = O} are both ideals of R'
The reader will find that the zero e1ement of this ring is just the sequence b) char (R/ln) divides 11; ,
formed by the zero elements af the various Zpn and the negative of {a n} c) if char R =1= O, then char R divides 11 char (RfJ,,).
is { - a,,}. Now, consider the set R of all sequences in S which become zero
 PROBLEMS 49
48 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
.after a certain, but not fixed, point. One may easily check that R constitut
Since (N I +, N 2)/N I and NI are both nil, it follows from the previous lemma a subring ?f ~he ringo S (in fact, R is not only a subring, but actually an ide:~
that NI + N 2 is necessarily a nil ideal. Similar reasoning applies to the of S): It IS III the nng R that we propose to construct our example of
nilpotent case. non-nilpotent nil ideal. ' a
Corollary. The sum of any finite number of ni] (nilpotent) ideals of the Le~ u~ den.ote b~ J the set o(sequences in R whose nth term belo'ngs to
ring R is again nil (nilpotent). . the pnnclpal Ideal III Zpn generated by p; in other words the sequence
a E J if and only if it is of the form . ,
Havjng completed the necessary preliminaries, let us now establish
a = (pr l ,pr2, ... ; prn' O, O, ... ) (r k E Zpk).
Theorem 3-11. The sum I Ni bf all the nil ideals Ni of the ring R is a
A routine ca1culation confirms that J is an ideal of R. Since each term of
nil ideal.
a is nilpotent in the appropriate ring, it follows that .
Proa! If the element a E I Ni' then, by definition; a lies in some finite sum
of nil ideal s of R; say, a E NI + N 2 + .... +. N n , wh<::re each N k is nil. ,'a" = O = (O, O, O, ... )
By virtue of the last Gorollary, the sum N f' + N 2 + ... + N n must be a for n large enough, .maki~g J a nil, ideal. (This also depends on the fact
nil ideal; hence, the element a is nilpotent. This argument shows that I Ni that a has only a fimte number of nonzero terms.) ."
is a nil ideal. . At the present stage, it is still conceivable that 1 mighLbe a nilpotent
It is possible to deduce somewhat moré; na~mely, Id~al of R. I:Iowever, we:can show that for each posit:ive.iiíteger n there
eXIst elements (sequen ces) a E 1 for which' an f O. For instance defi
Corollary. The sum of all the nilpotent ideals of the ring R is a nil b k' . ' ne
a = .{ ak } Y ta lllg ak = P If k = 1, 2, .. , ,n + 1 and ak = O if k > n + l'
ideal. ~~ ,
Proa!. Since each nilpotent ideal is a nil ideal, thesum N of all nilpotent a = (p, ... , p, p, O, : .. ) with n + 1 p's.
ideals of R is contained in I Ni' the sum of all nil ideals. But IN
i is itse1f One then obtains
a nil ideal, making N nil.
an = (O, ... , O, pn, O, ... ),
Example 3-2. For examples of nilpotent ideals~ let us turn to the rings
Zpn, where p is a fixed prime and n > 1. By virtue of the remarks on page where all the terms are zero except the (n + l)st, which is pn. Sin ce pn is a
42, Zpn has exacdy one ideal for each positive divisor of pn and no other nnonzero elemento of the ring Zpn+l, the sequence an f O, implying that
ideals; these are simply the principal ideal s (l) = lz pn (O :::; k :::; n). For J. f {O}. As thls argument holds for any n E Z+, the ideal J carinot be
O < k :::; n, we ha ve ' mlpotent.
(I)n = (pnk) = (O) = {O}, W,e sh.all retu.rn. to these ide~s at the appropriate place in the sequel,
at whlch tIme thelr Importance wI1l become dear.
so that each proper ideal of Zpn is nilpotent.
Before leaving this chapter, we should present an example to show that,
in generai, nil and nilpotent'are different concepts. PROBLEMS
Example 3-3. For a fixed prime p, let S be the collection of sequences
1. Le.t == be ~n equival.ence ~elation on the ring R. We say that ==, is eompatible
a = {a } with the property that the nth term a",E Zpn (n ~ 1). S can be (WI~ the nng operatlOns) If and only if a == b implies a + e == b + e, ae == be,
n
made into a ring by performing the operations of addition and multiplication ea =:' eb for all a, b, e E R. Prove that there is a one-to-one correspondence between
term by term : the Ideals of R and the set of compatible equivalence relations on R.
{a,,} + {b,,} = {a n + bn}, {a,,}{b,,} = {a"b,,}. '!. Ir R is an arbitrary ring and11 E Z+, prove that
a) the sets I" = {llaJa E R} and J" = {a E RJlla = O} are both ideals of R'
The reader will find that the zero e1ement of this ring is just the sequence b) char (R/ln) divides 11; ,
formed by the zero elements af the various Zpn and the negative of {a n} c) if char R =1= O, then char R divides 11 char (RfJ,,).
is { - a,,}. Now, consider the set R of all sequences in S which become zero
 50 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 51

3. Let l be an ideal of the ring R. Establish each of the following:

a) [R, RJ S; kerf;
a) R/I has no divisors ofzero ifand only if ab E 1 implies that either a or b belongs
b) f = lo nat(R RJ, where]is the induced mapping;
to l.
c) if kerf s; [R, RJ, then R/[R, RJ "" R'/[R', R'J.
b) R/I is commutative if and only if ab - ba E l for all a, b in R.
c) R/I has an identity element if and only ir there is some e E R such that 12. a) Suppose that l1 and 12 are ideills of the ring R for which R = 1 1 EB 1 2 • Prove
ae - a E 1 and ea - a E 1 for all a in R. that R/l1 "" 12, and R/12 "" 1 1.
d) Whenever R is a commutative ring with identity, Jhe~ so is the quotient ring b) Let R be the direct sum of the rings R¡ (i = 1,2, ... , n). If 1¡ is an ideal of R¡
R/l. and 1 = 1 1 EB 12 EB ... EB 1", show that
4. Let R be a commutative ring with identity and let N denote the set of all nilpotent
elements in R. Verify that
a) The set N forms an ideal of R. [Hint: If d' = bm = O for integers n and In, [Hint: Find the kernel of the homomorphism f: R -+ L EB (RJl¡) that sends
consider (a - b)"h.J a = (a l ,a 2,···,an)tof(a) = (al + 11,a2 + 12,···,an + In)']
b) The quotient ring R/N has no nonzero nilpotent elements.
13. For a proof of Theorem 3-9 that does not depend on the Fundamental Homo-
5. Prove the following generalization of the Factorization Theorem: Let fl and f2 morphism Theorem, define the function h: R/l -+ R'/f(I) by taking h(a + 1) =
be homomorphisms from the ring R onto the rings RI and R 2 , respectively. If f(a) + f(l).
ker fl S; ker f2' then there exists a unique homomorphism J: R 1 -+ R 2 satisfying a) Show that h is a well-defined isomorphism onto R'/f(I); hence, R/l ~ R'/f(l).
h =]0 ft. [Hint: Mimic the argument of Theorem 3-6; that is, for any element b) Establish that h is the unique mapping that makes the diagram below
fl(a) E R I, define ](JI(a») = f2(a).J commutative:
6. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. Assurne further that J and K are two subrings of
R LR'=f(R)
R with 1 S; J, l S; K. Show that
a) J S; K if and only if nat 1 J S; nat 1K
b) nat1 (J 1\ K) = nat 1 J 1\ nat 1K.
nat1 1 1 nat f(I)
R/l h R'If(l)
7. If 1 is an ideal of the ring R, prove that .
a) R/l is a simple ring if and only if there is no ideal J of R satisfying J e J e R;
14. Given integers m, n E Z+, establish that
b) if R is a principal ideal ring, then so is the quotient ring R/l; in particular, Zn
a) if m divides n, then Znj(m)/(n) "" Zm;
is a principal ideal ring for each n E Z+. [Hint: Problem 17, Chapter 2.J
b) if m and n are relatively prime, then Zmn ~ Zm EB Zn'
8. a) Given a homomorphism f from the ring R onto the ring R', showthat
15. If 1 is an ideal of the ring R, prove that the matrix ring M n (R/l) is isomorphic to
U-I(b)\b E R'} constitutes a partition of R into the cosets of the ideal kerf
Mn(R)fMn(I). [Hint: Consider the mapping f: Mn(R) -+ M n(R/1) defined by
[Hint: If b = f(a), then the coset a + kerf = f-l(b).J
f(a¡)) = (a¡) + l).J .
b) Verify that (up to isomorphism) the only homomorphic images of the ring Z
of integers are the rings Zn' n > O, and {O}. 16. Let R be a ring without divisors of zero. Imbed E. in the ring R' = R x Z, as
described in Theorem 2-12. (The case R = Ze illustrates that R' may contain
9. Suppose that S is a subring and 1 an ideal of the ring R. If S 1\ 1 = {O},prove
zero divisors even though R does not.) Assuming that 1 denotes the left annihilator
that S is isomorphic to a subring of the quotient ring R/l. [Hint: Utilize the
of R in R',
mappingf(a) = a + 1, where a E S.J
1 = {a ER'\ar = O for all r ER},
10. A commutatorin a ring R is defined to be any element oftheform [a, bJ = ab - ba.
The commutator ideal of R, denoted by [R, RJ, is the ideal of R generated by the verify that
set of all commutators. Prove that a) l forms an ideal of R'. [Hint: R is an ideal of R'.J
a) Ris a commutative ringifand only if[R, RJ = {O} (in a sense, the size of[R, RJ b) R'/l is a ring with identity which has no divisors of zero.
provides a measure of the noncommutativity of R); c) R'/l contains a subring isomorphic to R. [Hint: Utilize Problem 9.J
b) for an ideal 1 of R, the quotient ring R/l is commutative if and only if
[R, RJ S; l.
11. Assuming that f is a homomorphism from the ring R onto the commutative ring
R', establish the assertions below:
 50 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 51

3. Let l be an ideal of the ring R. Establish each of the following:

a) [R, RJ S; kerf;
a) R/I has no divisors ofzero ifand only if ab E 1 implies that either a or b belongs
b) f = lo nat(R RJ, where]is the induced mapping;
to l.
c) if kerf s; [R, RJ, then R/[R, RJ "" R'/[R', R'J.
b) R/I is commutative if and only if ab - ba E l for all a, b in R.
c) R/I has an identity element if and only ir there is some e E R such that 12. a) Suppose that l1 and 12 are ideills of the ring R for which R = 1 1 EB 1 2 • Prove
ae - a E 1 and ea - a E 1 for all a in R. that R/l1 "" 12, and R/12 "" 1 1.
d) Whenever R is a commutative ring with identity, Jhe~ so is the quotient ring b) Let R be the direct sum of the rings R¡ (i = 1,2, ... , n). If 1¡ is an ideal of R¡
R/l. and 1 = 1 1 EB 12 EB ... EB 1", show that
4. Let R be a commutative ring with identity and let N denote the set of all nilpotent
elements in R. Verify that
a) The set N forms an ideal of R. [Hint: If d' = bm = O for integers n and In, [Hint: Find the kernel of the homomorphism f: R -+ L EB (RJl¡) that sends
consider (a - b)"h.J a = (a l ,a 2,···,an)tof(a) = (al + 11,a2 + 12,···,an + In)']
b) The quotient ring R/N has no nonzero nilpotent elements.
13. For a proof of Theorem 3-9 that does not depend on the Fundamental Homo-
5. Prove the following generalization of the Factorization Theorem: Let fl and f2 morphism Theorem, define the function h: R/l -+ R'/f(I) by taking h(a + 1) =
be homomorphisms from the ring R onto the rings RI and R 2 , respectively. If f(a) + f(l).
ker fl S; ker f2' then there exists a unique homomorphism J: R 1 -+ R 2 satisfying a) Show that h is a well-defined isomorphism onto R'/f(I); hence, R/l ~ R'/f(l).
h =]0 ft. [Hint: Mimic the argument of Theorem 3-6; that is, for any element b) Establish that h is the unique mapping that makes the diagram below
fl(a) E R I, define ](JI(a») = f2(a).J commutative:
6. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. Assurne further that J and K are two subrings of
R LR'=f(R)
R with 1 S; J, l S; K. Show that
a) J S; K if and only if nat 1 J S; nat 1K
b) nat1 (J 1\ K) = nat 1 J 1\ nat 1K.
nat1 1 1 nat f(I)
R/l h R'If(l)
7. If 1 is an ideal of the ring R, prove that .
a) R/l is a simple ring if and only if there is no ideal J of R satisfying J e J e R;
14. Given integers m, n E Z+, establish that
b) if R is a principal ideal ring, then so is the quotient ring R/l; in particular, Zn
a) if m divides n, then Znj(m)/(n) "" Zm;
is a principal ideal ring for each n E Z+. [Hint: Problem 17, Chapter 2.J
b) if m and n are relatively prime, then Zmn ~ Zm EB Zn'
8. a) Given a homomorphism f from the ring R onto the ring R', showthat
15. If 1 is an ideal of the ring R, prove that the matrix ring M n (R/l) is isomorphic to
U-I(b)\b E R'} constitutes a partition of R into the cosets of the ideal kerf
Mn(R)fMn(I). [Hint: Consider the mapping f: Mn(R) -+ M n(R/1) defined by
[Hint: If b = f(a), then the coset a + kerf = f-l(b).J
f(a¡)) = (a¡) + l).J .
b) Verify that (up to isomorphism) the only homomorphic images of the ring Z
of integers are the rings Zn' n > O, and {O}. 16. Let R be a ring without divisors of zero. Imbed E. in the ring R' = R x Z, as
described in Theorem 2-12. (The case R = Ze illustrates that R' may contain
9. Suppose that S is a subring and 1 an ideal of the ring R. If S 1\ 1 = {O},prove
zero divisors even though R does not.) Assuming that 1 denotes the left annihilator
that S is isomorphic to a subring of the quotient ring R/l. [Hint: Utilize the
of R in R',
mappingf(a) = a + 1, where a E S.J
1 = {a ER'\ar = O for all r ER},
10. A commutatorin a ring R is defined to be any element oftheform [a, bJ = ab - ba.
The commutator ideal of R, denoted by [R, RJ, is the ideal of R generated by the verify that
set of all commutators. Prove that a) l forms an ideal of R'. [Hint: R is an ideal of R'.J
a) Ris a commutative ringifand only if[R, RJ = {O} (in a sense, the size of[R, RJ b) R'/l is a ring with identity which has no divisors of zero.
provides a measure of the noncommutativity of R); c) R'/l contains a subring isomorphic to R. [Hint: Utilize Problem 9.J
b) for an ideal 1 of R, the quotient ring R/l is commutative if and only if
[R, RJ S; l.
11. Assuming that f is a homomorphism from the ring R onto the commutative ring
R', establish the assertions below:
 INTEGRAL OOMAINS ANO FIELOS 53

FOUR ExampJe 4-2. <?onsi~er the set e = R# x R# of ordered pairs of real

numbers. To turo e mto a field, we define addition and multiplication by
(a, b) + (e, d) = (a + e, b . + d),
(a, b)(~, d)' = (ae - bd, ad + be).
~he re~der may verify without difficulty that e, together with these opera-
bons, IS a commutative ring with identity. In this setting, the pair (1 O)
INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS se~ves as the multiplicative identity, and (0, O) is the zero element ofthe ri~g.
Glven any nonzero element (a, b) of e, either a =1= O or b =1= 0, so that
a 2 + b 2 > O; thus, .

In the preceding chapters a hierarchy of special rings has been establislied

by impó~ing more and more restrictions on the muItiplicative semigroup
of a riiig:: At first glance, one might be tempted to require that the multi- exists in e and has the property that
plicativ,esemigroup actúalIy be a group; such an assumption would be far . ,
2 2
too demanding in that this situation can only take place in the trivial ring (a b){ a . - b ) _Lra +b a(-b) +ab»c "
consisti~ ofzero alone. A less stringent conditionwould be the folIowing:
i'
, \a 2
+ b2 ' \a
a2 + b2 - . 2 + b2 ' a2 + bf,: ;,~.(1·'9)·
. the nonzero elements comprise a group under multiplication. This leads ¡
to the notion of a field. ¡ This shows that each nonzero member of e has an inverse 'under multi- .
! plication, thereby proving the system e to be a field.
. Definition 4-1. A ring F is said to be a field provided that the set
:". It is worth pointing out that the field e contains a subring isomorphic
. i to the field ofreal numbers .. For, if .
F - {O} is a commutative group under the multiplication of F (the
identity of this group wiI1 be written as 1). R# x {O} = {Ca, O)la E R#},
Definition 4-1 implicitly assumes that any field F contains at least one it follows that R # .~. R ~ x {O} via the mapping f defIned by fea) = (a, O).
element different from zero, for F - {O} must be nonempty, serving as the Inasmuch as the dlsbnctlOn between these systems is only one of notation
set of elements of a group. It is also to be remarked that, since aO = O = Oa we customarily identify the real ÍlUmber a with the corresponding ordered
for any a é F, alI the members 'of F commute under multiplication and not pair (a, O); in this sense, R# may be regarded as a subring of C..
·i
merely the nonzero elements. Similarly, the relation 10 = 0= 01 implies Now, the definitión of the operations in e enables us to express an
that 1 is the identity for the entire ring F. Viewed otherwise: a fieJd 'is a 1 . arbitrary element (a, b) E e as . . . . ......
commutative ring with identity in which each nonzero element possesses
an inverse under multiplication.
OccasionalIy, we shalI find it convenient to drop the requirement of
!
11
(a, b) = (a, O) +
. where the pair (O, 1) is such that (O, 1)2 = (O, 1)(0, 1)
(b, 0)(0, 1),
= (-1, O). Introducing
,1
commutativity in the consideration of a field, in which case the resulting the symbol i as an abbreviation for (O, 1), we have
system is called a division ring or skew fie/d. That is 1:0 say, a ring is a
division ring if its nonzero elements form a group (not necessarily com- (a, b) = (a, O) + (b, O)í.
mutative) with respect to muItiplication. Finally, if it is agreed to replace pairs of the form (a, O) by the first com-
After this preamble, let us look at several examples. ponent a ~this is justified by the precedíng paragraph), the dísplayed
representatlOn becomes
Example 4-1. Bere are some of the more standard illustrations of fields:
the set Q of alI rational nUrribers, the set F = {a + b.J2la, b E Q}, and (a, b) = a + bi, with ¡2 = -1.
the set R# of alI real numbers. In each case the operations are ordinary I~ ot~er wor~s, the field e as defined initiaIly· is' nothing more than a
addition and multiplication. . dlsgUlsed verSlOn ofthe fámilíar complex number system.
52
 INTEGRAL OOMAINS ANO FIELOS 53

FOUR ExampJe 4-2. <?onsi~er the set e = R# x R# of ordered pairs of real

numbers. To turo e mto a field, we define addition and multiplication by
(a, b) + (e, d) = (a + e, b . + d),
(a, b)(~, d)' = (ae - bd, ad + be).
~he re~der may verify without difficulty that e, together with these opera-
bons, IS a commutative ring with identity. In this setting, the pair (1 O)
INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS se~ves as the multiplicative identity, and (0, O) is the zero element ofthe ri~g.
Glven any nonzero element (a, b) of e, either a =1= O or b =1= 0, so that
a 2 + b 2 > O; thus, .

In the preceding chapters a hierarchy of special rings has been establislied

by impó~ing more and more restrictions on the muItiplicative semigroup
of a riiig:: At first glance, one might be tempted to require that the multi- exists in e and has the property that
plicativ,esemigroup actúalIy be a group; such an assumption would be far . ,
2 2
too demanding in that this situation can only take place in the trivial ring (a b){ a . - b ) _Lra +b a(-b) +ab»c "
consisti~ ofzero alone. A less stringent conditionwould be the folIowing:
i'
, \a 2
+ b2 ' \a
a2 + b2 - . 2 + b2 ' a2 + bf,: ;,~.(1·'9)·
. the nonzero elements comprise a group under multiplication. This leads ¡
to the notion of a field. ¡ This shows that each nonzero member of e has an inverse 'under multi- .
! plication, thereby proving the system e to be a field.
. Definition 4-1. A ring F is said to be a field provided that the set
:". It is worth pointing out that the field e contains a subring isomorphic
. i to the field ofreal numbers .. For, if .
F - {O} is a commutative group under the multiplication of F (the
identity of this group wiI1 be written as 1). R# x {O} = {Ca, O)la E R#},
Definition 4-1 implicitly assumes that any field F contains at least one it follows that R # .~. R ~ x {O} via the mapping f defIned by fea) = (a, O).
element different from zero, for F - {O} must be nonempty, serving as the Inasmuch as the dlsbnctlOn between these systems is only one of notation
set of elements of a group. It is also to be remarked that, since aO = O = Oa we customarily identify the real ÍlUmber a with the corresponding ordered
for any a é F, alI the members 'of F commute under multiplication and not pair (a, O); in this sense, R# may be regarded as a subring of C..
·i
merely the nonzero elements. Similarly, the relation 10 = 0= 01 implies Now, the definitión of the operations in e enables us to express an
that 1 is the identity for the entire ring F. Viewed otherwise: a fieJd 'is a 1 . arbitrary element (a, b) E e as . . . . ......
commutative ring with identity in which each nonzero element possesses
an inverse under multiplication.
OccasionalIy, we shalI find it convenient to drop the requirement of
!
11
(a, b) = (a, O) +
. where the pair (O, 1) is such that (O, 1)2 = (O, 1)(0, 1)
(b, 0)(0, 1),
= (-1, O). Introducing
,1
commutativity in the consideration of a field, in which case the resulting the symbol i as an abbreviation for (O, 1), we have
system is called a division ring or skew fie/d. That is 1:0 say, a ring is a
division ring if its nonzero elements form a group (not necessarily com- (a, b) = (a, O) + (b, O)í.
mutative) with respect to muItiplication. Finally, if it is agreed to replace pairs of the form (a, O) by the first com-
After this preamble, let us look at several examples. ponent a ~this is justified by the precedíng paragraph), the dísplayed
representatlOn becomes
Example 4-1. Bere are some of the more standard illustrations of fields:
the set Q of alI rational nUrribers, the set F = {a + b.J2la, b E Q}, and (a, b) = a + bi, with ¡2 = -1.
the set R# of alI real numbers. In each case the operations are ordinary I~ ot~er wor~s, the field e as defined initiaIly· is' nothing more than a
addition and multiplication. . dlsgUlsed verSlOn ofthe fámilíar complex number system.
52
54 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND lDEALS INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS 55

Example 4-3. For an iJIustration of a division ring which is not a field, we It is easily verified that the product
turn to the ring of (Hamilton's) real quaternions. To introduce this ring, let
the set H consist of all ordered 4-tuples of real nUll1bers:
qij ijq = al - (bi + cj + d/c)2 = a2 + b2 + e2 + d2 =t= 0,
thus exhibiting that q has the multiplicative inverse
H = {(a, b, e, d)la, b, e, d E R#}.
q-1 = (a 2 + b2 + c2 + d2)-lq.
Addition and multiplication of the elements of H are defined by the rules
Incidentally, the totality of all members of H of the form (a, b, 0, O) =
(a, b, e, d) + (a', b', e', di) = (a + a', b + b', e + e', d + d'),
a + bi, the special quaternions, c:;onstitute a su bring isomorphic to e; as
(a, b, e, d)(a', b', e', di) = (aa' - bb' ee' dd', ab ' + ba' + ed' de',
substitutes, one might also consider the set of all e1ements (a, 0, b, O) or all
ae' - bd' + Ca' + db', ad' + be' - eb' + da').
elements (a, O, 0, b). In tbis light, the real quaternions may be viewed as a
A certaínamount of tedious, but nonetheless straightforward, calculation suitable generalization of the complex numbers.
shows that the resulting system is a ring (known as the ring of real quater-
The following theorem shows that any field is without divisors of zero,
nions) in which (O, 0, 0, O) and (1, 0, 0, O) act as the zero and identity elements,
and consequently a syst'em in which the cancellation law for multiplication
respectively.
holds.
Let us next introduce some special symbols by putting
Theorem 4-1. Every field F is an integral dornain.
(1,0,0, O), i = (0, 1,0, O), ' j = (0,0,0, 1, O), k = (0,0,0,1).
Proof. Since every field is a commutative ring with identity, we need only
The elements 1, i, j, k have a number of distinctive properties; specifically, prove that F .contains no zero divisors. To thls purpose, suppose a, b E F,
1 is the ll1ultiplicative identity of H and with ab O. If the element a =t= 0, then it must possess a multiplicative
i2 = i k2 = -1, inverse a -1 E F. But then the hypothesis that ab = yields °
ij = le, jk = i, kí = j, ji = - k, lej = - i,
These relations demonstrate that the commutative law for ll1ultiplication
ik = °= a- 10 = a-1(ab) = lb = b,
as desired.
fails to hold in H, so that H definitely falls short of being a field.
There obviously exist integral domains which are not fields; a prime
As in Example 4-2, the definition of the algebraic operations in H
example is the ring Z ofintegers. liowever, an integral dornain having only
permits us to write each qua~ernion in the form
a finite ilUmber of elements must necessarily be a field.
(a, b, e: d) = (a, 0, 0,0)1.-1: (b, 0, 0, O)í + (e, 0,0, Olí + (d,O, 0, O)k TheOÍ'em 4-2. Any integral domain R with only a finite number of ideals
Since the subring {(r, 0, 0, O)jr:ER#} is isomorphic to R#, the'notation can is a field.
be rurther simplified on replacing (r, 0, 0, O) by the element r itself; adopting
Proof. Let a be any nonzero elernent of R. Consider the set of principal
these conventions, the real quaternions may henceforth be regarded as the
ideals (d'), where n e
set
H = {a +bi + ej + dkla,b,c,deR#}, (a n) = {r d'lr E R}.
with addition and multiplication performefl as for polynoll1ials (subject to Since R has only a finite number of distinct ideals, it follows that (a m ) = (a n)
the rules of the last paragraph). The reader versed in linear algebra should for certain positlve integers m, n with m < n. Now, am , as an element of
recognize that H comprises a four-dimensional vector space over R# having (a"'), must lie in (a n). This being so, there exists some r E R for which
{1, i,j, le} as a basis. . a nl = r al!. By use of the cancellation law,
The main point in our investigation is that any nonzero quatermon
1 = ra n - m = (ra"-m-1)a.
q = a + bi + ej + die (in other words, one of a, b, e, d must be different
from zero) is a multiplicatively invertible element. By analogy with the Because multiplication is commutative, we therefore have a- 1 = r an - m - 1 •
complex numbers, each quaternion has a conjugate, defined as follows: This argument shows that every nonzero element of R is invertible; hence,
q = a - bi - cj dk. R forrns a freid.
54 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND lDEALS INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS 55

Example 4-3. For an iJIustration of a division ring which is not a field, we It is easily verified that the product
turn to the ring of (Hamilton's) real quaternions. To introduce this ring, let
the set H consist of all ordered 4-tuples of real nUll1bers:
qij ijq = al - (bi + cj + d/c)2 = a2 + b2 + e2 + d2 =t= 0,
thus exhibiting that q has the multiplicative inverse
H = {(a, b, e, d)la, b, e, d E R#}.
q-1 = (a 2 + b2 + c2 + d2)-lq.
Addition and multiplication of the elements of H are defined by the rules
Incidentally, the totality of all members of H of the form (a, b, 0, O) =
(a, b, e, d) + (a', b', e', di) = (a + a', b + b', e + e', d + d'),
a + bi, the special quaternions, c:;onstitute a su bring isomorphic to e; as
(a, b, e, d)(a', b', e', di) = (aa' - bb' ee' dd', ab ' + ba' + ed' de',
substitutes, one might also consider the set of all e1ements (a, 0, b, O) or all
ae' - bd' + Ca' + db', ad' + be' - eb' + da').
elements (a, O, 0, b). In tbis light, the real quaternions may be viewed as a
A certaínamount of tedious, but nonetheless straightforward, calculation suitable generalization of the complex numbers.
shows that the resulting system is a ring (known as the ring of real quater-
The following theorem shows that any field is without divisors of zero,
nions) in which (O, 0, 0, O) and (1, 0, 0, O) act as the zero and identity elements,
and consequently a syst'em in which the cancellation law for multiplication
respectively.
holds.
Let us next introduce some special symbols by putting
Theorem 4-1. Every field F is an integral dornain.
(1,0,0, O), i = (0, 1,0, O), ' j = (0,0,0, 1, O), k = (0,0,0,1).
Proof. Since every field is a commutative ring with identity, we need only
The elements 1, i, j, k have a number of distinctive properties; specifically, prove that F .contains no zero divisors. To thls purpose, suppose a, b E F,
1 is the ll1ultiplicative identity of H and with ab O. If the element a =t= 0, then it must possess a multiplicative
i2 = i k2 = -1, inverse a -1 E F. But then the hypothesis that ab = yields °
ij = le, jk = i, kí = j, ji = - k, lej = - i,
These relations demonstrate that the commutative law for ll1ultiplication
ik = °= a- 10 = a-1(ab) = lb = b,
as desired.
fails to hold in H, so that H definitely falls short of being a field.
There obviously exist integral domains which are not fields; a prime
As in Example 4-2, the definition of the algebraic operations in H
example is the ring Z ofintegers. liowever, an integral dornain having only
permits us to write each qua~ernion in the form
a finite ilUmber of elements must necessarily be a field.
(a, b, e: d) = (a, 0, 0,0)1.-1: (b, 0, 0, O)í + (e, 0,0, Olí + (d,O, 0, O)k TheOÍ'em 4-2. Any integral domain R with only a finite number of ideals
Since the subring {(r, 0, 0, O)jr:ER#} is isomorphic to R#, the'notation can is a field.
be rurther simplified on replacing (r, 0, 0, O) by the element r itself; adopting
Proof. Let a be any nonzero elernent of R. Consider the set of principal
these conventions, the real quaternions may henceforth be regarded as the
ideals (d'), where n e
set
H = {a +bi + ej + dkla,b,c,deR#}, (a n) = {r d'lr E R}.
with addition and multiplication performefl as for polynoll1ials (subject to Since R has only a finite number of distinct ideals, it follows that (a m ) = (a n)
the rules of the last paragraph). The reader versed in linear algebra should for certain positlve integers m, n with m < n. Now, am , as an element of
recognize that H comprises a four-dimensional vector space over R# having (a"'), must lie in (a n). This being so, there exists some r E R for which
{1, i,j, le} as a basis. . a nl = r al!. By use of the cancellation law,
The main point in our investigation is that any nonzero quatermon
1 = ra n - m = (ra"-m-1)a.
q = a + bi + ej + die (in other words, one of a, b, e, d must be different
from zero) is a multiplicatively invertible element. By analogy with the Because multiplication is commutative, we therefore have a- 1 = r an - m - 1 •
complex numbers, each quaternion has a conjugate, defined as follows: This argument shows that every nonzero element of R is invertible; hence,
q = a - bi - cj dk. R forrns a freid.
 56 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS'
Corollary. Any finite integral domain is a field.
Because the aforementioned corollary is so basic a result, we offer a
second proof. The "counting argument" involved in this latter proof adapts
to a variety of situations in which the underIying ring is finite.
The reasoning proceeds as follows. Suppose that al' a2 , ... , a" are the
members of the integral domain R. For a fixed nonzero element a E R, we
consi~er the n products aa l , aa 2 , ... ,aa". These products are all distinct,
for.if aa¡ = aaj , the cancellation law (valid in any integral domain) would
yie1d a¡ = ajO It follows that each e1ement of R must be of the form aa¡
for sorne choice of i. In particular, there exists sorne a¡E R such that aa¡ = 1.
From the commutativity of multiplication, we infer thiit a- l = a¡, whence
every nonzero element of R possesses a multiplicative iriverse.
There are no fini.te division rings which are not fieÚ¡,s. To put it another
way, in a finite systel11 in which all the field properti~s:except the cornmuta-
tivity of multiplicaticin are assumed, the multiplicati.on'must also be com-
mutative. Proving this renowned result is far from being as elementary as
the case of a finite integral domain and is deferred until Chaptet 9.
For the moment, let us take a c10ser look at the multiplication structure
of Z". It has been previously shown that, for each positive integer n, Z"
comprises a commutative ring w!th identity. A reasonable question is: For
precisely what yalues of n, if any at all, will this ring turn out to be a field?
For a quick answer: n must be a prime number. (What could be simpler
or more natural?) This fact is brought out by the coming theorem.
Theorem 4-3. A nonzero element [aJE Z" is invertible in the ring
Z" if and only if a and n are relatively prime integers (in the sense that
gcd(a, n) = 1).
Proo! If a and n are relatively prime, then there exist integers l' and s such
that al' + ns = 1. This implies that . of invertible e1ements in the ring Z". By virtue of Theorem 4-3~ cjJ(n) may
[lJ = [al' + nsJ = [arJ +" [nsJ
= [arJ +" [OJ = [aJ ." [rJ,
showing the congruence c1ass [1' J to be the multiplicative inverse of [a].
Now to the "only if" part. Assume [aJ to bea multiplicatively invertible
elementofZ";say,withinverse[b]. Wethushave[abJ = [aJ'"[bJ = [lJ,
so that there exists an integer k for which ab - 1 = kn. But then
ab + n( -k) = 1; hence, a and n are relatively prime integers.
Corollary., The zero divisors of Z" are precisely the nonzero elements
of Z" which are not invertible.
Proo! Naturally, no zero divisor of Z" can possess a multiplicative inverse.
On the other hand, suppose that [aJ =1= [OJ is not invertible in Z", so that
INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS 57
gcd(a, n) = d, where 1 < d '< n. Then, a = rd and n = sd for suitable
nonzero integers l' and s. This leads to
[aJ ." [sJ = [asJ = [rdsJ = [rnJ = [O].
Since the defining properties of s rule oU,t the possibilitythat [sJ = [OJ,
it follows that [aJ is a zero divisor of Z" . .,;
These results may be convenient1y submarized in the following state-
ment.
Theorem 4-4. The ring Z" of integer{!'\1odulo n is a field ,if and only if
n is a prime number. If n is composit~,: then Z" is not an integral domain
and the zero divisors of Z" are tho~~;!10nzero elements [aJ for which
gcd(a, n) =1= 1. :j:i:. "
Every field necessarily has at least twO: elements (1 being different from '
O); Theorem 4-4 indicates that there is ~>~eId having this miniT~ITI number
as its number of elements, viz. Z2' <'éle:' ;~ ..
As an interesting appÚca'tion of these ideas, considei' 'ihe following
assertion: If there exists a homomorphism f: Z --+ F of the ring Z of integers
onto a field F, then F is necessarily a finite field with a prime number of
e1ements. For, by the Fundamental Homomorphism Theorem, Zjker f ~ F.
But ker f = (n) for sorne positiveintegei n, since Zis a principal ideal domain.
(In this connection, observe that n =1= O, for otherwise Z would be isomorphic
to a field, an impossibility.) Taking stock ofthe fact that Zj(n) = Z", we are
thus able to conc1ude that Z" ~ F, in consequence of which F has n
elements. At this point Theorem 4-4 comes to our aid; since F, and in turn
its isomorphic image Z", forms a field, n must be a prime nilmber.
A useful counting function is the so-called Eufer phi1unCtion (totient),
defined as follows: cjJ(l) =' 1 and, for each integer n > 1, cjJ(n) is the number
al so be characterized as the number of positive integers < n which are
relatively prime to n. For instance, cjJ(6) = 2, cjJ(9) = 6, and cjJ(12) = 4; it
should be equally c1ear that whenever pis a primenumber, then cjJ(p) = p - 1.
Lemma. If G" is the subset of Z" defined by
G,; = {[aJ E Z"la is relatively prime to n},
then (G", ',,) forms a finite group of order cjJ(n).
Proo! In the light of the preceding remarks, (G", .") is simply the group of
invertible elements of Z".
This leads at once to a c1assical result of Euler concerning the phi-
function; the simplicity of the argument illustrates the advantage of the
algebraic approach to number theory.
 56 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS'
Corollary. Any finite integral domain is a field.
Because the aforementioned corollary is so basic a result, we offer a
second proof. The "counting argument" involved in this latter proof adapts
to a variety of situations in which the underIying ring is finite.
The reasoning proceeds as follows. Suppose that al' a2 , ... , a" are the
members of the integral domain R. For a fixed nonzero element a E R, we
consi~er the n products aa l , aa 2 , ... ,aa". These products are all distinct,
for.if aa¡ = aaj , the cancellation law (valid in any integral domain) would
yie1d a¡ = ajO It follows that each e1ement of R must be of the form aa¡
for sorne choice of i. In particular, there exists sorne a¡E R such that aa¡ = 1.
From the commutativity of multiplication, we infer thiit a- l = a¡, whence
every nonzero element of R possesses a multiplicative iriverse.
There are no fini.te division rings which are not fieÚ¡,s. To put it another
way, in a finite systel11 in which all the field properti~s:except the cornmuta-
tivity of multiplicaticin are assumed, the multiplicati.on'must also be com-
mutative. Proving this renowned result is far from being as elementary as
the case of a finite integral domain and is deferred until Chaptet 9.
For the moment, let us take a c10ser look at the multiplication structure
of Z". It has been previously shown that, for each positive integer n, Z"
comprises a commutative ring w!th identity. A reasonable question is: For
precisely what yalues of n, if any at all, will this ring turn out to be a field?
For a quick answer: n must be a prime number. (What could be simpler
or more natural?) This fact is brought out by the coming theorem.
Theorem 4-3. A nonzero element [aJE Z" is invertible in the ring
Z" if and only if a and n are relatively prime integers (in the sense that
gcd(a, n) = 1).
Proo! If a and n are relatively prime, then there exist integers l' and s such
that al' + ns = 1. This implies that . of invertible e1ements in the ring Z". By virtue of Theorem 4-3~ cjJ(n) may
[lJ = [al' + nsJ = [arJ +" [nsJ
= [arJ +" [OJ = [aJ ." [rJ,
showing the congruence c1ass [1' J to be the multiplicative inverse of [a].
Now to the "only if" part. Assume [aJ to bea multiplicatively invertible
elementofZ";say,withinverse[b]. Wethushave[abJ = [aJ'"[bJ = [lJ,
so that there exists an integer k for which ab - 1 = kn. But then
ab + n( -k) = 1; hence, a and n are relatively prime integers.
Corollary., The zero divisors of Z" are precisely the nonzero elements
of Z" which are not invertible.
Proo! Naturally, no zero divisor of Z" can possess a multiplicative inverse.
On the other hand, suppose that [aJ =1= [OJ is not invertible in Z", so that
INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS 57
gcd(a, n) = d, where 1 < d '< n. Then, a = rd and n = sd for suitable
nonzero integers l' and s. This leads to
[aJ ." [sJ = [asJ = [rdsJ = [rnJ = [O].
Since the defining properties of s rule oU,t the possibilitythat [sJ = [OJ,
it follows that [aJ is a zero divisor of Z" . .,;
These results may be convenient1y submarized in the following state-
ment.
Theorem 4-4. The ring Z" of integer{!'\1odulo n is a field ,if and only if
n is a prime number. If n is composit~,: then Z" is not an integral domain
and the zero divisors of Z" are tho~~;!10nzero elements [aJ for which
gcd(a, n) =1= 1. :j:i:. "
Every field necessarily has at least twO: elements (1 being different from '
O); Theorem 4-4 indicates that there is ~>~eId having this miniT~ITI number
as its number of elements, viz. Z2' <'éle:' ;~ ..
As an interesting appÚca'tion of these ideas, considei' 'ihe following
assertion: If there exists a homomorphism f: Z --+ F of the ring Z of integers
onto a field F, then F is necessarily a finite field with a prime number of
e1ements. For, by the Fundamental Homomorphism Theorem, Zjker f ~ F.
But ker f = (n) for sorne positiveintegei n, since Zis a principal ideal domain.
(In this connection, observe that n =1= O, for otherwise Z would be isomorphic
to a field, an impossibility.) Taking stock ofthe fact that Zj(n) = Z", we are
thus able to conc1ude that Z" ~ F, in consequence of which F has n
elements. At this point Theorem 4-4 comes to our aid; since F, and in turn
its isomorphic image Z", forms a field, n must be a prime nilmber.
A useful counting function is the so-called Eufer phi1unCtion (totient),
defined as follows: cjJ(l) =' 1 and, for each integer n > 1, cjJ(n) is the number
al so be characterized as the number of positive integers < n which are
relatively prime to n. For instance, cjJ(6) = 2, cjJ(9) = 6, and cjJ(12) = 4; it
should be equally c1ear that whenever pis a primenumber, then cjJ(p) = p - 1.
Lemma. If G" is the subset of Z" defined by
G,; = {[aJ E Z"la is relatively prime to n},
then (G", ',,) forms a finite group of order cjJ(n).
Proo! In the light of the preceding remarks, (G", .") is simply the group of
invertible elements of Z".
This leads at once to a c1assical result of Euler concerning the phi-
function; the simplicity of the argument illustrates the advantage of the
algebraic approach to number theory.
 58 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Theorem 4-5. (Euler-Ferrnat). Un is a positive integer and a is relatively
=
prime to n, then a",(n) 1 (mod n).
Proof. The congruence c1ass [a] can be viewed as an eIernent of the rnulti-
plicative group (G m ',,). Since this group has order </len), it foIlows that
[a]"'(II) = [1] or, equivalentIy, a"'(II) =
1 (mod. n). (Recall tIlat if Gis a finite
group of order le, then Xk = 1 for aIl x E G.)
, There is an interesting relationship between fields and the lack of ideals;
what we shaIl show is that fields have as trivial an ideal structure as possible.
Theorem 4-6. Let R be a cornrnutative ring with identity. Then R is a
field if and only if R has no non tri vial ideals.
Proof. Assurne first that R is a field. We wish to show that the trivialideals
{O} and R are its only ideals. Let us suppose to the cOritrary that there
exists sorne nontrivüll ideal 1 of R. By our assurnption, the subset 1 is such
that 1 =1= {O} and 1 =1= R. This mean s that there exists sorne nonzero elernent
a E l. Since R is taken to be a fieId, a has a rnultiplicative in verse a- 1 present
in R. By the definition ofideal, we thus obtain 1 = a- l a E 1, which in turn
implies that 1 = R, contradicting our choice of l.
Conversely, suppose that the ring R has no nontrivial ideals. Given a
nonzero eIernent a E R, consider the principal ideal (a) generated by a:
(a) = {ralr E R}.
Now, (a) cánnot be the zero ideal, inasrnuch as a = a 1 E (a), with a =1= O.
It foIlows frorn the hypothesis that the only other possibility is that (a) = R.
In particular, since 1 E (a),there exists an elernent r E:R for whichr a = l.
MuItiplication is cornrnutative, so that r = a-l. T~e;~fore, each nonzero
elernent of R is rnultiplicativeIy in vertible and we are done.
In view of this last result, the ring Z of integers faiIs to be a field sin ce
it contains the nontrivial ideal Ze" ' we wish to irnbed a given integral dornain.
Theorern 4-6 is useful in revealing the nature of hornornorphisrns
'1
I between fieIds. We exploit it to prove i
Theorem 4-7. Let f be a hornornorphisrn frorn the field Finto the
field F'. Then eitherfis the trivial hornornorphism br elsefis one-to-one.
Proof. The proof consists of noticing that since ker fis an idea! of the field
, F, either ker f = {O} or else ker f = F. The condition ker f = {O} irnplies
" ,
that f is a one-to-one function. On the other hand, if it happens that
!I i
,
1 kerf = F, then each elernent of F is carried onto O; that is to say,Jis the
II! trivial hornornorphisrn.
11
Corollary. Any hornornorphisrn of a fieId F onto itself is an auto-
I rnorphisrn of F.
INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS 59
Any ring with identity which is a subring of a field rnust of necessity be
an integral dornain. Turning the situation around, one rnight ask whether.
each integral dornain can be considered (apart frorn isornorphisrn) as a
subríng of sorne fieId. More forrnaIly: Can a given integral dornain be
irnbedded in a fieId? In the finite case there is plainly no difficulty, since
any finite integral dornain already forrns a field.
Our concern with this question arises frorn the natural desire to solve
the linear equation ax = b, where a =1= O. A rnajor drawback to the notion
of an integral dornain is that it does not always furnish a solution within
the systern. (Of course, any such solution would ha ve to be unique, sin ce
aX l = b = aX 2 irnplies that Xl = x 2 by the canceIlation law.) It hardly
seerns necessary to point out that when the integral dornain happens to be
a field, the equation ax = b (a =1= O) is always solvable, for one need only
take x = a-lb.
We begin our discussion of this problern with an obvious definition.
Definition 4-2. By a subfield of a field F is rneant any subring P of F
which is itself a field.
For example, the ring Q of rational nurnbers is a subfield of the real
field R # ; the sarne is true of the field F = {a + bJ2la, b E Q}.
SureIy, the set P wilI be a subfield of the fieId F provided that (1) F' is a
subgroup of the additive group of F and that (2) F' - {O} is a subgroup of
the multiplicative group F - {O}. RecaIling our mínimal set of conditions
for deterrnining s,ubgroups (see page 8), it foIlows that F' wilI be a subfield
of F if and only if the foIlowing requirernents are rnet:
1) Pis a nonernpty subset of F containing at least one nonzero elernent,
2) a, b E F' irnply a - b E F', and
3) a, b E P, with b =1= O, irnply ab- t E F'.
a
The corning theorern furnishes c1ue to the nature of the field in which
Theorem 4-8. Let the integral dornain R be a subring of the field F.
If the set F' is defined by
P = {ab-lla,bER;b =1= O},
then P forrns a subfield of F with R 5; P; in fact, F' is the srnaIlest
(in the sense of inc1usion) subfield of F containing R.
Proof. Notice first that 1 = 11- 1 E P, so that F' =1= {O}. °Now consider two
arbitrary elernents x, y of F'. With reference to the definition of P, we then
have
 58 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Theorem 4-5. (Euler-Ferrnat). Un is a positive integer and a is relatively
=
prime to n, then a",(n) 1 (mod n).
Proof. The congruence c1ass [a] can be viewed as an eIernent of the rnulti-
plicative group (G m ',,). Since this group has order </len), it foIlows that
[a]"'(II) = [1] or, equivalentIy, a"'(II) =
1 (mod. n). (Recall tIlat if Gis a finite
group of order le, then Xk = 1 for aIl x E G.)
, There is an interesting relationship between fields and the lack of ideals;
what we shaIl show is that fields have as trivial an ideal structure as possible.
Theorem 4-6. Let R be a cornrnutative ring with identity. Then R is a
field if and only if R has no non tri vial ideals.
Proof. Assurne first that R is a field. We wish to show that the trivialideals
{O} and R are its only ideals. Let us suppose to the cOritrary that there
exists sorne nontrivüll ideal 1 of R. By our assurnption, the subset 1 is such
that 1 =1= {O} and 1 =1= R. This mean s that there exists sorne nonzero elernent
a E l. Since R is taken to be a fieId, a has a rnultiplicative in verse a- 1 present
in R. By the definition ofideal, we thus obtain 1 = a- l a E 1, which in turn
implies that 1 = R, contradicting our choice of l.
Conversely, suppose that the ring R has no nontrivial ideals. Given a
nonzero eIernent a E R, consider the principal ideal (a) generated by a:
(a) = {ralr E R}.
Now, (a) cánnot be the zero ideal, inasrnuch as a = a 1 E (a), with a =1= O.
It foIlows frorn the hypothesis that the only other possibility is that (a) = R.
In particular, since 1 E (a),there exists an elernent r E:R for whichr a = l.
MuItiplication is cornrnutative, so that r = a-l. T~e;~fore, each nonzero
elernent of R is rnultiplicativeIy in vertible and we are done.
In view of this last result, the ring Z of integers faiIs to be a field sin ce
it contains the nontrivial ideal Ze" ' we wish to irnbed a given integral dornain.
Theorern 4-6 is useful in revealing the nature of hornornorphisrns
'1
I between fieIds. We exploit it to prove i
Theorem 4-7. Let f be a hornornorphisrn frorn the field Finto the
field F'. Then eitherfis the trivial hornornorphism br elsefis one-to-one.
Proof. The proof consists of noticing that since ker fis an idea! of the field
, F, either ker f = {O} or else ker f = F. The condition ker f = {O} irnplies
" ,
that f is a one-to-one function. On the other hand, if it happens that
!I i
,
1 kerf = F, then each elernent of F is carried onto O; that is to say,Jis the
II! trivial hornornorphisrn.
11
Corollary. Any hornornorphisrn of a fieId F onto itself is an auto-
I rnorphisrn of F.
INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS 59
Any ring with identity which is a subring of a field rnust of necessity be
an integral dornain. Turning the situation around, one rnight ask whether.
each integral dornain can be considered (apart frorn isornorphisrn) as a
subríng of sorne fieId. More forrnaIly: Can a given integral dornain be
irnbedded in a fieId? In the finite case there is plainly no difficulty, since
any finite integral dornain already forrns a field.
Our concern with this question arises frorn the natural desire to solve
the linear equation ax = b, where a =1= O. A rnajor drawback to the notion
of an integral dornain is that it does not always furnish a solution within
the systern. (Of course, any such solution would ha ve to be unique, sin ce
aX l = b = aX 2 irnplies that Xl = x 2 by the canceIlation law.) It hardly
seerns necessary to point out that when the integral dornain happens to be
a field, the equation ax = b (a =1= O) is always solvable, for one need only
take x = a-lb.
We begin our discussion of this problern with an obvious definition.
Definition 4-2. By a subfield of a field F is rneant any subring P of F
which is itself a field.
For example, the ring Q of rational nurnbers is a subfield of the real
field R # ; the sarne is true of the field F = {a + bJ2la, b E Q}.
SureIy, the set P wilI be a subfield of the fieId F provided that (1) F' is a
subgroup of the additive group of F and that (2) F' - {O} is a subgroup of
the multiplicative group F - {O}. RecaIling our mínimal set of conditions
for deterrnining s,ubgroups (see page 8), it foIlows that F' wilI be a subfield
of F if and only if the foIlowing requirernents are rnet:
1) Pis a nonernpty subset of F containing at least one nonzero elernent,
2) a, b E F' irnply a - b E F', and
3) a, b E P, with b =1= O, irnply ab- t E F'.
a
The corning theorern furnishes c1ue to the nature of the field in which
Theorem 4-8. Let the integral dornain R be a subring of the field F.
If the set F' is defined by
P = {ab-lla,bER;b =1= O},
then P forrns a subfield of F with R 5; P; in fact, F' is the srnaIlest
(in the sense of inc1usion) subfield of F containing R.
Proof. Notice first that 1 = 11- 1 E P, so that F' =1= {O}. °Now consider two
arbitrary elernents x, y of F'. With reference to the definition of P, we then
have
 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS 61
60
Cor a suitable choice oC a, b, e, d E R, where b i= O, d i= O. A simple Now consider the set of ordered pairs
computation shows that ' RxS ' {(a, s)la E R, s E S}.
x y = (ad be)(bd)-lEF'. A relation ~ may be introduced in R x S by taking
Also, if Y i8 nonzero (that is, whenever e i= O), we conc1ude that (a, s) "" (b, r) ir and only iC ar = bs.
xy-l = (ad)(eb)-l E F'. ~We have in mind theprevious theorem, where ab- 1 = ed- 1 if a~d ~>nly
lfad = be.}' ',
By viitue of the remarks following Definition 4--2, this is sufficient to , It is not difficult t~ verify tl:1at the relation "', thus defined, Ú- an
establish that the
.
,
set F' is a subfield oC F.' Furthermore,
~~"
equivalence relation in R x S. The transitive property is perhaps theléast
a = al, al- 1 E F ' obvious. To see this, assume that (a, s) "" (b, r) and (b,;') '" (e, t), so, ~hat
ar = sb, bt re. '. ' '
for each a in!R, implying that R F ' . FinaHy; any subfield of F whiCh 'o·-·'!.'

contruns R necéssarily'includes all products ab-l, with a, O i= bE R, and, Now multiply the first equation by t and the second by s '1.0 get
',;: -;-
hence, contaiús<F' . art = sbt, sbt sre.
Theorem':4l:-S began wÍth an integral domain airead y imbedded in a:
Putting these'relations together, we obtain atr ser. $ince:r.js not a zero
field. In the geheral case it becomes necessary to construct the imbedding
divisor, the canceIlation lawgives us at = se, which,is exactly the condition
'field. Since the expression ab- 1 may not always exist, one must now work
with ordered pairs (a, b), where b i= O. Our thinking is that (a, b) will play that (a, s) '" (e, t).
Next, we label those elements of R xS which are equivalent to thepair
a role analogous to ah- 1 in fue foregoing theorem.
ActuaIly, the proposed constr.uction ls not just confined to integral (a, s) by thesymbol a/s; in other words, '
domains, but wilI apply to a much wider c1ass oC ring~; it will imbed any a/s = {(b, r)l(a, s) '" (b, r)}
commutative ring R that contaius a (nonempty) set of elements that are = {(b, r) ar = sb}. .
not zero divisors in a ring Qcl(R), which may be described as folIows.
The coIlection of all equivaIence cIasses a/s relative to '" will be denoted
Definition 4-3. Let R be a ring with at least one non-zero-divisor. A 'by Qc¡(R):
classieal ring ofquotients of R is any ring Qc¡(R} satisCying the conditions Q.,¡(R). = {a/sla E R; s E S}.
1) R S;;; Qc¡(R), From Theore¡n A-1, we knowthat the elements of Qcl(R) constitute a
2} every element of Qc¡{R) has the form ah - 1, where a, b E R and b is
parti,tion of the set R x S. That is, the ordered pairs in Ji. x S faH into
a non-zero-divisor of R, and
disjoint c1asses (calledformalfraetions), with each dass consisting of equiva-
3} every non-zero-divisor of R is invertible in Qc¡(R}.
lent pairs, andnonequivalent pairs belonging to different cIasses. Further,
Convention. An eIement a E R is termed a non-zero-divisor if ar i= 0, and two such c1asses a/s and b/r are identical if and only if ar = sb; in particular,
° °
ra i= for aH i= rE R; in particular, the phrase "non-zero-divisor" all fractions ofthe form as/s, with s E S, are'equal.
With these remarks in mind, let us introduce the operations of addition
exc1udes the zero element.
As a starting point, let S denote the set of aH elements of R, a commutative and niultiplication required to make Qc¡(R) into a ringo We do this by
ring, which are non-zero-divisors; we wíI1 assume hereafter that S i= 0· means of the formulas
Needless to say, ifthere happens to be an identityelement 1 available, then a/s +, b/r = (ar + sb)/sr,
1 ES. NoHce, too, that the set S is dosed under multiplication. For, (a/s)(b/r) = ab/sr.
suppose that the elements S1' S2 E S and (s1s2)a = O. Then Sl(S2 a) = O
and, since S1 is not a divisor of zero, it follows that S2a = O; this in turn Notice, incidentaIly, that since the set S is c10sed under multiplication
implies thaf a O. Therefore,the product S1S2 is not a zero divisor oC R, ,the right-hand sides oC the defining equations are meaningful. , '
whence S1S2 E S. As usual, our first task is to justiry that these operations are well-defined ;
 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS 61
60
Cor a suitable choice oC a, b, e, d E R, where b i= O, d i= O. A simple Now consider the set of ordered pairs
computation shows that ' RxS ' {(a, s)la E R, s E S}.
x y = (ad be)(bd)-lEF'. A relation ~ may be introduced in R x S by taking
Also, if Y i8 nonzero (that is, whenever e i= O), we conc1ude that (a, s) "" (b, r) ir and only iC ar = bs.
xy-l = (ad)(eb)-l E F'. ~We have in mind theprevious theorem, where ab- 1 = ed- 1 if a~d ~>nly
lfad = be.}' ',
By viitue of the remarks following Definition 4--2, this is sufficient to , It is not difficult t~ verify tl:1at the relation "', thus defined, Ú- an
establish that the
.
,
set F' is a subfield oC F.' Furthermore,
~~"
equivalence relation in R x S. The transitive property is perhaps theléast
a = al, al- 1 E F ' obvious. To see this, assume that (a, s) "" (b, r) and (b,;') '" (e, t), so, ~hat
ar = sb, bt re. '. ' '
for each a in!R, implying that R F ' . FinaHy; any subfield of F whiCh 'o·-·'!.'

contruns R necéssarily'includes all products ab-l, with a, O i= bE R, and, Now multiply the first equation by t and the second by s '1.0 get
',;: -;-
hence, contaiús<F' . art = sbt, sbt sre.
Theorem':4l:-S began wÍth an integral domain airead y imbedded in a:
Putting these'relations together, we obtain atr ser. $ince:r.js not a zero
field. In the geheral case it becomes necessary to construct the imbedding
divisor, the canceIlation lawgives us at = se, which,is exactly the condition
'field. Since the expression ab- 1 may not always exist, one must now work
with ordered pairs (a, b), where b i= O. Our thinking is that (a, b) will play that (a, s) '" (e, t).
Next, we label those elements of R xS which are equivalent to thepair
a role analogous to ah- 1 in fue foregoing theorem.
ActuaIly, the proposed constr.uction ls not just confined to integral (a, s) by thesymbol a/s; in other words, '
domains, but wilI apply to a much wider c1ass oC ring~; it will imbed any a/s = {(b, r)l(a, s) '" (b, r)}
commutative ring R that contaius a (nonempty) set of elements that are = {(b, r) ar = sb}. .
not zero divisors in a ring Qcl(R), which may be described as folIows.
The coIlection of all equivaIence cIasses a/s relative to '" will be denoted
Definition 4-3. Let R be a ring with at least one non-zero-divisor. A 'by Qc¡(R):
classieal ring ofquotients of R is any ring Qc¡(R} satisCying the conditions Q.,¡(R). = {a/sla E R; s E S}.
1) R S;;; Qc¡(R), From Theore¡n A-1, we knowthat the elements of Qcl(R) constitute a
2} every element of Qc¡{R) has the form ah - 1, where a, b E R and b is
parti,tion of the set R x S. That is, the ordered pairs in Ji. x S faH into
a non-zero-divisor of R, and
disjoint c1asses (calledformalfraetions), with each dass consisting of equiva-
3} every non-zero-divisor of R is invertible in Qc¡(R}.
lent pairs, andnonequivalent pairs belonging to different cIasses. Further,
Convention. An eIement a E R is termed a non-zero-divisor if ar i= 0, and two such c1asses a/s and b/r are identical if and only if ar = sb; in particular,
° °
ra i= for aH i= rE R; in particular, the phrase "non-zero-divisor" all fractions ofthe form as/s, with s E S, are'equal.
With these remarks in mind, let us introduce the operations of addition
exc1udes the zero element.
As a starting point, let S denote the set of aH elements of R, a commutative and niultiplication required to make Qc¡(R) into a ringo We do this by
ring, which are non-zero-divisors; we wíI1 assume hereafter that S i= 0· means of the formulas
Needless to say, ifthere happens to be an identityelement 1 available, then a/s +, b/r = (ar + sb)/sr,
1 ES. NoHce, too, that the set S is dosed under multiplication. For, (a/s)(b/r) = ab/sr.
suppose that the elements S1' S2 E S and (s1s2)a = O. Then Sl(S2 a) = O
and, since S1 is not a divisor of zero, it follows that S2a = O; this in turn Notice, incidentaIly, that since the set S is c10sed under multiplication
implies thaf a O. Therefore,the product S1S2 is not a zero divisor oC R, ,the right-hand sides oC the defining equations are meaningful. , '
whence S1S2 E S. As usual, our first task is to justiry that these operations are well-defined ;
62 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS INTEGRAL OOMAINS ANO FIELOS 63

that is to say, it is necessary to show that the sum and product are independent elements of the form aso/so, where So is a fixed non-zero-divisor of R (recall
of the particular elements of R used in their definition. Let us present the that the equivalence class aso/so depends only upon a, not upon the choice
argument for addition in detail. Suppose, then, that a/s = a'/s' and of so):
b/r = b'/r'; we must show that
(ar + sb)/sr = (dr' + sb')/s'r'.
The reader can easily check that K is a subring of Qc¡(R). An obvious (onto)
From what is given, it follows at once that mappingf: R -+ K is defined by takingf(a) = aso/so. Since the condition
as' = sa', br' = rb'. aso/so = bso/so implies that as~ = bs~ or, after cancelling, that a = b, f
will be a one-to-one function. Furthermore, it has the property of pre-
These equations imply serving both addition and multiplication:
(ar + sb)(s'r') - (a'r' + s'b')(sr) = (as' - sa')(rr') + (br' - rb')(ss')
= O(rr') + O(ss') = O. fea + b) = (a + b)so/so = aso/so + bso/so = fea) + f(b)

By the definition of equality of equivalence classes, this amounts to saying

¡(ab) = (ab)so/so = (ab)s~/s~ = (aso/so)(bso/so) = f(a)f(b).
that In this way, R can be isomorphically embedded in Qc¡(R).
(ar + sb)/sr = (a'r' + s'b')/s'r', By identifying R with K, we may henceforth regard R as actually being
contained in Qc¡(R). In practice, one simply replaces the fraction aso/so E K
which proves addition to be well-defined. In much the same way, one can by the corresponding element a E R.
establish that We proceed to show that all the elements of S are invertible in Qc¡{R).
Any non-zero-divisor s E S has, after identification, the formsso/s o' Now,
ab/sr = a'b'/s'r'.
the equivalence class so/ss o is also a member of Qc¡(R) (note the crucial
The next lemma reveals the algebraic nature of Qc¡(R) under these use of the closure of S under multiplication) and satisfies the equation
operations. (sso/so)(so/sso) = ss~/ss~ = so/so.
Lemma. The syst~m Qc¡(R) forms a commutative ring with identity. Since so/so plays the role of the identity element for Qc¡(R), we see at once
Proof. It is an entirely -straightforward matter to confirm that Qc¡(R) is a that (ssO/SO)-l = so/sso'
commutative ringo We leave the reader to make the necessary verifications . All that remains to complete the proof is to verify that each member
at his leisure, and merely point out that O/s serves as the zero element, while a/s of Q.¡(R) can be written as as-l. It should be clear that
-a/s is the negative oCa/s. a/s = (aso/so)(so/sso) = (aso/so)(ssO/SO)-l.
That the equivalence class s'/s', where s' is any fixed non-zero-divi~or
Replacing aso/so by a and sso/so by s, the displayed equation assumes the
of R, constitutes themultiplicative identity is evidenced by the followmg
more familiar form a/s = as-l. The point is this: the set Qc¡(R) may now be
computation: interpreted as consisting of all quotients as- l , where a E R, s E S.
"

': (a/s)(s'/s') = as'/ss = a/s
for arbitrary a/s in Qc¡(R), since (as')s = (ss')a. Loosely speaking, common
factors belonging to S may be .canceIled in a fracti<?n as/ss.
This prov.es part of the theorem below.
Theorem 4-9. Any comrnutative ring R with at least one non-zero-
divisor possesses a classical ring of quotients.
Proof. We begin by establishing that the ring Qc¡{R) contains a subring
isomorphic to R. For this, consider the subset K of Qc¡(R) consisting of all
Thus, Qc¡(R) satisfies Definition 4-3 in its entirety, thereby becoming a
classical ring of quotients of R.
Two comments are in order. In the first place, given any element s E R
which is a non-zero-divisor, it follows that
(so E S).
Identifying sso/so with s and aso/so with a, we conclude from this that the
equation sx = a always possesses a solution in Qc¡(R), namely, x = a/s =
as-l. Second, notice that in Qc¡(R) multiplicative inverses exist not only for
62 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS INTEGRAL OOMAINS ANO FIELOS 63

that is to say, it is necessary to show that the sum and product are independent elements of the form aso/so, where So is a fixed non-zero-divisor of R (recall
of the particular elements of R used in their definition. Let us present the that the equivalence class aso/so depends only upon a, not upon the choice
argument for addition in detail. Suppose, then, that a/s = a'/s' and of so):
b/r = b'/r'; we must show that
(ar + sb)/sr = (dr' + sb')/s'r'.
The reader can easily check that K is a subring of Qc¡(R). An obvious (onto)
From what is given, it follows at once that mappingf: R -+ K is defined by takingf(a) = aso/so. Since the condition
as' = sa', br' = rb'. aso/so = bso/so implies that as~ = bs~ or, after cancelling, that a = b, f
will be a one-to-one function. Furthermore, it has the property of pre-
These equations imply serving both addition and multiplication:
(ar + sb)(s'r') - (a'r' + s'b')(sr) = (as' - sa')(rr') + (br' - rb')(ss')
= O(rr') + O(ss') = O. fea + b) = (a + b)so/so = aso/so + bso/so = fea) + f(b)

By the definition of equality of equivalence classes, this amounts to saying

¡(ab) = (ab)so/so = (ab)s~/s~ = (aso/so)(bso/so) = f(a)f(b).
that In this way, R can be isomorphically embedded in Qc¡(R).
(ar + sb)/sr = (a'r' + s'b')/s'r', By identifying R with K, we may henceforth regard R as actually being
contained in Qc¡(R). In practice, one simply replaces the fraction aso/so E K
which proves addition to be well-defined. In much the same way, one can by the corresponding element a E R.
establish that We proceed to show that all the elements of S are invertible in Qc¡{R).
Any non-zero-divisor s E S has, after identification, the formsso/s o' Now,
ab/sr = a'b'/s'r'.
the equivalence class so/ss o is also a member of Qc¡(R) (note the crucial
The next lemma reveals the algebraic nature of Qc¡(R) under these use of the closure of S under multiplication) and satisfies the equation
operations. (sso/so)(so/sso) = ss~/ss~ = so/so.
Lemma. The syst~m Qc¡(R) forms a commutative ring with identity. Since so/so plays the role of the identity element for Qc¡(R), we see at once
Proof. It is an entirely -straightforward matter to confirm that Qc¡(R) is a that (ssO/SO)-l = so/sso'
commutative ringo We leave the reader to make the necessary verifications . All that remains to complete the proof is to verify that each member
at his leisure, and merely point out that O/s serves as the zero element, while a/s of Q.¡(R) can be written as as-l. It should be clear that
-a/s is the negative oCa/s. a/s = (aso/so)(so/sso) = (aso/so)(ssO/SO)-l.
That the equivalence class s'/s', where s' is any fixed non-zero-divi~or
Replacing aso/so by a and sso/so by s, the displayed equation assumes the
of R, constitutes themultiplicative identity is evidenced by the followmg
more familiar form a/s = as-l. The point is this: the set Qc¡(R) may now be
computation: interpreted as consisting of all quotients as- l , where a E R, s E S.
"

': (a/s)(s'/s') = as'/ss = a/s
for arbitrary a/s in Qc¡(R), since (as')s = (ss')a. Loosely speaking, common
factors belonging to S may be .canceIled in a fracti<?n as/ss.
This prov.es part of the theorem below.
Theorem 4-9. Any comrnutative ring R with at least one non-zero-
divisor possesses a classical ring of quotients.
Proof. We begin by establishing that the ring Qc¡{R) contains a subring
isomorphic to R. For this, consider the subset K of Qc¡(R) consisting of all
Thus, Qc¡(R) satisfies Definition 4-3 in its entirety, thereby becoming a
classical ring of quotients of R.
Two comments are in order. In the first place, given any element s E R
which is a non-zero-divisor, it follows that
(so E S).
Identifying sso/so with s and aso/so with a, we conclude from this that the
equation sx = a always possesses a solution in Qc¡(R), namely, x = a/s =
as-l. Second, notice that in Qc¡(R) multiplicative inverses exist not only for
 ¡l'
.'
FIRST COURSE lN' RINGS AND JDJ;ALS
64
members of S but for all elements of Qcl(R) which can be repiesented in the
form r/s, where r, s are both non-zero-divisors; in fact,
(r/s)(s/r) = rs/sr = so/so·
When thering R is an integral domain, we may take the set S ofnon-zero-
divisors as consisting of a1l the elements of R which are not Zefo. The last
remark of the preceding paragraph then leads to the following:important
theorem.'
Theorem 4-10. For any integral domain R, the system Qc¡(R) forms a
field, customari\y known as the field of quotients of R.
Since an integral domain is (isomorphic to) a subring of lts field .of
quotients, we also obtain ....
Corollary. A ring is an integral domain if and only if it isasubring of
a field:' . '.
It should be pointed out that the hypothesis of commutativify:is essential
to this last theorem; indeed, there exist noncommutative rings without
divisors ofzero that cannot be imbedded in any division ringo
The field of quotients constructed from the integral domain Z is, of
course, the rational number field Q. Another fact of interest is that the field .
of quotients is the smallest field in which an integral domain R ca~ be
imbedded, in the sense that any field in which R is imbeddable contams a
subfield isomorphic to QcI(R) (Problem 20).
. The existence theorem for the classical ring of quotients can be supple-
mented by the following result, which shows that it is essentia11y unique.
Theorem 4-11. Let R and R' be two commutative rings, each containing
at least'one non-zero-devisor. Then, any isomorphism of R onto R ' has a
/ a prime field. To see this, suppose that Fis any subfield of Q and let a E F
únique extension to an isomorphism of QCI(R) onto Qcl(R );
Proo! To begin with, each member of Qcl(R) may be written in the form
ab -1 where a b E R and bis a non-zero-divisor in R. Given an isomorphism
1
cp: R'-4 R' , the element cp(b) will be a no~-zero-divis~r of R' , s~ that cp(bt
is present in Qcl(R /). Suppose that cp admlts an extenslOn to an Isomorphlsm
1
<1>: Qcl(R) -4 Qcl(R/). Sin ce a = (ab- )b, we would then ha ve . Example 4-5. For each priine p, the field Zp ofintegers modulo pis a prime
cp(a) = <I>(a) = CD(ab- 1)<I>(b) = <I>(ab- 1)cp(b),
which, as a result, yields <I>(ab- 1) = c!>(a)cp(b)-1. Thus, <1> is completely
determined by the effect of cp on R and so determined uniquely, if it exists.
at a11. . a unique prime subfield. To make things more specific, let {F¡} be the
These remarks suggest that, in attempting to extend cp, we should consider
the assignment:
for a11
INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS 65
For a verification that· <1> is a well-defi~ed function, let ab -1 = er 1 in
Qcl(R); that is to say, ad = be in R. Then. the equation c!>(a)c!>(d) = cp(b)cp(e)
holds in R' ~ Qcl(R /) or, viewed otherwise, cp(a)cp(b)-1 = cp(e)cp(d)-1.But
this means. <I>(ab -1) = <I>(er 1), .so that <1> do es not depend on how an
element in Q~I(R) is expressed as a quotient.
One verifies routinely that <1>, as defineci aboye, is a homomorphism of
Q~I(R) into Qc¡(R /). . This homomorphism'certainly extends cp; indeed, if a
is an arbitrary element of R and b is a .non-zero-divisor of R, <1> maps
a = (db)b-1eititb (l.,
<I>(a) = cp(ab)ep(b)-1 = cp(a)~(b)cp(b)-1 = cp(a).
.', ":
To see that· <1> is a one-tó-one function,we examine its kernel. Now, if
<I>(ab -1) = O, then cp(a) = O. But,cp being an isomorphism, this implies
that .a· = 0, whence ab- 1 = O. Accordingly, ker<l> == {O}, which forces <1>
to be one-to-one. Without going into the'details, we also point out that <1>
carries Qcl(R) onto Qcl(R /) (thi.s .stems frop?·;the fact that cpmaps onto R /).
Therefore, <1> is the desired extensionof cp. '.' .
A special case of particular importance occurs when R and R ' are the
same ring and cp is taken to be the identity isomorphism on R.
Coro]]ary. Any two quotient rings of a commutative ring R with at
least one non-zéro-divisor are isomorphic by a unique mapping fixing
all the elements of R.
At this point we leave the theory of quotients and turn to prime fields.
Cleady, any field F has at least one subfield, namely, F itself; a field which
does not possess any proper subfields is ca11ed a prime field.
Examp]e 4-4. The field Q bf rational numbers is the simplest example of
be any nonzero element. Since F is a subfield of Q, it must contain the
prod uct aa -1 = 1. In turn, n = nI E F for any n in Z; in other words,
F contains all the integers. It then follows that every rational númber
n/m =nm- 1 (m =1= O) also lies in F, so that F = Q.
field. The reasoning here depends on the fact that the additive group
(Zp, +p) is a finite group ofprime order and therefore by Lagrange's theorem
has no non-trivial subgroups.
An observation which will not detain us long is that each field F contains
collection of all subfields of F. Then the intersection (\ F¡ is also a subfield
of F. Now, if F' is any subfield of the field (\ F¡, then F' E {F¡}, whence
(\ F¡ ~ F' ; the implication is that F' = (\ F¡, forcing (\ F¡ to be a: prime
 ¡l'
.'
FIRST COURSE lN' RINGS AND JDJ;ALS
64
members of S but for all elements of Qcl(R) which can be repiesented in the
form r/s, where r, s are both non-zero-divisors; in fact,
(r/s)(s/r) = rs/sr = so/so·
When thering R is an integral domain, we may take the set S ofnon-zero-
divisors as consisting of a1l the elements of R which are not Zefo. The last
remark of the preceding paragraph then leads to the following:important
theorem.'
Theorem 4-10. For any integral domain R, the system Qc¡(R) forms a
field, customari\y known as the field of quotients of R.
Since an integral domain is (isomorphic to) a subring of lts field .of
quotients, we also obtain ....
Corollary. A ring is an integral domain if and only if it isasubring of
a field:' . '.
It should be pointed out that the hypothesis of commutativify:is essential
to this last theorem; indeed, there exist noncommutative rings without
divisors ofzero that cannot be imbedded in any division ringo
The field of quotients constructed from the integral domain Z is, of
course, the rational number field Q. Another fact of interest is that the field .
of quotients is the smallest field in which an integral domain R ca~ be
imbedded, in the sense that any field in which R is imbeddable contams a
subfield isomorphic to QcI(R) (Problem 20).
. The existence theorem for the classical ring of quotients can be supple-
mented by the following result, which shows that it is essentia11y unique.
Theorem 4-11. Let R and R' be two commutative rings, each containing
at least'one non-zero-devisor. Then, any isomorphism of R onto R ' has a
/ a prime field. To see this, suppose that Fis any subfield of Q and let a E F
únique extension to an isomorphism of QCI(R) onto Qcl(R );
Proo! To begin with, each member of Qcl(R) may be written in the form
ab -1 where a b E R and bis a non-zero-divisor in R. Given an isomorphism
1
cp: R'-4 R' , the element cp(b) will be a no~-zero-divis~r of R' , s~ that cp(bt
is present in Qcl(R /). Suppose that cp admlts an extenslOn to an Isomorphlsm
1
<1>: Qcl(R) -4 Qcl(R/). Sin ce a = (ab- )b, we would then ha ve . Example 4-5. For each priine p, the field Zp ofintegers modulo pis a prime
cp(a) = <I>(a) = CD(ab- 1)<I>(b) = <I>(ab- 1)cp(b),
which, as a result, yields <I>(ab- 1) = c!>(a)cp(b)-1. Thus, <1> is completely
determined by the effect of cp on R and so determined uniquely, if it exists.
at a11. . a unique prime subfield. To make things more specific, let {F¡} be the
These remarks suggest that, in attempting to extend cp, we should consider
the assignment:
for a11
INTEGRAL DOMAINS AND FIELDS 65
For a verification that· <1> is a well-defi~ed function, let ab -1 = er 1 in
Qcl(R); that is to say, ad = be in R. Then. the equation c!>(a)c!>(d) = cp(b)cp(e)
holds in R' ~ Qcl(R /) or, viewed otherwise, cp(a)cp(b)-1 = cp(e)cp(d)-1.But
this means. <I>(ab -1) = <I>(er 1), .so that <1> do es not depend on how an
element in Q~I(R) is expressed as a quotient.
One verifies routinely that <1>, as defineci aboye, is a homomorphism of
Q~I(R) into Qc¡(R /). . This homomorphism'certainly extends cp; indeed, if a
is an arbitrary element of R and b is a .non-zero-divisor of R, <1> maps
a = (db)b-1eititb (l.,
<I>(a) = cp(ab)ep(b)-1 = cp(a)~(b)cp(b)-1 = cp(a).
.', ":
To see that· <1> is a one-tó-one function,we examine its kernel. Now, if
<I>(ab -1) = O, then cp(a) = O. But,cp being an isomorphism, this implies
that .a· = 0, whence ab- 1 = O. Accordingly, ker<l> == {O}, which forces <1>
to be one-to-one. Without going into the'details, we also point out that <1>
carries Qcl(R) onto Qcl(R /) (thi.s .stems frop?·;the fact that cpmaps onto R /).
Therefore, <1> is the desired extensionof cp. '.' .
A special case of particular importance occurs when R and R ' are the
same ring and cp is taken to be the identity isomorphism on R.
Coro]]ary. Any two quotient rings of a commutative ring R with at
least one non-zéro-divisor are isomorphic by a unique mapping fixing
all the elements of R.
At this point we leave the theory of quotients and turn to prime fields.
Cleady, any field F has at least one subfield, namely, F itself; a field which
does not possess any proper subfields is ca11ed a prime field.
Examp]e 4-4. The field Q bf rational numbers is the simplest example of
be any nonzero element. Since F is a subfield of Q, it must contain the
prod uct aa -1 = 1. In turn, n = nI E F for any n in Z; in other words,
F contains all the integers. It then follows that every rational númber
n/m =nm- 1 (m =1= O) also lies in F, so that F = Q.
field. The reasoning here depends on the fact that the additive group
(Zp, +p) is a finite group ofprime order and therefore by Lagrange's theorem
has no non-trivial subgroups.
An observation which will not detain us long is that each field F contains
collection of all subfields of F. Then the intersection (\ F¡ is also a subfield
of F. Now, if F' is any subfield of the field (\ F¡, then F' E {F¡}, whence
(\ F¡ ~ F' ; the implication is that F' = (\ F¡, forcing (\ F¡ to be a: prime
 66 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
field. As regards the uniqueness assertion, suppose that K ¡ and K 2 are
both prime subfields of F. Then K 1 n K 2 is a subfield of F as well as K ¡,
with K¡ ;2 K¡ n K 2 • But K¡ can possess no proper subfields, which
signifies thatK¡ = K¡ n K 2 • Likewise,K 2 = K¡ n K 2 , whenceK¡ = K 2 •
We conc1ude this chapter by showing that, to within isómorphism, the
rational number field and the fields Z pare the only prime fields.
Theorem 4-12. Any prime field F is isomorphic either to Q, the field
of'rational numbers, or to one of the fields Zp of integers modulo a
prime p.
Proof. To begin, let 1 be the multiplicative identity of F and define the
mapping f: Z ~ F by fin) = nI for any integer n. Then f is a homo~
morphism from Z onto the subring Zl of integral multiples of 1. In com-
pliance with Theorem 3-7, we therefore have Z/ker f ~ Z1. But kerf is
an ideal of Z, a principal ideal domain, whence ker f = (n) for sorne
nonnegative integer n. The possibility that n = 1 can be ruled out, for
otherwise 1 = f(l) = Oor, what amounts to the same thing, F = {O}.
Notice further that if n =1= O, then n must in fact be a prime number.
Suppose to the contrary that n = n¡n 2 ; where 1 < ni < n. Sin ce n E kerf,
it follows that
(n¡1)(n 2 1) = (n¡n 2 )1 = nI = O,
yielding the contradiction that the field F has divisors of zero. (This result
is not entirely unexpected, because the integer n is the characteristic of F
and as such must be a prime, whenever n =1= O.)
The preceding discussion indica tes that two possibilities arise: either
1) Zl ~ Z/(p) = Zp for sorne prime p, or
2) Zl ~ Z/(O) = Z.
. Turning to a closer analysis of these cases, as sume flrst that Zl ~ Zp'
with p prime. Inasmuch as the ring of integers modulO a prime forms a
field, the subring Zl must itself be a field. But F, being a prime field,
contains no proper subfields. Accordingly, Zl = F, 'wJ.:¡.ich leads to the
isomorphism F ~ Z P' ,_
For the final stage of the proo( consider the situatiü\n where Zl ~ Z.
Under these circumstances, the subring Zl is an integraldomain, but not a
field. Taking stock of Theorem 4-8, as well as the hypothesis that F is a
prime field, we conc1ude that
F = {ab-¡Ia, bEZ1; b f O}
= {(n1)(m1)-¡ln, m E Z; m =1= O}.
It is now a purely routine matter to verify that the fields F and Q are iso-
morphic under the mapping g(n/m) = (n1)(m1)-1; we leave the details as
an exercise.
PROBLEMS 67
Since every field contains a unique prime subfield, the following sub-
sidiary result is of interest.
CoroUary l. Every field contains a subfield which is isomorphic either
to the field Q or to one of the fields Z p'
Theorem 4-12 also provides sorne information regarding field auto-
morphisms.
Corollary 2. If f is an automorphism of the field F, then f(a) = a for
each element a in the prime subfield.of F (hence, a prime field has no
automorphism except the identity).
Proof. The prime subfield of F is either
F¡= {(n1)(m1)--¡ln,mEZ;m =1= O}
or
F2 = {n1ln = 0,1, ... ,p - 1},
according as the characteristic of F is O or a prime p. Since any automor-
phism of a field carries the identity 1 onto itself, the result should be c1ear.
PROBLEMS
1. a) Assuming that R is a division ring, show that cent R forms a field.
b) Prove that every subring, with identity, ofa field is an integral domain.
2. Let R be an integral domain and consider the set Z1 of aH integral multiples of
the identity eleme~t :
Z1 = {n1ln e Z}.
Establish that Z1 is a field if and onlyif R has positive characteristic.
3. In the field e, define a mapping f: e .:.. e by sending each complex number to its
conjugate; that is,f(a + bi) = a --:-: ~i. Verify thatfis an automorphism of C.
4. FiiId the center of the quaternion rifig H.
5. Leí R be the subring of M 2( C) consisting of aH matrices of the form
(_~ ~)= (_~ 1~: ~ ~ ~~) (a,b,e,deR#).
Prove that R is a division ring isomorphic to the division ring of real quaternions.
6. By the quaternions over a field F is meant the set of aH q = a + bi + ej + dk,
where a, b, e, d e F and where addition and multiplication are carried out as with
real quaternions. Given that F is a field in which al + bl + e2 + d 2 = O if and
only if a = b = e = d = O, establish that the quat~rnions over F form a division
ringo
 66 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
field. As regards the uniqueness assertion, suppose that K ¡ and K 2 are
both prime subfields of F. Then K 1 n K 2 is a subfield of F as well as K ¡,
with K¡ ;2 K¡ n K 2 • But K¡ can possess no proper subfields, which
signifies thatK¡ = K¡ n K 2 • Likewise,K 2 = K¡ n K 2 , whenceK¡ = K 2 •
We conc1ude this chapter by showing that, to within isómorphism, the
rational number field and the fields Z pare the only prime fields.
Theorem 4-12. Any prime field F is isomorphic either to Q, the field
of'rational numbers, or to one of the fields Zp of integers modulo a
prime p.
Proof. To begin, let 1 be the multiplicative identity of F and define the
mapping f: Z ~ F by fin) = nI for any integer n. Then f is a homo~
morphism from Z onto the subring Zl of integral multiples of 1. In com-
pliance with Theorem 3-7, we therefore have Z/ker f ~ Z1. But kerf is
an ideal of Z, a principal ideal domain, whence ker f = (n) for sorne
nonnegative integer n. The possibility that n = 1 can be ruled out, for
otherwise 1 = f(l) = Oor, what amounts to the same thing, F = {O}.
Notice further that if n =1= O, then n must in fact be a prime number.
Suppose to the contrary that n = n¡n 2 ; where 1 < ni < n. Sin ce n E kerf,
it follows that
(n¡1)(n 2 1) = (n¡n 2 )1 = nI = O,
yielding the contradiction that the field F has divisors of zero. (This result
is not entirely unexpected, because the integer n is the characteristic of F
and as such must be a prime, whenever n =1= O.)
The preceding discussion indica tes that two possibilities arise: either
1) Zl ~ Z/(p) = Zp for sorne prime p, or
2) Zl ~ Z/(O) = Z.
. Turning to a closer analysis of these cases, as sume flrst that Zl ~ Zp'
with p prime. Inasmuch as the ring of integers modulO a prime forms a
field, the subring Zl must itself be a field. But F, being a prime field,
contains no proper subfields. Accordingly, Zl = F, 'wJ.:¡.ich leads to the
isomorphism F ~ Z P' ,_
For the final stage of the proo( consider the situatiü\n where Zl ~ Z.
Under these circumstances, the subring Zl is an integraldomain, but not a
field. Taking stock of Theorem 4-8, as well as the hypothesis that F is a
prime field, we conc1ude that
F = {ab-¡Ia, bEZ1; b f O}
= {(n1)(m1)-¡ln, m E Z; m =1= O}.
It is now a purely routine matter to verify that the fields F and Q are iso-
morphic under the mapping g(n/m) = (n1)(m1)-1; we leave the details as
an exercise.
PROBLEMS 67
Since every field contains a unique prime subfield, the following sub-
sidiary result is of interest.
CoroUary l. Every field contains a subfield which is isomorphic either
to the field Q or to one of the fields Z p'
Theorem 4-12 also provides sorne information regarding field auto-
morphisms.
Corollary 2. If f is an automorphism of the field F, then f(a) = a for
each element a in the prime subfield.of F (hence, a prime field has no
automorphism except the identity).
Proof. The prime subfield of F is either
F¡= {(n1)(m1)--¡ln,mEZ;m =1= O}
or
F2 = {n1ln = 0,1, ... ,p - 1},
according as the characteristic of F is O or a prime p. Since any automor-
phism of a field carries the identity 1 onto itself, the result should be c1ear.
PROBLEMS
1. a) Assuming that R is a division ring, show that cent R forms a field.
b) Prove that every subring, with identity, ofa field is an integral domain.
2. Let R be an integral domain and consider the set Z1 of aH integral multiples of
the identity eleme~t :
Z1 = {n1ln e Z}.
Establish that Z1 is a field if and onlyif R has positive characteristic.
3. In the field e, define a mapping f: e .:.. e by sending each complex number to its
conjugate; that is,f(a + bi) = a --:-: ~i. Verify thatfis an automorphism of C.
4. FiiId the center of the quaternion rifig H.
5. Leí R be the subring of M 2( C) consisting of aH matrices of the form
(_~ ~)= (_~ 1~: ~ ~ ~~) (a,b,e,deR#).
Prove that R is a division ring isomorphic to the division ring of real quaternions.
6. By the quaternions over a field F is meant the set of aH q = a + bi + ej + dk,
where a, b, e, d e F and where addition and multiplication are carried out as with
real quaternions. Given that F is a field in which al + bl + e2 + d 2 = O if and
only if a = b = e = d = O, establish that the quat~rnions over F form a division
ringo
 68 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 69
7. Establish the fo11owing faets eoneeming the Euler phi~funetion: 16. Let F be a field of eharaeteristie p > O. Show that for fixed n E Z +}
a) If n andm are relatively prime integers, then .p(nm) = .p(n).p(m).
b) For any prime P and n> O, ~(P') = p"(l - l/p) p' p.-¡. [Hint: The F' = {a E FlaP· = a
integers k sueh that O < k < p' and ged (le, p,) =1= 1 are p, 2p, ... , p"-lp.] is a subfield of F.
e) If PI' P2' ... ,.p, are the distinct prime divisors of an ínteger n > 1, then 17. Let F be a field. F' a subfield of F, andfan automorphism of F. We say thatf
.p(n) = n(1 l/p¡)(l 1/P2) ... (1 - l/p,). flXes an element a E F in case fea) a. Prove the following assertíons:
d) n = L.,I• .p(a). ., a) The.set of a11 automorphisms of F form a group (in which the binary operation
'.
is eomposition of funetions): .
8. Let 1(~) denote the number of (dístinet) positive divisors of an integer n > 1.
b) The.kt of aU automorphisms of F which fix eaehelement of F' eomprise a group.
Prove that . , '
e) If G'is a group of automorphisms of F, then the set of all eIements of F that
a) If n has the prime faetonzatíon n = pilpi' ... P'k" where the Pi are distinet
ar~'fixed by G (that is, the set F(G) = {a E Flf(a) = a for alifE G}) is a sub-
primes and ni E Z+. then 1(n)'= (n¡ + 1)(n2 + 1) ... (n, + 1),
field'of F. known as the fixed field of G. . ./..
b) The number of ideals of Z,i¡~t(n). } ~ ~(

e) "t"{n).p(n);;:: n, [Hint: II(n¡t1)II(1

,;
- l/Pi) ;;:: 2'n(1/2)k.]
. '
9. Given that the set H~= {[aJé Z,I[a] is not a zero divisor of Z.}, prove that
(H" 'h) forms a finite gioup 'qforder .p(r¡).
10. a) Derive Fermat's Little Th'iJfem:If p is a prime number and a", O (mod p),
then ar ¡ == 1 (mod p). .,
b) If gcd (a, n) = 1, show thal the equation ax == b (mod n) has a unique solution
modulo n. [Hint: AH solutions are given by x = bat!>(m-l)+ kn.]
JI. a) Prove thatevery field ís a principal ideal domain;
. b) Show that the ring R = {a + b.J2Ia, b EZ} is not a field by exhibiting a
nontrivial ideal of R.
12. Let f be a homomorphism from the ring R into the ring R' and suppose that R
has a subring F whieh is a field. Establish that either F ~ ker f or else R' eontams
a subring isomorphie to F. .
13. Derive the fo11owing results: . b) If K is a field of quotients of an integral domain R, prove that K is also a field
a) The identity element of a subfield is the same as that of the field.
.b) If {F¡}' is an index collection of subfields of the field F, then n F¡ is also a
subfield of F. ..
e) A subring F of a field F is a subfield of F if and only if F eontains at least one
nonzero element and a- ¡ E F for every nonzero a E F',
d) A subset F of a finite field F is a subfield of F if and only if F' eontains more
than one element and is c10sed under addition and multiplieation.
14. a) Consider the subset S of R # defined by
S = {a + b.jPla, bE Q; p a fixed prime}.
Show that S is a subfield of R#.
b) Prove that any subfield of the field R# must eontain the rational.numbers.
15. Prove that if the field F is of eharaeteristie p > O, then every subfield of F has
eharacteristie p.
18. Let R he a commutative ring eontaining at least one non-zero-divisor. Prove that
a) Aílé'lement ab- 1 is a non-zero-divisor of Q'I(R) if and only if a is a non-zero-
di~lg¡'r of R.
I b) IfR-'has an identity and every non-zero-divisor of R ísÚ!"ertible iriR. then
Rf=<.Qcl(R); in particular, F QcI(F) for any field F.
e) Q.lni.l(R)) = Qc¡(R)~ . ..
d) Ir R is finite, then R Qcl(R). [Hint: For any non-zero-divísor a E R, there
is sorne bE R such that a2 b = a; ah is idempotent; thus, R has an identity
element 1 and ab = 1 by Problem 12, Chapter 1.]
19. Utilize part (d) of the preeeding problern to give another proof that any finite
integral domain ls a fieId.
20. Show that any field eontaining the integral domain R as a subriÍlg contains the
field of quotients Q.I(R); in this sense, Q.¡(R) i8 the smallest field containing R.
21. a) If R = {a + b.J2la, b E Z}, then R forms an integral domain under ordinary
additíon and multiplication, but not a field. Obtain the field of quotients of R.
Do the same fór the domain Ze'
of quotients of every subdomain of K containíng R.
22. Let R be an arbitrary ring (not necessarily commutative) with al least one non-zero-
divisor. Prove that R possesses a c1assicaI ring of quotients if and only if it satisfies
the so-ealled Ore eondition: for aU a, b E R. b being a non-zero-divisor, there exíst
elements e, d E R, with d a non-zero-divisor such that ad be.
23. Prove tbat any automorpbism of an integral domain R admits a unique extension .
to the field of quotients Qcl(R).
24. Let F be a field and 21 the set of integral multiples of the identity.· Verify that
the prime subfield of F coincides with Q,¡(Zl). [Hint: Problem 20.J
25. Establish the following assertion, thereby completing the proof of Theorem 4-12:
If F is a field of eharaeteristie zero and
K = {(n1)(m1)-1In. m E Z; m =1= O)
is the prime subfieId of F, then K C!! Q via the mappingf(n/m) (nl)(m1)-¡.
"
i

1
 68 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 69
7. Establish the fo11owing faets eoneeming the Euler phi~funetion: 16. Let F be a field of eharaeteristie p > O. Show that for fixed n E Z +}
a) If n andm are relatively prime integers, then .p(nm) = .p(n).p(m).
b) For any prime P and n> O, ~(P') = p"(l - l/p) p' p.-¡. [Hint: The F' = {a E FlaP· = a
integers k sueh that O < k < p' and ged (le, p,) =1= 1 are p, 2p, ... , p"-lp.] is a subfield of F.
e) If PI' P2' ... ,.p, are the distinct prime divisors of an ínteger n > 1, then 17. Let F be a field. F' a subfield of F, andfan automorphism of F. We say thatf
.p(n) = n(1 l/p¡)(l 1/P2) ... (1 - l/p,). flXes an element a E F in case fea) a. Prove the following assertíons:
d) n = L.,I• .p(a). ., a) The.set of a11 automorphisms of F form a group (in which the binary operation
'.
is eomposition of funetions): .
8. Let 1(~) denote the number of (dístinet) positive divisors of an integer n > 1.
b) The.kt of aU automorphisms of F which fix eaehelement of F' eomprise a group.
Prove that . , '
e) If G'is a group of automorphisms of F, then the set of all eIements of F that
a) If n has the prime faetonzatíon n = pilpi' ... P'k" where the Pi are distinet
ar~'fixed by G (that is, the set F(G) = {a E Flf(a) = a for alifE G}) is a sub-
primes and ni E Z+. then 1(n)'= (n¡ + 1)(n2 + 1) ... (n, + 1),
field'of F. known as the fixed field of G. . ./..
b) The number of ideals of Z,i¡~t(n). } ~ ~(

e) "t"{n).p(n);;:: n, [Hint: II(n¡t1)II(1

,;
- l/Pi) ;;:: 2'n(1/2)k.]
. '
9. Given that the set H~= {[aJé Z,I[a] is not a zero divisor of Z.}, prove that
(H" 'h) forms a finite gioup 'qforder .p(r¡).
10. a) Derive Fermat's Little Th'iJfem:If p is a prime number and a", O (mod p),
then ar ¡ == 1 (mod p). .,
b) If gcd (a, n) = 1, show thal the equation ax == b (mod n) has a unique solution
modulo n. [Hint: AH solutions are given by x = bat!>(m-l)+ kn.]
JI. a) Prove thatevery field ís a principal ideal domain;
. b) Show that the ring R = {a + b.J2Ia, b EZ} is not a field by exhibiting a
nontrivial ideal of R.
12. Let f be a homomorphism from the ring R into the ring R' and suppose that R
has a subring F whieh is a field. Establish that either F ~ ker f or else R' eontams
a subring isomorphie to F. .
13. Derive the fo11owing results: . b) If K is a field of quotients of an integral domain R, prove that K is also a field
a) The identity element of a subfield is the same as that of the field.
.b) If {F¡}' is an index collection of subfields of the field F, then n F¡ is also a
subfield of F. ..
e) A subring F of a field F is a subfield of F if and only if F eontains at least one
nonzero element and a- ¡ E F for every nonzero a E F',
d) A subset F of a finite field F is a subfield of F if and only if F' eontains more
than one element and is c10sed under addition and multiplieation.
14. a) Consider the subset S of R # defined by
S = {a + b.jPla, bE Q; p a fixed prime}.
Show that S is a subfield of R#.
b) Prove that any subfield of the field R# must eontain the rational.numbers.
15. Prove that if the field F is of eharaeteristie p > O, then every subfield of F has
eharacteristie p.
18. Let R he a commutative ring eontaining at least one non-zero-divisor. Prove that
a) Aílé'lement ab- 1 is a non-zero-divisor of Q'I(R) if and only if a is a non-zero-
di~lg¡'r of R.
I b) IfR-'has an identity and every non-zero-divisor of R ísÚ!"ertible iriR. then
Rf=<.Qcl(R); in particular, F QcI(F) for any field F.
e) Q.lni.l(R)) = Qc¡(R)~ . ..
d) Ir R is finite, then R Qcl(R). [Hint: For any non-zero-divísor a E R, there
is sorne bE R such that a2 b = a; ah is idempotent; thus, R has an identity
element 1 and ab = 1 by Problem 12, Chapter 1.]
19. Utilize part (d) of the preeeding problern to give another proof that any finite
integral domain ls a fieId.
20. Show that any field eontaining the integral domain R as a subriÍlg contains the
field of quotients Q.I(R); in this sense, Q.¡(R) i8 the smallest field containing R.
21. a) If R = {a + b.J2la, b E Z}, then R forms an integral domain under ordinary
additíon and multiplication, but not a field. Obtain the field of quotients of R.
Do the same fór the domain Ze'
of quotients of every subdomain of K containíng R.
22. Let R be an arbitrary ring (not necessarily commutative) with al least one non-zero-
divisor. Prove that R possesses a c1assicaI ring of quotients if and only if it satisfies
the so-ealled Ore eondition: for aU a, b E R. b being a non-zero-divisor, there exíst
elements e, d E R, with d a non-zero-divisor such that ad be.
23. Prove tbat any automorpbism of an integral domain R admits a unique extension .
to the field of quotients Qcl(R).
24. Let F be a field and 21 the set of integral multiples of the identity.· Verify that
the prime subfield of F coincides with Q,¡(Zl). [Hint: Problem 20.J
25. Establish the following assertion, thereby completing the proof of Theorem 4-12:
If F is a field of eharaeteristie zero and
K = {(n1)(m1)-1In. m E Z; m =1= O)
is the prime subfieId of F, then K C!! Q via the mappingf(n/m) (nl)(m1)-¡.
"
i

1
70 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
In Problems 26-29, R is assumed to be a eommutative ringo
26. Let S be any multiplicatively c/osed subset of the ring R (that is, the produet of
any two elements of S again lies in S) whieh eontains no zero divisor of R and
O~ S. If the set Rs is defined by
Rs = {ab- 1 EQc¡(R)laER,bES},
prove that Rs is a subring of the ring of quotients Qc¡(R), known as the ring of
qUQtients of R relative to S.
27. a) Show that the set S = {n E Zlp { n; p a' fixed prime} is multiplieatively c10sed
and.determine Zs, the ring of quotients of Z relative to S.
b) If R is any ring satisfying Z ~ R ~ Q, prove that R = Zs for a suitable
multiplieatively c10sed subset S ~ Z. [Hint: Cónsider the set S = {m E Zlfor
sorne n E Z, nlm E ,R; ged (n, m) = 1}.]
28. Let S be a multiplieat,ively c10sed subset of the ring R with O ~ S. Prove!he
statements below:
a) The set 1 = {a E Rlas = O for sorne s E S} is an ideal of R.
b) Sil = nat¡S is a multiplieatively closed subset of the quotient ring RI1.
e) No element of Sil is a zero divisor of RIl. (Thus, one can foqn !he ring of
quotients of RIl relative to Sil; the result is eal1ed the generalized ring of
quotients of R relative to S.)
d) If S eontains nozero divisor of R. then (RI1)s!¡ = Rs.
29. Let S be a multiplieatively c10sed subset of the ring R whieh eontains no zero
divisor of R nor zero.
a) If 1 is an ideal of R. verify that the set IS-1 = {ab- 1 E Qc¡{R)la El, b E S} is
anideal,ofQc¡(R). Conversely,eaehidealJ ofQc¡(R)isoftheformJ = (J n R)S-I.
b) For ideals l. J of R. establish the identities
¡
I
FIVE
MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRIMARY IDEALS
The present chapter is devoted to a study of certain special types of ideals,
most notably maximal, prime, and primary ideals. On the whole, our
hypothesis will restrict us to commutative rings with identity. The require-
ment is motivated to sorne extent by the fact that many of the standard
examples of ring theory have this property. Another reason, which is
perhaps more important from the conceptual point of view, is that the most
satisfactory and complete results occur here. We begin our discussion with
the following definition.
Definition 5-1. An ideal 1 of the ring R is said to be a maximal ideal
provided that 1 =1= R and whenever J is an ideal of R with 1 e J ~ R,
then J = R.
Expressed somewhat loosely, an ideal is maximal if it is not the whole
ring and is not properly contained in any larger proper ideal; the only ideal
to contain a maximal ideal properly is the ring itself.
It is usually quite awkward to pro ve that an ideal is maximal directIy
from Definition 5-1. We therefore need several theorems which will help
to determine whether or not a given ideal is actually maximal, but"wpich
are, in genera}, easier to apply than Definition 5-1. One such re;¡¡.J!t is
pn~sented b e l o w . :.. "
Theorem 5-1. Let 1 be a proper ideal of the ring R. Then 1 is a maximal
ideal if and only if (J, a) = R for any element a ~ l. Here (J, a) dértotes
the ideal generated by 1 u {a}. ,,'
Proo!' First, notice that (J, a) satisfies 1 e (J, a) ~ R. These inc1~~ions
imply that if 1. were a maximal ideal of R, we would necessarily. have
(J, a) = R. On the other hand, assume that J is an ideal of the ring R with
the property that 1 e J ~ R. If a is any element of J which does not lie
in 1, then 1 e (1, a) ~ J. The requirement that (1, a) = R would thus
force J to be all of R, and we could conc1ude that 1 is a maximal ideal.
A knowledge of several moderately simple examples will provide some
basis for understanding these ideas.
71
70 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
In Problems 26-29, R is assumed to be a eommutative ringo
26. Let S be any multiplicatively c/osed subset of the ring R (that is, the produet of
any two elements of S again lies in S) whieh eontains no zero divisor of R and
O~ S. If the set Rs is defined by
Rs = {ab- 1 EQc¡(R)laER,bES},
prove that Rs is a subring of the ring of quotients Qc¡(R), known as the ring of
qUQtients of R relative to S.
27. a) Show that the set S = {n E Zlp { n; p a' fixed prime} is multiplieatively c10sed
and.determine Zs, the ring of quotients of Z relative to S.
b) If R is any ring satisfying Z ~ R ~ Q, prove that R = Zs for a suitable
multiplieatively c10sed subset S ~ Z. [Hint: Cónsider the set S = {m E Zlfor
sorne n E Z, nlm E ,R; ged (n, m) = 1}.]
28. Let S be a multiplieat,ively c10sed subset of the ring R with O ~ S. Prove!he
statements below:
a) The set 1 = {a E Rlas = O for sorne s E S} is an ideal of R.
b) Sil = nat¡S is a multiplieatively closed subset of the quotient ring RI1.
e) No element of Sil is a zero divisor of RIl. (Thus, one can foqn !he ring of
quotients of RIl relative to Sil; the result is eal1ed the generalized ring of
quotients of R relative to S.)
d) If S eontains nozero divisor of R. then (RI1)s!¡ = Rs.
29. Let S be a multiplieatively c10sed subset of the ring R whieh eontains no zero
divisor of R nor zero.
a) If 1 is an ideal of R. verify that the set IS-1 = {ab- 1 E Qc¡{R)la El, b E S} is
anideal,ofQc¡(R). Conversely,eaehidealJ ofQc¡(R)isoftheformJ = (J n R)S-I.
b) For ideals l. J of R. establish the identities
¡
I
FIVE
MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRIMARY IDEALS
The present chapter is devoted to a study of certain special types of ideals,
most notably maximal, prime, and primary ideals. On the whole, our
hypothesis will restrict us to commutative rings with identity. The require-
ment is motivated to sorne extent by the fact that many of the standard
examples of ring theory have this property. Another reason, which is
perhaps more important from the conceptual point of view, is that the most
satisfactory and complete results occur here. We begin our discussion with
the following definition.
Definition 5-1. An ideal 1 of the ring R is said to be a maximal ideal
provided that 1 =1= R and whenever J is an ideal of R with 1 e J ~ R,
then J = R.
Expressed somewhat loosely, an ideal is maximal if it is not the whole
ring and is not properly contained in any larger proper ideal; the only ideal
to contain a maximal ideal properly is the ring itself.
It is usually quite awkward to pro ve that an ideal is maximal directIy
from Definition 5-1. We therefore need several theorems which will help
to determine whether or not a given ideal is actually maximal, but"wpich
are, in genera}, easier to apply than Definition 5-1. One such re;¡¡.J!t is
pn~sented b e l o w . :.. "
Theorem 5-1. Let 1 be a proper ideal of the ring R. Then 1 is a maximal
ideal if and only if (J, a) = R for any element a ~ l. Here (J, a) dértotes
the ideal generated by 1 u {a}. ,,'
Proo!' First, notice that (J, a) satisfies 1 e (J, a) ~ R. These inc1~~ions
imply that if 1. were a maximal ideal of R, we would necessarily. have
(J, a) = R. On the other hand, assume that J is an ideal of the ring R with
the property that 1 e J ~ R. If a is any element of J which does not lie
in 1, then 1 e (1, a) ~ J. The requirement that (1, a) = R would thus
force J to be all of R, and we could conc1ude that 1 is a maximal ideal.
A knowledge of several moderately simple examples will provide some
basis for understanding these ideas.
71
 72 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
• '!I
Example 5-1. We propose to show that in. the ring Z of integers the
maximal ideáIs correspond to the prime numbers; more precisely: the
principal ideal (n), n > 1, is maximal if and only- if n is a prime.
Suppose tbat (n) is a maximal ideal of Z. If the integer n is not prime,
then n = n l l1 2, where 1 < nl < n2 < n. This impliés that the ideals (nJ
~~~~~'
(n) c: (n l ) c:; Z, (n) c: (n 2 ) c: Z, ,;
contrary to the maximality of (n). . ,'.
For the opposite direction, ássume now that the integer n is priní~~ If
tbe principal ideal (n) i8 not maximal in Z; then either (n) = Z or else~here
exists sOD1e proper ideal (m) satisfying (n) c: (m) c:; Z. The first cáse is
..- ' .
immediately ruled out. by the fact that 1 is not a multlple of any:¡:iiime
number. The aIternativ~ possibility, (n) c: (m), means that n = km foi¡~9'me
integer k > 1; tbis is equally untenable, since n is· prime, not comp~&~te.
At any rate, we conclude that (n) must be a maximal ideal.~;.),"
<:.
Example 5-2. For an illustration of the practicality of Theorem 5-1,' we
take R = mapR"', a commutative ring with identity (Example 4, Chapter
1). Consider the set M of alI functions which vanish at O:
M = {fERlf(O) = O}.
EvidentIy, M forms an ideal ofthe ring R; we contend that it is actualIy
a maximal ideal. Indeed, iff ~ M and i is the identity map on R"' (that is,
í(x) = x), one Ínay easily check that (i2 + j2)(x)4 O for each x E R #.
Hence, the function í2 + f2 is an invertible element of R. Since
R (M, j) 2 (í, 1), with ¡2 + j2 E (i, f), this implies that (M. R; inn
consequence, M is a rnaximal ideal of R. (Here (i, f) denotes the ideal
generated by iandf;thatis,(i,j) = tri + sflr,SER}.) . l/k' one contains aIl others, calI it li" . Thus, al' a2' ... , an al11ie in this one.-....J
Our immediate goal is to obtain a general resulf assuríng the existen ce
of suitably many maximal ideals. As will be seen presently, the crucial
step in the proof dependson Zorn's Lemma (see Appendix B), an exceedingly
powerful tool which is almost indispensable in modern mathematics.
Zom's Lemma (traditionally calIed a lemma, but in fact an equivalent form
of the Axiom of Choice) asserts :
Zorn's lemma. If (S, ~) is a partially ordered set with the property
.. that every chain in S has an upper bound in S, then S possesses at least
one maximal element
ClearIy, some partial orderings are more useful than others in applica-
tions of Zorn's Lemma. In our later investigations we shall frequently take
S to be a fami1y of subsets of a given set and tbe partíal ordering to be the
usual inclusion relation; an upper bound of any chain of elements would
., MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRIMAR Y IDEALS 73
simply be their set-theoretic union. For this particular setting, Zorn 's
Lemma may be formulated as follows:
Let.91 be a nonempty family of subsets of some fixed nonempty' set with'
the property tbat for each chain C(j in .91, the union u C(j also belongs
. to.9l. Then.91 contains a set which is maximal in the sense that it is
not properIy contained in any member of .91. i
Because this may be the reader's first contact with Zorn's Lemma, we
proceed'in somewhat leisurely fashion to establish
,'o,'
Theorem 5-2. lf the ring R is finitely generJi~d, then each proper ideal
of R is contained in a maximal ideal. Y:\
::;-,';":"
Proof Let 1 b~ any proper ideal of R, a fipüely gene¡:;ated ring; say,
R ( a 1 , a2, ... ,an ). We define a family of ideal§ of R by taking
d = {Jll ¡:; J; J Isa proper;W~~l of R}.", :
····1:"(
This family 18 obviously nonempty, for 1 itself belongs todo
Now, consider an arbitrary chain {Ji} ofidealsln.9l. Our aim, of course,
ís to establish that u li ís again a member of.9l. To this purpose, let the
elements a, b E U li and rE R. Then there exist índices i and) for which
a E l i , bE lJ' As the colIection {Ji} forms a chain, either li ¡:; lJ or eIse
1) ¡:; li' For definiteness, suppose that li ¡:; l j , so that both a, bE 1,. But
1j ís an ideal of R; hence, the difference a - b E J j ¡:; u 1 i' AI~o, the
. products ar and ra E li ¡:; U li' AlI of this shows u li to be an ideal of R.
Next, we must verify that u li i8 a pioper ideal of R. Suppose, to tbe
contrary, that u li = R = (al' a2, ... ,an ). Then, each generator ak would
belong to some ideal l/k of the chain {lJ. There being only finitely many
li" In consequence, li' = R,which, is cIearIy impossible. ,FinalIy~ noti{e
that 1 ¡:; u 1" whence the union u l¡ E .91. .\
Therefore, on the basis of Zorn's Lemma, the family .91 contains a
maximal eIement M. It follows directIy from the definition of.91 that M
is aproper ideal of the ring R with 1 ¡:; M. We a8ser.t that M is in fact a
maximill ideal. To 8ee this, suppose that J is any ideal of R for which
M c: J ¡:; R. . ,Since M is a maximal element of the family .91, J cannot
belong to.9l. Accordingly, the ideal J must be improper, which is to say that
J = R. We thus concIude that M is a maximal ideal of R, completing the
proor.
The significant point, of course, is that this theorem asserts the existence
of certain maximal ideals, but gives no clue as to how actualIyto find them.
The chiefvirtue ofTheorem 5-2 is that it Ieads immediately to the following "
celebrated result. . '
 72 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
• '!I
Example 5-1. We propose to show that in. the ring Z of integers the
maximal ideáIs correspond to the prime numbers; more precisely: the
principal ideal (n), n > 1, is maximal if and only- if n is a prime.
Suppose tbat (n) is a maximal ideal of Z. If the integer n is not prime,
then n = n l l1 2, where 1 < nl < n2 < n. This impliés that the ideals (nJ
~~~~~'
(n) c: (n l ) c:; Z, (n) c: (n 2 ) c: Z, ,;
contrary to the maximality of (n). . ,'.
For the opposite direction, ássume now that the integer n is priní~~ If
tbe principal ideal (n) i8 not maximal in Z; then either (n) = Z or else~here
exists sOD1e proper ideal (m) satisfying (n) c: (m) c:; Z. The first cáse is
..- ' .
immediately ruled out. by the fact that 1 is not a multlple of any:¡:iiime
number. The aIternativ~ possibility, (n) c: (m), means that n = km foi¡~9'me
integer k > 1; tbis is equally untenable, since n is· prime, not comp~&~te.
At any rate, we conclude that (n) must be a maximal ideal.~;.),"
<:.
Example 5-2. For an illustration of the practicality of Theorem 5-1,' we
take R = mapR"', a commutative ring with identity (Example 4, Chapter
1). Consider the set M of alI functions which vanish at O:
M = {fERlf(O) = O}.
EvidentIy, M forms an ideal ofthe ring R; we contend that it is actualIy
a maximal ideal. Indeed, iff ~ M and i is the identity map on R"' (that is,
í(x) = x), one Ínay easily check that (i2 + j2)(x)4 O for each x E R #.
Hence, the function í2 + f2 is an invertible element of R. Since
R (M, j) 2 (í, 1), with ¡2 + j2 E (i, f), this implies that (M. R; inn
consequence, M is a rnaximal ideal of R. (Here (i, f) denotes the ideal
generated by iandf;thatis,(i,j) = tri + sflr,SER}.) . l/k' one contains aIl others, calI it li" . Thus, al' a2' ... , an al11ie in this one.-....J
Our immediate goal is to obtain a general resulf assuríng the existen ce
of suitably many maximal ideals. As will be seen presently, the crucial
step in the proof dependson Zorn's Lemma (see Appendix B), an exceedingly
powerful tool which is almost indispensable in modern mathematics.
Zom's Lemma (traditionally calIed a lemma, but in fact an equivalent form
of the Axiom of Choice) asserts :
Zorn's lemma. If (S, ~) is a partially ordered set with the property
.. that every chain in S has an upper bound in S, then S possesses at least
one maximal element
ClearIy, some partial orderings are more useful than others in applica-
tions of Zorn's Lemma. In our later investigations we shall frequently take
S to be a fami1y of subsets of a given set and tbe partíal ordering to be the
usual inclusion relation; an upper bound of any chain of elements would
., MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRIMAR Y IDEALS 73
simply be their set-theoretic union. For this particular setting, Zorn 's
Lemma may be formulated as follows:
Let.91 be a nonempty family of subsets of some fixed nonempty' set with'
the property tbat for each chain C(j in .91, the union u C(j also belongs
. to.9l. Then.91 contains a set which is maximal in the sense that it is
not properIy contained in any member of .91. i
Because this may be the reader's first contact with Zorn's Lemma, we
proceed'in somewhat leisurely fashion to establish
,'o,'
Theorem 5-2. lf the ring R is finitely generJi~d, then each proper ideal
of R is contained in a maximal ideal. Y:\
::;-,';":"
Proof Let 1 b~ any proper ideal of R, a fipüely gene¡:;ated ring; say,
R ( a 1 , a2, ... ,an ). We define a family of ideal§ of R by taking
d = {Jll ¡:; J; J Isa proper;W~~l of R}.", :
····1:"(
This family 18 obviously nonempty, for 1 itself belongs todo
Now, consider an arbitrary chain {Ji} ofidealsln.9l. Our aim, of course,
ís to establish that u li ís again a member of.9l. To this purpose, let the
elements a, b E U li and rE R. Then there exist índices i and) for which
a E l i , bE lJ' As the colIection {Ji} forms a chain, either li ¡:; lJ or eIse
1) ¡:; li' For definiteness, suppose that li ¡:; l j , so that both a, bE 1,. But
1j ís an ideal of R; hence, the difference a - b E J j ¡:; u 1 i' AI~o, the
. products ar and ra E li ¡:; U li' AlI of this shows u li to be an ideal of R.
Next, we must verify that u li i8 a pioper ideal of R. Suppose, to tbe
contrary, that u li = R = (al' a2, ... ,an ). Then, each generator ak would
belong to some ideal l/k of the chain {lJ. There being only finitely many
li" In consequence, li' = R,which, is cIearIy impossible. ,FinalIy~ noti{e
that 1 ¡:; u 1" whence the union u l¡ E .91. .\
Therefore, on the basis of Zorn's Lemma, the family .91 contains a
maximal eIement M. It follows directIy from the definition of.91 that M
is aproper ideal of the ring R with 1 ¡:; M. We a8ser.t that M is in fact a
maximill ideal. To 8ee this, suppose that J is any ideal of R for which
M c: J ¡:; R. . ,Since M is a maximal element of the family .91, J cannot
belong to.9l. Accordingly, the ideal J must be improper, which is to say that
J = R. We thus concIude that M is a maximal ideal of R, completing the
proor.
The significant point, of course, is that this theorem asserts the existence
of certain maximal ideals, but gives no clue as to how actualIyto find them.
The chiefvirtue ofTheorem 5-2 is that it Ieads immediately to the following "
celebrated result. . '
 74 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRIMARY IDEALS 75

Theorem 5-3. (Krull-Zorn)o In a ring R with identity each proper ideal
is contained in a maximal ideal.
Proof. An appeal to Theorem 5-2 is legitima te, since R = (1)0
Corollary. An element of a cornmutative ring R with identity is in-
vertible if and only if it belongs to no maximal ideal of R.
o Although maximal ideals were defined for arbitrary rings, we shall
abandon a degree of generality and for the time being limit our discussion
almost exclusively to commutative rings with identityo A ring of this kind
is, of course, much easier to handle than one which is not commutativeo
Another advantage stems from the fact that each ideal, other than the ring
itself, will be contained in a maximal ideal. Thus, until further notice, we
shall assume that al! g(ven rings are commutative with identity,eve~ when
this is not explicitly men,tionedo To be sure, a good deal of the subsequent
material could be presented without this additional restriotiono
o The Krull-Zorn Theorem has many important applications throughout
Ideal theoryo For the moment, we content ourselves with giving an ele-
, mentary proof of a somewhat special result; although the fact involved is
rather interesting, there will be no occasion to make use of it.
to pro ve that Rjl is a field, it suffices to show that each nonzero element of
Rjl has a multiplicative inverse. Now, if the coset a + l =1= l, then a f# l.
By virtue of the fact that l is a maxirnal ideal, the ideal (l, a) generated by
l and a must be the whole ring R:
R = (1, a) = {i + rali E l, rE R}o
That is to say, every element of R is expressible in the form i + ra, where
i E l and rE R. The identity element 1, in particular, rnay be written as
1 = r + ra for suitable choice of rE 1, r E R. But then, the difference
1 - ra E lo This obviously implies that
1+ l = ra + l = (r + lHa + l),
whichassertsthatr + l = (a + 1)-1. Hen<;;e,Rjlisafield.
For the opposite direction, we suppose that Rjl is a field and J is any
ideal of R for which l e J f; R. The argurnent consists of showing that
J = R, for theil l will be a rnaximal ideal. Since l is a proper subset of J,
there exists an elernent a E J with a f# l. Consequently, the coset a + l =1=
l, the zero elernent of Rjl. Since Rjl is assumed to be a field, a + l must
have an in verse under multiplication,

Theorem 5-4. In a ring R having exactly one maximal ideal M, the (a + lHb + l) = ab + l = 1 + l,
only idempotents are O and 1. for sorne coset b + lE Rjl. It then follows that 1 - ab E l e J. 'But the
Proof. Assume that the theorem is false; tha t is, su ppose tha t there exists product ab also lies in J (recall that a is an element of the ideal J), irnplying
an idempotent a E R with a =1= O, 1. The relation a 2 = a implies a(l - a) = O, that the identity 1 = (1 - ab) + ab EJ. This in turn yields J = R, as
so that a and 1 - a are both zero divisors. Hence, by Problem 4(d), Chapter desired. o
1, neither the element a nor 1 - a is invertible üilE. But this means that the Example 5-3. Consider the ring Ze of ~ven integers, a commutative ring
principal ideals (a) and (1 - a) are both prop~¡:~i~eals of the ring R. As without identity. In this I:ilJ,g, the principal ideal (4) generated by the integer
such, they must be contained in M, the sole nj~;xi~al of R. Accordingly, 4 is a maxirnal ideal, when:,
the elements a and 1 - a lie in M, whence
(4) = {4(2j) + 4klj, k E z} = 4Z.
1= a + (1 - a) E Mo" .
This leads at once to the contradiction that M '~::R. The argument might be expressed as followso If n is any element not in (4),
then n is an even integer ~9tdivisible by 4; consequently, n can be expressed
Although more elementary proofs are possible, Theorem 5-4 can be in the form n = 4m + 2'for sorne integer m. We then have
used to show that a field has no idempotents, except O and 1. A full
justification ofthis statement consists offirst establishing that the zero ideal 2 '= 4(-m) + nE((4),n),
is the only maximal ideal in a field. so that Ze = (2) = ((4), n)o By virtue of Theorem 5-1, this is sufficient to
We now come to a characterization of maximal ideals in terms of their demonstrate the maxirnality ofthe ideal (4).
quotient rings. Now, note that in the quotient ring ZJ(4),
Theor~m 5-5. LetI be a proper ideal ofthe ring R. Then l is a maximal (2 + (4))(2 + (4)) = 4 + (4) = (4).
ideal if and only if the quotient ring Rjl is a field.
Proof. To'begin, let l be a maximal ideal of R. Since R is a commutative
rin~ ,:",ith identity, the quotient ring Rjl also has these properties. Thus,
 74 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRIMARY IDEALS 75

Theorem 5-3. (Krull-Zorn)o In a ring R with identity each proper ideal
is contained in a maximal ideal.
Proof. An appeal to Theorem 5-2 is legitima te, since R = (1)0
Corollary. An element of a cornmutative ring R with identity is in-
vertible if and only if it belongs to no maximal ideal of R.
o Although maximal ideals were defined for arbitrary rings, we shall
abandon a degree of generality and for the time being limit our discussion
almost exclusively to commutative rings with identityo A ring of this kind
is, of course, much easier to handle than one which is not commutativeo
Another advantage stems from the fact that each ideal, other than the ring
itself, will be contained in a maximal ideal. Thus, until further notice, we
shall assume that al! g(ven rings are commutative with identity,eve~ when
this is not explicitly men,tionedo To be sure, a good deal of the subsequent
material could be presented without this additional restriotiono
o The Krull-Zorn Theorem has many important applications throughout
Ideal theoryo For the moment, we content ourselves with giving an ele-
, mentary proof of a somewhat special result; although the fact involved is
rather interesting, there will be no occasion to make use of it.
to pro ve that Rjl is a field, it suffices to show that each nonzero element of
Rjl has a multiplicative inverse. Now, if the coset a + l =1= l, then a f# l.
By virtue of the fact that l is a maxirnal ideal, the ideal (l, a) generated by
l and a must be the whole ring R:
R = (1, a) = {i + rali E l, rE R}o
That is to say, every element of R is expressible in the form i + ra, where
i E l and rE R. The identity element 1, in particular, rnay be written as
1 = r + ra for suitable choice of rE 1, r E R. But then, the difference
1 - ra E lo This obviously implies that
1+ l = ra + l = (r + lHa + l),
whichassertsthatr + l = (a + 1)-1. Hen<;;e,Rjlisafield.
For the opposite direction, we suppose that Rjl is a field and J is any
ideal of R for which l e J f; R. The argurnent consists of showing that
J = R, for theil l will be a rnaximal ideal. Since l is a proper subset of J,
there exists an elernent a E J with a f# l. Consequently, the coset a + l =1=
l, the zero elernent of Rjl. Since Rjl is assumed to be a field, a + l must
have an in verse under multiplication,

Theorem 5-4. In a ring R having exactly one maximal ideal M, the (a + lHb + l) = ab + l = 1 + l,
only idempotents are O and 1. for sorne coset b + lE Rjl. It then follows that 1 - ab E l e J. 'But the
Proof. Assume that the theorem is false; tha t is, su ppose tha t there exists product ab also lies in J (recall that a is an element of the ideal J), irnplying
an idempotent a E R with a =1= O, 1. The relation a 2 = a implies a(l - a) = O, that the identity 1 = (1 - ab) + ab EJ. This in turn yields J = R, as
so that a and 1 - a are both zero divisors. Hence, by Problem 4(d), Chapter desired. o
1, neither the element a nor 1 - a is invertible üilE. But this means that the Example 5-3. Consider the ring Ze of ~ven integers, a commutative ring
principal ideals (a) and (1 - a) are both prop~¡:~i~eals of the ring R. As without identity. In this I:ilJ,g, the principal ideal (4) generated by the integer
such, they must be contained in M, the sole nj~;xi~al of R. Accordingly, 4 is a maxirnal ideal, when:,
the elements a and 1 - a lie in M, whence
(4) = {4(2j) + 4klj, k E z} = 4Z.
1= a + (1 - a) E Mo" .
This leads at once to the contradiction that M '~::R. The argument might be expressed as followso If n is any element not in (4),
then n is an even integer ~9tdivisible by 4; consequently, n can be expressed
Although more elementary proofs are possible, Theorem 5-4 can be in the form n = 4m + 2'for sorne integer m. We then have
used to show that a field has no idempotents, except O and 1. A full
justification ofthis statement consists offirst establishing that the zero ideal 2 '= 4(-m) + nE((4),n),
is the only maximal ideal in a field. so that Ze = (2) = ((4), n)o By virtue of Theorem 5-1, this is sufficient to
We now come to a characterization of maximal ideals in terms of their demonstrate the maxirnality ofthe ideal (4).
quotient rings. Now, note that in the quotient ring ZJ(4),
Theor~m 5-5. LetI be a proper ideal ofthe ring R. Then l is a maximal (2 + (4))(2 + (4)) = 4 + (4) = (4).
ideal if and only if the quotient ring Rjl is a field.
Proof. To'begin, let l be a maximal ideal of R. Since R is a commutative
rin~ ,:",ith identity, the quotient ring Rjl also has these properties. Thus,
76 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
We no.w shift o.ur attenti~n [ro.m maximal ideals to. prime ideals. Befo.re
fo.rmally defining this no.tio.n, let us turn to. the ring Z o.f integers fo.r
mo.tivatio.n. Specifically, co.nsider 'the principal' ideal (p) generated by a
prime number p. If the pro.duct ab E (p), where a, bE Z, then p divides ab.
But if a prime divides a pro.duct, it necessarily divides o.ne o.f the facto.rs.
This being the case, either aE (p) o.r bE (p). The ideal (p) thus has the
interesting property that, whenever (p) co.ntains a pro.duct, at least o.ne o.f
the facto.rs must belo.ng to. (P). This o.bservatio.n serves to. suggest and
partly to. illustrate the next defJ.nitio.n.
.,\
Definition 5-2. An ideal Tbf the ring R is a prime ide~l if, fo.r all a, b in
R, ab E 1 implies that eit?e~ a E 1 o.r b E l.
By inductio.n, Defir;¡itio.rii :S-2 can easi1y be extended to. finitely many
elements: an ideal 1 o.íR i~,iprime if, whenever a pro.duct a 1a 2 ••• an o.f
e1ements o.f R belo.ngs to. 1, then'at least o.ne o.f the a; E l. In this co.nnectio.n,
we should cautio.n the reader::üiat many autho.rs insist that the ter~ "prime
ideal" always ineans a proper ideal. ' b + 1 =;"1. In any event, o.ne o.f a o.rb belo.ngs to. 1, fo.rcing"t.to. be a prime
Example 5-4. A co.mmutative ring R with identity is an integral do.main if
and o.nly if the zero. ideal {O} is a prime ideal o.f R.
Example5-5. The prime ideals of the ring Z are precisely the ideals (n),.
where n is a prime number, to.gether with the two. trivial ideals {O} and Z.
Fro.m abo.ve, we already kno.w that if n is a prime, then the principal ideal
(n) is a prime ideal o.f Z. On the o.ther hand, co.nsider any ideal (n) withn
co.mpo.site (n =f. O, 1); say, n = n 1n2 , where 1 < n 1 , n 2 < n. Certainly the
product n 1 n2 = n E (n). Ho.wever, sin ce neither n 1 no.r n 2 is an integral
multiple o.f n, n 1 ~ (n) and n2 ~ (n). Hence,when n is co.mpo.site, the ideal
(n) canno.t be prime. No.tice also that altho.ugh {O} is prime, it is no.t a
maximal ideal o.f Z.
Example 5-6. Fo.r an illustration o.f a ring po.ssessing allo.ntrivial prime
ideal which is no.t maximal, take R = Z x Z, where the o.peratio.ns are per-
fo.rmed co.mpo.nentwise. One may readily verify that Z x {O} is a prime
ideal o.f R. Since
Zx{O} e ZxZe e R,
with Z x Ze an ideal o.f R, Z x {O} fails to. be maximal.
By analo.gy with Theo.rem 5-5, the prime ideals o.f a ring may be charac-
terizedi,n the fo.llo.wing manner.
Theorem 5-6. Let 1 be a pro.per ideal o.f the ring R. Then 1 is a prime
ideal if ~nd o.nly if the quotient ring Rjl is an integral do.main.
Proo! First, take 1 to. be a prime ideal o.f R. Since R is a co.mmutative
.MAXIMAL; PRIME, AND PRIMARY IDEALS 77
,ring with identity, so. is the quo.tient ring Rji. It remains therefo.re o.nly
to. verify that Rj1 is free o.f zero. diviso.rs. Fo.r this, assume that \
(a + l)(b + 1) = l.
In o.ther wo.rds, the pro.duct o.f these two. co.sets is the zero. element o.f the
ring RjI: The fo.rego.ing equatio.n is plainly equivalent to. requiring that
ab + lj= l;o.r what amo.unts to. the same thing, ab E l. Since 1 is assumed
to. be a',prime ideal, o.ne o.f the facto.rs a o.r b must be in l. But this means
that ei~~rr the. co.set a + 1 = i o.r else b + 1 = 1; hence, Rjl is witho.ut
zero. diviso.rs. '
To.:p:~o.ve the co.nverse, we simply reverse the argumento 'Acco.rdingly,
suppo.s'e:that Rjl is an integral do.main and the pro.duct ab E 1. In terms o.f
co.sets;~J4is mean s that '
h!¡, (a + I)(b + 1) = ab + 1 = l.
By h;;;rhesis Rjl co.ntains no. diviso.rs o.f zero., so. that a + 1 = 1 o.r
ideal o.f R.
There is an impo.rtant c1ass o.f ideals which are always prime, namely,
the maximal ideals. Fro.m the several ways o.fpro.ving this result, we cho.o.se
the argument given belo.w; anothei' appro.ach invo.lves the use o.f Theo.rems
• 5-5 and 5-6~
Theorem 5-7. In a co.mmutative ring with identity, every maximal ideal
is a prime ideal.
Proo! Assume that 1 is a maximal ideal o.f the ring R, a co.mmutative ring
with identity, and the pro.duct ab El with a ~ l. We pro.po.se to. sho.w·that
b E l. The maximality o.f 1 implies that the ideal generated by 1 and a must
be the who.le ring: R = (1, a). Hence, there exist elements i E 1, r E R such
that 1 = i + ra. Since bo.th ab and i belong to. 1, we co.nc1ude that
b = lb = (i + ra)b = ib + r(ab) El,
fro.m which it fo.llo.ws that 1 is a prime ideal o.f R.
We sho.uld po.int o.ut that witho.ut the assumptio.n o.f an identity element
this last result do.es no.t remain valid; a specific illustratio.n is the ring Z
o.f even integers, where (4) fo.rms a maximal ideal which is no.t prime. Mo.r~
generally, o.ne can pr,o.ve the fo.llo.wing: if R is a co.mmutative ring witho.ut
identity, bJlt having a single generato.r, then R co.ntains a no.nprime maximal
ideal. To. establish this, suppo.se that R = (a). First o.bserve that the
principal ideal (a 2 ) is a pro.per ideal o.f R, since the generato.r a ~ (a 2 ).
Indeed, were a in (a 2 ), we co.uld write a = ra 2 + na 2 fo.r so.me rE R and
n E Z; it is a simple matter to. check that the e1ement e = ra + na wo.uld
76 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
We no.w shift o.ur attenti~n [ro.m maximal ideals to. prime ideals. Befo.re
fo.rmally defining this no.tio.n, let us turn to. the ring Z o.f integers fo.r
mo.tivatio.n. Specifically, co.nsider 'the principal' ideal (p) generated by a
prime number p. If the pro.duct ab E (p), where a, bE Z, then p divides ab.
But if a prime divides a pro.duct, it necessarily divides o.ne o.f the facto.rs.
This being the case, either aE (p) o.r bE (p). The ideal (p) thus has the
interesting property that, whenever (p) co.ntains a pro.duct, at least o.ne o.f
the facto.rs must belo.ng to. (P). This o.bservatio.n serves to. suggest and
partly to. illustrate the next defJ.nitio.n.
.,\
Definition 5-2. An ideal Tbf the ring R is a prime ide~l if, fo.r all a, b in
R, ab E 1 implies that eit?e~ a E 1 o.r b E l.
By inductio.n, Defir;¡itio.rii :S-2 can easi1y be extended to. finitely many
elements: an ideal 1 o.íR i~,iprime if, whenever a pro.duct a 1a 2 ••• an o.f
e1ements o.f R belo.ngs to. 1, then'at least o.ne o.f the a; E l. In this co.nnectio.n,
we should cautio.n the reader::üiat many autho.rs insist that the ter~ "prime
ideal" always ineans a proper ideal. ' b + 1 =;"1. In any event, o.ne o.f a o.rb belo.ngs to. 1, fo.rcing"t.to. be a prime
Example 5-4. A co.mmutative ring R with identity is an integral do.main if
and o.nly if the zero. ideal {O} is a prime ideal o.f R.
Example5-5. The prime ideals of the ring Z are precisely the ideals (n),.
where n is a prime number, to.gether with the two. trivial ideals {O} and Z.
Fro.m abo.ve, we already kno.w that if n is a prime, then the principal ideal
(n) is a prime ideal o.f Z. On the o.ther hand, co.nsider any ideal (n) withn
co.mpo.site (n =f. O, 1); say, n = n 1n2 , where 1 < n 1 , n 2 < n. Certainly the
product n 1 n2 = n E (n). Ho.wever, sin ce neither n 1 no.r n 2 is an integral
multiple o.f n, n 1 ~ (n) and n2 ~ (n). Hence,when n is co.mpo.site, the ideal
(n) canno.t be prime. No.tice also that altho.ugh {O} is prime, it is no.t a
maximal ideal o.f Z.
Example 5-6. Fo.r an illustration o.f a ring po.ssessing allo.ntrivial prime
ideal which is no.t maximal, take R = Z x Z, where the o.peratio.ns are per-
fo.rmed co.mpo.nentwise. One may readily verify that Z x {O} is a prime
ideal o.f R. Since
Zx{O} e ZxZe e R,
with Z x Ze an ideal o.f R, Z x {O} fails to. be maximal.
By analo.gy with Theo.rem 5-5, the prime ideals o.f a ring may be charac-
terizedi,n the fo.llo.wing manner.
Theorem 5-6. Let 1 be a pro.per ideal o.f the ring R. Then 1 is a prime
ideal if ~nd o.nly if the quotient ring Rjl is an integral do.main.
Proo! First, take 1 to. be a prime ideal o.f R. Since R is a co.mmutative
.MAXIMAL; PRIME, AND PRIMARY IDEALS 77
,ring with identity, so. is the quo.tient ring Rji. It remains therefo.re o.nly
to. verify that Rj1 is free o.f zero. diviso.rs. Fo.r this, assume that \
(a + l)(b + 1) = l.
In o.ther wo.rds, the pro.duct o.f these two. co.sets is the zero. element o.f the
ring RjI: The fo.rego.ing equatio.n is plainly equivalent to. requiring that
ab + lj= l;o.r what amo.unts to. the same thing, ab E l. Since 1 is assumed
to. be a',prime ideal, o.ne o.f the facto.rs a o.r b must be in l. But this means
that ei~~rr the. co.set a + 1 = i o.r else b + 1 = 1; hence, Rjl is witho.ut
zero. diviso.rs. '
To.:p:~o.ve the co.nverse, we simply reverse the argumento 'Acco.rdingly,
suppo.s'e:that Rjl is an integral do.main and the pro.duct ab E 1. In terms o.f
co.sets;~J4is mean s that '
h!¡, (a + I)(b + 1) = ab + 1 = l.
By h;;;rhesis Rjl co.ntains no. diviso.rs o.f zero., so. that a + 1 = 1 o.r
ideal o.f R.
There is an impo.rtant c1ass o.f ideals which are always prime, namely,
the maximal ideals. Fro.m the several ways o.fpro.ving this result, we cho.o.se
the argument given belo.w; anothei' appro.ach invo.lves the use o.f Theo.rems
• 5-5 and 5-6~
Theorem 5-7. In a co.mmutative ring with identity, every maximal ideal
is a prime ideal.
Proo! Assume that 1 is a maximal ideal o.f the ring R, a co.mmutative ring
with identity, and the pro.duct ab El with a ~ l. We pro.po.se to. sho.w·that
b E l. The maximality o.f 1 implies that the ideal generated by 1 and a must
be the who.le ring: R = (1, a). Hence, there exist elements i E 1, r E R such
that 1 = i + ra. Since bo.th ab and i belong to. 1, we co.nc1ude that
b = lb = (i + ra)b = ib + r(ab) El,
fro.m which it fo.llo.ws that 1 is a prime ideal o.f R.
We sho.uld po.int o.ut that witho.ut the assumptio.n o.f an identity element
this last result do.es no.t remain valid; a specific illustratio.n is the ring Z
o.f even integers, where (4) fo.rms a maximal ideal which is no.t prime. Mo.r~
generally, o.ne can pr,o.ve the fo.llo.wing: if R is a co.mmutative ring witho.ut
identity, bJlt having a single generato.r, then R co.ntains a no.nprime maximal
ideal. To. establish this, suppo.se that R = (a). First o.bserve that the
principal ideal (a 2 ) is a pro.per ideal o.f R, since the generato.r a ~ (a 2 ).
Indeed, were a in (a 2 ), we co.uld write a = ra 2 + na 2 fo.r so.me rE R and
n E Z; it is a simple matter to. check that the e1ement e = ra + na wo.uld
 78 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
then serve as a multiplicative identity for Ro' violating our hypothesis.
Since (a 2 ) =f R, Theorem 5-2 guarantees the existen ce of a maximal ideal
M of R with (a 2 ) S;;; M. However, M is not a prime ideal, as can be seen
by considering the product of .elements in the complement of M (given
r, s r$ M, the product rs E (a 2 ) S;;; M).
Of course, the converse of Theorem 5-7 does not hold; Example 5-6
shows that there exist nontrivial prime ideals which faíl to be maximal
ideals. ,The special properties ofBoolean rings aIld principal ideal domains
guarantee that the notions of primeness ~d maximality are equivalent for
these important classes of rings. Let us look at the details.
Theorem 5-8. Let R be a Boolean ringo A nontrivial ideal 1 of R is
prime if and only if it is a maximal ideal.
, Proo! It is sufficient to show that if the ideal 1 is prime, then 1 is also
maximal. To see this, suppose that J is an ideal of R with the property that
1 c J S;;; R; what we must prove is that J R. Ir a is any e1ement of J
not in 1, then a(1 - a) = OE l. Using the faet that 1 is a prime ideal with
a r$ 1, we infer that 1 - a E 1 c J. As both the elements a and 1 - a He
in J, it follows that
1 = a + (1 - a) EJ.
The ideal J thus contains the identíty and, consequentIy, J = R. Since no
proper ideal Hes between 1 and the whole ring R, we conclude that 1 is a
maximal ideal.
Remark. Since every integral domain contains the two trivial prime ideals,
the:4Sf1 of the term "prime ideal" in a principal ideal domain customari1y
exc~Ílc:lés these from consideration.
Th~orem 5-9. Let R be a principal ideal domain. A non trivial ideal
(aj'of R is prime if and only if it is a maximal ideal.
Proo! Assume that (a) is a prime ideal and let 1 be any ideal of R satisfying
(a) ¿f '1 s;;; R. Because R is a principal ideal ring, there exists an element
bE R,for whichl = (b). Now, a E (a) e (b); bence, a = rb for sorne choice
ofr iii R. By supposition, (al is a prime ideal, so that either r E (a) or b E (a).
The possibility that b E (a) leads immediately to the contradiction (b) s;;; (a).
Therefore, the element r E (a), which implies that r = sa for suitable choice
of s in R, or a = rb = (sa)b. Since a =f Oand R is an integral domain, we
must have 1 = sb. Thi8, of course, means that the identity element
1 E (b) = 1, whencé 1 = R, making (a) a maximal ideal of R. Theorem
5-7 takes care of the converse.
CoroUary. A nontrivial ideal of the ring Z is prime if and only if it is
maximal.
MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRIMARY IDEALS 79
Before taking up the matter of primary ideals, let us detour briefiy to
introduce a concept which plays an important role inmany aspects of ideal
theory.
Definition 5-3. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. The ni! radical oi 1,
designated by .jT,is the set
JI= {r E Rlr" El for sorne n E Z + (n varíes with r)}.
We observe that the nil radical of 1 may equally well be characterized
as the set of elements rE R whose image r + 1 in the quotient ring Rll is
nilpotent. The nil radical of the zero ideal 'is sometimes referred 10 as the
nil radical of the ring R; this set consists of all nilpotent elements of R and
accounts for the use of the termo
Example 5-7. In the ring Z, let us show that if n p~l p~2 ..• P:" is a
factorization of the positive integer n =f 1 into distinct primes Pj' then
J(jij = (PIP2 ... Pr)'
Indeed, if the integer a PIP2 ... Pr and k = max {kl> k 2, ... , f<;.}, then we
have ak E (n); this makes it clear that (PIP2 ... Pr) S;;; J(jij. On the other
hand, ir sorne positive integral power of the integer m is divisible by n (that
is, if m E J(jij), then m itself must be divisible by each of the primes
PI' pz, ... , Pr, and, henee, a member of the ideal
(PI) (") (P2) n ... n (Pr) = (PIP2 ••. Pr)'
As concrete i11 ustrations ofthis situation, observe that.J{12} = .J{2 2 3} =
(6) and .J(8) = (2).
AIthough it is not obvious from the definition, .Ji is a,ctually an ideal
ofthe ring R which contains l. In the first place, if a and b~a.re elements of
.JI, then there exist suitably chosen integers n, m E Z+ sucIl tnat a" E 1 and
bm E 1. Now, every term in the binomial expansíon ,of (a "":'b)n+m contains
either a" or bmas a factor. This implies that (a b)"+m lies i1I1and therefore
theditTerence a b E.Ji. Next,ifrisany element of R, then'(fa)"_= r"d' E 1,
so that ra E .JI; thus, .JI is indeed an ideal of R. That 1 $.J1 should be
clear from the definition. "
Sorne of the basic properties of the nil radical of an ideal are assembled
in the theorem below.
Theorem 5-10. Ir 1 and J are two ideals of the ring R, then
1) J
.JIJ = .JI J = .JI n ji,
2) .JI + J = .JI + .JJ 2 .JI + .JY,
3} l k J for sorne k E Z+ implies that.JI S;;; ji, and
4) ¡:¡¡ = .Ji.
 78 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
then serve as a multiplicative identity for Ro' violating our hypothesis.
Since (a 2 ) =f R, Theorem 5-2 guarantees the existen ce of a maximal ideal
M of R with (a 2 ) S;;; M. However, M is not a prime ideal, as can be seen
by considering the product of .elements in the complement of M (given
r, s r$ M, the product rs E (a 2 ) S;;; M).
Of course, the converse of Theorem 5-7 does not hold; Example 5-6
shows that there exist nontrivial prime ideals which faíl to be maximal
ideals. ,The special properties ofBoolean rings aIld principal ideal domains
guarantee that the notions of primeness ~d maximality are equivalent for
these important classes of rings. Let us look at the details.
Theorem 5-8. Let R be a Boolean ringo A nontrivial ideal 1 of R is
prime if and only if it is a maximal ideal.
, Proo! It is sufficient to show that if the ideal 1 is prime, then 1 is also
maximal. To see this, suppose that J is an ideal of R with the property that
1 c J S;;; R; what we must prove is that J R. Ir a is any e1ement of J
not in 1, then a(1 - a) = OE l. Using the faet that 1 is a prime ideal with
a r$ 1, we infer that 1 - a E 1 c J. As both the elements a and 1 - a He
in J, it follows that
1 = a + (1 - a) EJ.
The ideal J thus contains the identíty and, consequentIy, J = R. Since no
proper ideal Hes between 1 and the whole ring R, we conclude that 1 is a
maximal ideal.
Remark. Since every integral domain contains the two trivial prime ideals,
the:4Sf1 of the term "prime ideal" in a principal ideal domain customari1y
exc~Ílc:lés these from consideration.
Th~orem 5-9. Let R be a principal ideal domain. A non trivial ideal
(aj'of R is prime if and only if it is a maximal ideal.
Proo! Assume that (a) is a prime ideal and let 1 be any ideal of R satisfying
(a) ¿f '1 s;;; R. Because R is a principal ideal ring, there exists an element
bE R,for whichl = (b). Now, a E (a) e (b); bence, a = rb for sorne choice
ofr iii R. By supposition, (al is a prime ideal, so that either r E (a) or b E (a).
The possibility that b E (a) leads immediately to the contradiction (b) s;;; (a).
Therefore, the element r E (a), which implies that r = sa for suitable choice
of s in R, or a = rb = (sa)b. Since a =f Oand R is an integral domain, we
must have 1 = sb. Thi8, of course, means that the identity element
1 E (b) = 1, whencé 1 = R, making (a) a maximal ideal of R. Theorem
5-7 takes care of the converse.
CoroUary. A nontrivial ideal of the ring Z is prime if and only if it is
maximal.
MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRIMARY IDEALS 79
Before taking up the matter of primary ideals, let us detour briefiy to
introduce a concept which plays an important role inmany aspects of ideal
theory.
Definition 5-3. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. The ni! radical oi 1,
designated by .jT,is the set
JI= {r E Rlr" El for sorne n E Z + (n varíes with r)}.
We observe that the nil radical of 1 may equally well be characterized
as the set of elements rE R whose image r + 1 in the quotient ring Rll is
nilpotent. The nil radical of the zero ideal 'is sometimes referred 10 as the
nil radical of the ring R; this set consists of all nilpotent elements of R and
accounts for the use of the termo
Example 5-7. In the ring Z, let us show that if n p~l p~2 ..• P:" is a
factorization of the positive integer n =f 1 into distinct primes Pj' then
J(jij = (PIP2 ... Pr)'
Indeed, if the integer a PIP2 ... Pr and k = max {kl> k 2, ... , f<;.}, then we
have ak E (n); this makes it clear that (PIP2 ... Pr) S;;; J(jij. On the other
hand, ir sorne positive integral power of the integer m is divisible by n (that
is, if m E J(jij), then m itself must be divisible by each of the primes
PI' pz, ... , Pr, and, henee, a member of the ideal
(PI) (") (P2) n ... n (Pr) = (PIP2 ••. Pr)'
As concrete i11 ustrations ofthis situation, observe that.J{12} = .J{2 2 3} =
(6) and .J(8) = (2).
AIthough it is not obvious from the definition, .Ji is a,ctually an ideal
ofthe ring R which contains l. In the first place, if a and b~a.re elements of
.JI, then there exist suitably chosen integers n, m E Z+ sucIl tnat a" E 1 and
bm E 1. Now, every term in the binomial expansíon ,of (a "":'b)n+m contains
either a" or bmas a factor. This implies that (a b)"+m lies i1I1and therefore
theditTerence a b E.Ji. Next,ifrisany element of R, then'(fa)"_= r"d' E 1,
so that ra E .JI; thus, .JI is indeed an ideal of R. That 1 $.J1 should be
clear from the definition. "
Sorne of the basic properties of the nil radical of an ideal are assembled
in the theorem below.
Theorem 5-10. Ir 1 and J are two ideals of the ring R, then
1) J
.JIJ = .JI J = .JI n ji,
2) .JI + J = .JI + .JJ 2 .JI + .JY,
3} l k J for sorne k E Z+ implies that.JI S;;; ji, and
4) ¡:¡¡ = .Ji.
 80 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Proof. Sinc~ .property (1) is the only fact that will be explicitly required '
in the body of the text, we shall content ourselves with its derivation; the
proofs of the remaining assertions are quite elementary and are left as an
exercise.
Now, if an E 1J, then anE 1 n J, and so anEl, anEJ. We thus concIude
that jTJ S J"Tn7 s.JI n Ji. On the other hand, if it happens that
a E -Ji n ,.¡J, there must exist positive integers n, m, for which anE 1 and
., am E J . . This implies that the element an+ m = anam E IJ; hence, a E JI1.
Accordingly, -Ji n JiS .jYJ and the desired equality follows. .:i.
'.. In passing, we might point out that although property (1) easíly
generalizes to finite intersections, it is false if infinite intersections·'ate
allowed. This is best brought out by once again considering the ring Z~aríd
the collection of principal ideals (l), where p is a fixed prime and k ·'~·1 ;
it foIlows readily that . ' ..:•. : .
nM = n(p) = (p) =1= {O} = Jn (pk). é"1"
k k' k ab E 1 and a ~ 1 together imply bn E 1 for somepositivdnteger n.
A. problem of .central interest is that of determining conditions under
which a given ideal coincides with its nil radical; in this connection, the
foIlowing definition wi1l be useful (the reason for.our choice of terminology
appears shortly). .
Definition 5-4. An ideal 1 of the ring R is said to be a semiprime ideal
if ~nd only if 1 = Ji
In effect, Definition 5--4 states that an ideal 1 is semiprime if and only
if an E 1 for sorne n E Z+ implies that a itself lies in l. bur next result
characterizes semiprime ideals by the quotient rings which they determine.
Theorem 5-11. An ideal 1 of the ring R is a semiprime ideal if and only
if the quotient ring Rjl has no nonzero nilpotent e1ements.
Proof. Suppose that a + JJ is a nilpotent element of Ri-Ji. Then there
exists sorne n E Z+ such that (a + .jI)" = an + .JI = .JI; that is to say,
the element a" E -Ji. Hence, (a n)'" = anm E 1 for sorne positive integer m.
This implies that a E.JI and, consequentIy, that a + -Ji = -Ji, the zero
element of Rj.JI . .
As regards the converse, as sume that Rj1 has no nonzero nilpotent
elements and let a E.JI Then, for sorne positive integer n, an El. Passing
to the quotient ring Rjl, this simply means that (a + 1)" = 1; in other
words, a + 1 is nilpotent in Rj1. By supposition, we must have a + 1 = 1
and, in con sequen ce, the element a E l. Our argument shows that -Ji S 1;
since' the reversed inc]usion always holds, 1 = -Ji, so that 1 is semiprime.
This being proved, it is not hard to establish
MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRI~ARY IDEALS 81
CorolIary. If Pis a·prime ideal of the ring R, then Pis semiprime.
Proof. Because P is prime, RjP possesses no zero divisors and, in" particular,
no nonzerb nilpotent elements. . .
This corollary pro vides another good reason why a semi prime ideal was
termed as it was; being a semiprime ideal in a ring is a bit weaker than
being prime. There is much more that could bé.t said about semi prime
ideals, and more will be said later in the text, but let us now turn our
attention to primary ideals.· .,
In Chapter 11 we shall show that the ideal s o( a rather wide class of
rings (to. be quite explicit, the Noetherian rings),:9¡bey factorization laws
which are roughly similar to the prime factorizati9"P- laws for the positive
integers. It wiI1 turn out that the primary ideaIs;,:;YIhich we are about to
introduce, playa role analogous to the powers ofp¡:üp.e numbers in ordinary
.arithmetic. . ,
Definition 5-5. An ideal 1 ofthe ring R is called'jirimary ifthe conditions
Clearly, any prime ideal satisfies this definition with. n = 1, and thus,
the concept of a primary ideal may be viewed as a natural generalization
of that of a prime ideal. Lest the reader jump to false concIusions, we hasten
to point out that a primary ideal is not necessarily a power of a prime ideal
(see Example 8~ Chapter 7).' Notice too that Defihition 5-5 may be stated
in ·another way: an ideal 1 is primary if ab E 1 and a ~ l' imply b E.JI; this
formulation in terms of the nil radical is frequently useful.
In the ring Z, the primary ideal s are precisely the ideals (pn), w here p
is a prime number and n 2 1, together with the two trivial ideals.
Our first theorem on primary ideals is simple enough; it shows that to
every primary ideal there corresponds a specifié prime ideal.
, .h.' ,.
rheorem 5-12. If Q is a primary ideal of the ring R, then itsnil radical
.jQ is a prime ideal, known as the associated prime ideal of Q.
Proof. Suppose that ab E.jQ, with a ~ .JQ. Then (ab)n = a"b" E Q for
sorne positive integer n. But a" ~ Q, for otherwise a would lie in .jQ. Since
Q is assumed to be primary, we must therefore have (bn)m E Q for suitable .
choice of m E Z;.;.and so bE.jQ. This is simply the statement that .JQ is a
prime ideal of R.
It may very well happen that different primary ideals will have the same
associated prime ideal. This is demonstrated rather strikingly in the ring
ofintegers where, for any.n E Z +, (p) is the prime ideal associated with each
of the primary ideals (p").
It might also be of interest to mention that the nil radical .JQ is the
smallest prime ideal to contain a given primary ideal Q. For, suppose that
 80 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Proof. Sinc~ .property (1) is the only fact that will be explicitly required '
in the body of the text, we shall content ourselves with its derivation; the
proofs of the remaining assertions are quite elementary and are left as an
exercise.
Now, if an E 1J, then anE 1 n J, and so anEl, anEJ. We thus concIude
that jTJ S J"Tn7 s.JI n Ji. On the other hand, if it happens that
a E -Ji n ,.¡J, there must exist positive integers n, m, for which anE 1 and
., am E J . . This implies that the element an+ m = anam E IJ; hence, a E JI1.
Accordingly, -Ji n JiS .jYJ and the desired equality follows. .:i.
'.. In passing, we might point out that although property (1) easíly
generalizes to finite intersections, it is false if infinite intersections·'ate
allowed. This is best brought out by once again considering the ring Z~aríd
the collection of principal ideals (l), where p is a fixed prime and k ·'~·1 ;
it foIlows readily that . ' ..:•. : .
nM = n(p) = (p) =1= {O} = Jn (pk). é"1"
k k' k ab E 1 and a ~ 1 together imply bn E 1 for somepositivdnteger n.
A. problem of .central interest is that of determining conditions under
which a given ideal coincides with its nil radical; in this connection, the
foIlowing definition wi1l be useful (the reason for.our choice of terminology
appears shortly). .
Definition 5-4. An ideal 1 of the ring R is said to be a semiprime ideal
if ~nd only if 1 = Ji
In effect, Definition 5--4 states that an ideal 1 is semiprime if and only
if an E 1 for sorne n E Z+ implies that a itself lies in l. bur next result
characterizes semiprime ideals by the quotient rings which they determine.
Theorem 5-11. An ideal 1 of the ring R is a semiprime ideal if and only
if the quotient ring Rjl has no nonzero nilpotent e1ements.
Proof. Suppose that a + JJ is a nilpotent element of Ri-Ji. Then there
exists sorne n E Z+ such that (a + .jI)" = an + .JI = .JI; that is to say,
the element a" E -Ji. Hence, (a n)'" = anm E 1 for sorne positive integer m.
This implies that a E.JI and, consequentIy, that a + -Ji = -Ji, the zero
element of Rj.JI . .
As regards the converse, as sume that Rj1 has no nonzero nilpotent
elements and let a E.JI Then, for sorne positive integer n, an El. Passing
to the quotient ring Rjl, this simply means that (a + 1)" = 1; in other
words, a + 1 is nilpotent in Rj1. By supposition, we must have a + 1 = 1
and, in con sequen ce, the element a E l. Our argument shows that -Ji S 1;
since' the reversed inc]usion always holds, 1 = -Ji, so that 1 is semiprime.
This being proved, it is not hard to establish
MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRI~ARY IDEALS 81
CorolIary. If Pis a·prime ideal of the ring R, then Pis semiprime.
Proof. Because P is prime, RjP possesses no zero divisors and, in" particular,
no nonzerb nilpotent elements. . .
This corollary pro vides another good reason why a semi prime ideal was
termed as it was; being a semiprime ideal in a ring is a bit weaker than
being prime. There is much more that could bé.t said about semi prime
ideals, and more will be said later in the text, but let us now turn our
attention to primary ideals.· .,
In Chapter 11 we shall show that the ideal s o( a rather wide class of
rings (to. be quite explicit, the Noetherian rings),:9¡bey factorization laws
which are roughly similar to the prime factorizati9"P- laws for the positive
integers. It wiI1 turn out that the primary ideaIs;,:;YIhich we are about to
introduce, playa role analogous to the powers ofp¡:üp.e numbers in ordinary
.arithmetic. . ,
Definition 5-5. An ideal 1 ofthe ring R is called'jirimary ifthe conditions
Clearly, any prime ideal satisfies this definition with. n = 1, and thus,
the concept of a primary ideal may be viewed as a natural generalization
of that of a prime ideal. Lest the reader jump to false concIusions, we hasten
to point out that a primary ideal is not necessarily a power of a prime ideal
(see Example 8~ Chapter 7).' Notice too that Defihition 5-5 may be stated
in ·another way: an ideal 1 is primary if ab E 1 and a ~ l' imply b E.JI; this
formulation in terms of the nil radical is frequently useful.
In the ring Z, the primary ideal s are precisely the ideals (pn), w here p
is a prime number and n 2 1, together with the two trivial ideals.
Our first theorem on primary ideals is simple enough; it shows that to
every primary ideal there corresponds a specifié prime ideal.
, .h.' ,.
rheorem 5-12. If Q is a primary ideal of the ring R, then itsnil radical
.jQ is a prime ideal, known as the associated prime ideal of Q.
Proof. Suppose that ab E.jQ, with a ~ .JQ. Then (ab)n = a"b" E Q for
sorne positive integer n. But a" ~ Q, for otherwise a would lie in .jQ. Since
Q is assumed to be primary, we must therefore have (bn)m E Q for suitable .
choice of m E Z;.;.and so bE.jQ. This is simply the statement that .JQ is a
prime ideal of R.
It may very well happen that different primary ideals will have the same
associated prime ideal. This is demonstrated rather strikingly in the ring
ofintegers where, for any.n E Z +, (p) is the prime ideal associated with each
of the primary ideals (p").
It might also be of interest to mention that the nil radical .JQ is the
smallest prime ideal to contain a given primary ideal Q. For, suppose that
 82 FIRST COURSE IN 'RINGS AND IDEALS
Pis any prime ideal containing Qand let a E JQ. Then there exists a suitable
positive integer n such that a" E Q S;; P. Being prime, the ideal P must
contain the element a itself, which yields the inclusion .JQ S;; P.
The primary ideals of R may be characterized in the folIowing way.
Theorem 5-13. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. Then 1 is a primary
ideal ifand only if every zero divisor ofthe quotient ring RIl is nilpotent.
Proa.! . First, suppose that 1 is a primary ideal of R and take a + 1 to be
a zero divisor of RIl. Then there exists .sorne coset b + 1 =1= l, the zero
element of RIl, for which (a + l)(b + l) = l; that is, ab + 1 = l. There-
fore ab El and, since b + 1 =1= l, we al so have b rt l. Now, 1 is assumed to
be primary, so that a" E 1 for some positive integer n. This being the case,
+ 1)" = a" + 1 =
(a l,
which shows that the coset a + 1 is nilpotent.
Going in the other direction, we assume that any zero divisor of RI1
is nilpotent and let ab El, with b rt l. It then folIows that (a + I)(b + 1) = l,
while b + 1 =1= l; if a + 1 =1= l, this amounts to saying that a + 1 is a zero
divisor in RIl. By hypothesis, there must exist some n E Z+ such that
(a + l)" = l, which forces the element a" to be in l. Thus, 1 is a primary
ideal of R.
Theorem 5-13 serves to emphasize the' point that primary ideal s are a
modification of the notion of a prime ideal; for, in the quotient ring of a
prime ideal, there are no zero divisors (hence, in a vacuous sense, every zero
divisor is nilpotent).
The folIowing somewhat special result..will be needed later, so we pause
to establish it before proceeding. ,.,. \
Corollary. If Ql' Q2' ... , Q" are a frn:ite set of primary ideals of the
ring R, alI of them having the sam&associated prime ideal P, then
Q = ni=1 Qi is also primary, with JQ; = P.
Proo.! Before we del ve into the detail:of the proof, observe that, by
Theorem 5-10,
JQ = .J n Q¡ = n ~ = () p = P.
Now, suppose that a + Q is a zero divisor of the quotient ring RIQ. In
this event, we can find a coset b + Q =1= Q such that
ab + Q = (a + Q)(b + Q) = Q.
Since b rt Q = h Q¡, there exists some index i for which b rt Q¡. Further-
more, ab E Q¡ with Q¡ primary, so that the elernent a E.JQ¡ = P = JQ.
This implies a" E Q for sorne integer n; in consequence,
(a + Q)" = a" + Q = Q,
MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRIMAR Y IDEALS 83
which is to say that a + Q is nilpotent. As every zero divisor ofthe quotient
ring RIQ is nilpotent, an appeal to Theorem 5-13 is in order and we may
conclude that Q is a primary ideal of R.
There is another, frequentIy Useful, criterion for deciding whether a
given ideal is actualIy primary.
Theorem 5-14. Let P and Q be ideals of the ring R such that
1) Q s;; P s;; JQ,
2) if ab E Q with a rt P, then b E Q.
Under these conditions, Q is a primary ideal of R with P = ~
Proa! To see that Q is a primary ideal, 'suppose that the product ab E Q
but b rt Q. Using (2), we may conclude that a E P S;; JQ, whence a" E Q
for some positive integer n; this shows that Q is primary.
In order to prove that P = JQ, we need only establish the inclusion
JQ S;; P, since equality would then folIow from (1~. For this, let the. elemen~
b E JQ, so thát there exists sorne n E Z + for WhlCh b" E Q; assurne that n
is the smalIest positive integer with this property. If n' = 1, we w~uld h~~e
bE Q S;; P, from condition (1). If n' > 1, it folIows that b" = b" 1
b E Q, with b"' -1 rt Q; hence, bE P by (2). In any event, we have shown
that bE JQ implies bE P, as required.
A relationship between maximal ideals and primary ideals is brought
out in the foIlowing corollary to Theorem 5-14.
Corollary. If M is a maximal ideal of the ring R, then all its powers
M" (n ;::: 1) areJ?rimary ideals.
Proa! Since M" s;;).1 = .JM", we need only verify condition (2) of t~e
foregoing theorem.'81lPpose, then, that ab E M" with a rt M. Becaus~ M IS
maximal, the ideal (M; a), generated by M and a must be the whole nng R.
Hence, the identity"e\ement 1 E (M, a), so, for some m E M and rE R, .we
must have 1 = m+ra. Now, m" lies in M". Raising the equatlOn
1 = m + ra to the nth;power and using the binomial theorem. it follows that
1 = m" + r'a, wherer' ER. But then
b = bm" + r'(ab)
is an element of M", and M" is primary.
Another result which has this same general fiavor, but which we leave
as an exercise, is the following: If the ni! radical JI
of an ideal 1 is a rnaximal
ideal, then 1 itselfis primary.
Before closing this chapter, we present two additional theorems regard-
ing prime ideals. The first of these involves the notion of a minimal prime
ideal of an ideal.
 82 FIRST COURSE IN 'RINGS AND IDEALS
Pis any prime ideal containing Qand let a E JQ. Then there exists a suitable
positive integer n such that a" E Q S;; P. Being prime, the ideal P must
contain the element a itself, which yields the inclusion .JQ S;; P.
The primary ideals of R may be characterized in the folIowing way.
Theorem 5-13. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. Then 1 is a primary
ideal ifand only if every zero divisor ofthe quotient ring RIl is nilpotent.
Proa.! . First, suppose that 1 is a primary ideal of R and take a + 1 to be
a zero divisor of RIl. Then there exists .sorne coset b + 1 =1= l, the zero
element of RIl, for which (a + l)(b + l) = l; that is, ab + 1 = l. There-
fore ab El and, since b + 1 =1= l, we al so have b rt l. Now, 1 is assumed to
be primary, so that a" E 1 for some positive integer n. This being the case,
+ 1)" = a" + 1 =
(a l,
which shows that the coset a + 1 is nilpotent.
Going in the other direction, we assume that any zero divisor of RI1
is nilpotent and let ab El, with b rt l. It then folIows that (a + I)(b + 1) = l,
while b + 1 =1= l; if a + 1 =1= l, this amounts to saying that a + 1 is a zero
divisor in RIl. By hypothesis, there must exist some n E Z+ such that
(a + l)" = l, which forces the element a" to be in l. Thus, 1 is a primary
ideal of R.
Theorem 5-13 serves to emphasize the' point that primary ideal s are a
modification of the notion of a prime ideal; for, in the quotient ring of a
prime ideal, there are no zero divisors (hence, in a vacuous sense, every zero
divisor is nilpotent).
The folIowing somewhat special result..will be needed later, so we pause
to establish it before proceeding. ,.,. \
Corollary. If Ql' Q2' ... , Q" are a frn:ite set of primary ideals of the
ring R, alI of them having the sam&associated prime ideal P, then
Q = ni=1 Qi is also primary, with JQ; = P.
Proo.! Before we del ve into the detail:of the proof, observe that, by
Theorem 5-10,
JQ = .J n Q¡ = n ~ = () p = P.
Now, suppose that a + Q is a zero divisor of the quotient ring RIQ. In
this event, we can find a coset b + Q =1= Q such that
ab + Q = (a + Q)(b + Q) = Q.
Since b rt Q = h Q¡, there exists some index i for which b rt Q¡. Further-
more, ab E Q¡ with Q¡ primary, so that the elernent a E.JQ¡ = P = JQ.
This implies a" E Q for sorne integer n; in consequence,
(a + Q)" = a" + Q = Q,
MAXIMAL, PRIME, AND PRIMAR Y IDEALS 83
which is to say that a + Q is nilpotent. As every zero divisor ofthe quotient
ring RIQ is nilpotent, an appeal to Theorem 5-13 is in order and we may
conclude that Q is a primary ideal of R.
There is another, frequentIy Useful, criterion for deciding whether a
given ideal is actualIy primary.
Theorem 5-14. Let P and Q be ideals of the ring R such that
1) Q s;; P s;; JQ,
2) if ab E Q with a rt P, then b E Q.
Under these conditions, Q is a primary ideal of R with P = ~
Proa! To see that Q is a primary ideal, 'suppose that the product ab E Q
but b rt Q. Using (2), we may conclude that a E P S;; JQ, whence a" E Q
for some positive integer n; this shows that Q is primary.
In order to prove that P = JQ, we need only establish the inclusion
JQ S;; P, since equality would then folIow from (1~. For this, let the. elemen~
b E JQ, so thát there exists sorne n E Z + for WhlCh b" E Q; assurne that n
is the smalIest positive integer with this property. If n' = 1, we w~uld h~~e
bE Q S;; P, from condition (1). If n' > 1, it folIows that b" = b" 1
b E Q, with b"' -1 rt Q; hence, bE P by (2). In any event, we have shown
that bE JQ implies bE P, as required.
A relationship between maximal ideals and primary ideals is brought
out in the foIlowing corollary to Theorem 5-14.
Corollary. If M is a maximal ideal of the ring R, then all its powers
M" (n ;::: 1) areJ?rimary ideals.
Proa! Since M" s;;).1 = .JM", we need only verify condition (2) of t~e
foregoing theorem.'81lPpose, then, that ab E M" with a rt M. Becaus~ M IS
maximal, the ideal (M; a), generated by M and a must be the whole nng R.
Hence, the identity"e\ement 1 E (M, a), so, for some m E M and rE R, .we
must have 1 = m+ra. Now, m" lies in M". Raising the equatlOn
1 = m + ra to the nth;power and using the binomial theorem. it follows that
1 = m" + r'a, wherer' ER. But then
b = bm" + r'(ab)
is an element of M", and M" is primary.
Another result which has this same general fiavor, but which we leave
as an exercise, is the following: If the ni! radical JI
of an ideal 1 is a rnaximal
ideal, then 1 itselfis primary.
Before closing this chapter, we present two additional theorems regard-
ing prime ideals. The first of these involves the notion of a minimal prime
ideal of an ideal.
 84 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEAL S
Definition 5-6. Let 1 be an ideal 'of the ring R. A prime ideal P of R
is ,said to 'be a minimal prime ideal of 1 (sometimes, an isolated prime
ideal of 1) if 1 S; P and there exists no prime ideal pi of R such that
ls;Pc~ . .
By abuse of language, we shall refer t~ the minimal prime ideals of the
zero ideal {O} as the mini mal prime ideals of the ring R; that is, a prime
ideal is a minimal prime ideal (of R) if it does not properly contain any other
prime ideal. . . .
Let us observ~ that, in the ring Z of Íljtegers, the minimal prime ideals
of a nonzero ideal (n) are precisely the piií,iie ideal s (p), where p is a prime
dividing n. In particular, one infers tha(eyery ideal in Z possesses only a
finite number ofminimal prime ideal s (thigesult is generalized in TheoreÍn
12-3).' ;.: .
It is not immediateln:lear that any (pr~per) idea1.admits minimal prime
ideals, although this is indeed the case. To dispose of the question requires
an appeal to Zorn'~ Lernma; the details<ar~ set out below. .
Theorem 5-15. Let 1 and P be ideals of the ring R, with P pdme. If
1 S; P, then Pcontains a minimal prime ideal of 1.
Proa! Denote by ff the family of aH prime ideals of R which contain 1
andare contained in P:
ff = {pllp l is a prime ideal of R; 1 S; pi S; ..P}.
We, point out that ff is not empty, sin ce P itself belongs to ff. Next,
introduce a partial order ~ in ff which is opposite to the usual inc1usion
relation; that is to say, if P', P" Eff, interpret pi ~ pI! to mean pI! S; Pi.
Consider any nonempty subset {Pi} of ff which is totaHy ordered by ~
(more simply, {P¡} is a chain in 9"). Put P = nP¡. Then P is a prime
ideal oi R (Problem 11, Chapter 5) containing 1 and contained in P; hence,
PE ff. Sin ce P S; p¡ for every value of i, it foHows that p¡ ~ P, making
Pan upper bound for {Pi}' AH the hypotheses ofZorn's Lemma, as applied'
.to (ff, ~) are satisfied, so that ff" has a maximal element, say p* (this
means that if pi E ff and p* ~ P', then P* = Pi). Inasmuch as P* E ff,
it is a prime ideal of R with 1 S; P* S; P. There remains the task of showing
that p* is necessarily a m.inimal prime ideal of 1.' Forthis, we suppose that
pi is any prime ideal of R satisfying 1 S; pi S; P*. Then pi E ff and
p* ~ Pi. By the maximal nature of P*, we thus have P* = P', signifying
that P* is a minimal prime ideal of 1.
Corollary 1. Every proper ideal of the ring R possesses at least one
. minimal prime ideal.
. Proa! Since any proper ideal of R is contained in a maximal (hence, prime)
i<;leal of R, fue theorem can be applied.
MAXIMAL, PRIME', AND PRIMARY IDEALS 85
The existence of minimal prime ideals (ofR) is assured by taking 1 = {O}
in the statement ofTheorem 5-15. .
Corollary 2. If Pis a prime ideal of the ring R, then P contains a mini mal
prime ideal of R. '
Our final theorem concerns the (set-theoretic) union of a finite number
of prime ideals. In thi~ connection, we first observe that if an ideal 1 of the
. ring R iscontained in the union J u K of two arbitrary ideal s of R, then
1 must be contained :in one <;lf them. For, suppose that 1 S; J u K with
1 si; J. It is therefor~; possible to choose an element a El n K such tlÍat
a rt J. If b E 1 n J,..\~~n the sum a + b rt J (otherwise, a= (a + b) - b
isinJ)andsoa + b·'é7(,whencebEK. TheimplicationisthatI n J S; K;
consequently,~\:··r . .
1 == f~(J u K) = (1 n J) u (1 n K) S; K.
The next pOint\6'::~hich attention should be drawn is that the aboye
fact about the·unioil"Ó'r two ideals is no longer true when . we pass to the
union of three or more ideals. For a simple example, letR = Z2 x 2 2 : .
R = {(O, O), (O, 1), (1, O), (1, In.
We turn R into a ring by taking the addition to be componentwise addition
modulo 2 and defining all products to be zero. Then,
1 1 = {(O, O), (O, In, 12 = {(O, 0), (1, 0n, 13 = {(O, O), (1, in
are all ideals in R and R = 11 U 12 U 13' It is c1ear, however, ihat R
(regarded as an ideal) is not contained in any one of the I¡.
. The situation just described can be countered by imposing the demand
that each of the ideals irivolved in the union be prime. The theorem we
have in mind asserts that if an ideal is contained in a finite union of prime
ideals,then it is entirely contained in one of them. ActuaHy, it is easier to
prove the contrapositive' ofthis statement, v i z . : '
Theorem 5-16. LetI be an arbitraryideal ofthe ring R and PI' P 2' ... , Pn
be prime ideals of R. IfI si; p¡ for aH i, then there exists an element
a E 1 such that a rt u Pi; hence, 1 si; u Pi'
. i Proa! The argument will be by induction on the number n ofprime ideals.
Assume that the theorem has already been established when there are only
n - 1 ideals (when n = 1, the result is trivial). Then, for each i (1 ~ i ~ n),
there exists an element r¡ E 1 with r¡ rt Un¡ P j • If, for sorne value of i, it
happens that r¡ rt Pi' then r¡ rt u P j and there is nothing to be proved. Thus,
we may restrict our attention to the case where r¡ E,P¡ for aH i .
In what follows, let a¡ =r 1 .. ··r¡-lr¡+l "·r n • We assert that.a¡rtP¡.
Since Pi is prime, the contrary assumption a¡ E p¡ would imply that r j E p¡
 84 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEAL S
Definition 5-6. Let 1 be an ideal 'of the ring R. A prime ideal P of R
is ,said to 'be a minimal prime ideal of 1 (sometimes, an isolated prime
ideal of 1) if 1 S; P and there exists no prime ideal pi of R such that
ls;Pc~ . .
By abuse of language, we shall refer t~ the minimal prime ideals of the
zero ideal {O} as the mini mal prime ideals of the ring R; that is, a prime
ideal is a minimal prime ideal (of R) if it does not properly contain any other
prime ideal. . . .
Let us observ~ that, in the ring Z of Íljtegers, the minimal prime ideals
of a nonzero ideal (n) are precisely the piií,iie ideal s (p), where p is a prime
dividing n. In particular, one infers tha(eyery ideal in Z possesses only a
finite number ofminimal prime ideal s (thigesult is generalized in TheoreÍn
12-3).' ;.: .
It is not immediateln:lear that any (pr~per) idea1.admits minimal prime
ideals, although this is indeed the case. To dispose of the question requires
an appeal to Zorn'~ Lernma; the details<ar~ set out below. .
Theorem 5-15. Let 1 and P be ideals of the ring R, with P pdme. If
1 S; P, then Pcontains a minimal prime ideal of 1.
Proa! Denote by ff the family of aH prime ideals of R which contain 1
andare contained in P:
ff = {pllp l is a prime ideal of R; 1 S; pi S; ..P}.
We, point out that ff is not empty, sin ce P itself belongs to ff. Next,
introduce a partial order ~ in ff which is opposite to the usual inc1usion
relation; that is to say, if P', P" Eff, interpret pi ~ pI! to mean pI! S; Pi.
Consider any nonempty subset {Pi} of ff which is totaHy ordered by ~
(more simply, {P¡} is a chain in 9"). Put P = nP¡. Then P is a prime
ideal oi R (Problem 11, Chapter 5) containing 1 and contained in P; hence,
PE ff. Sin ce P S; p¡ for every value of i, it foHows that p¡ ~ P, making
Pan upper bound for {Pi}' AH the hypotheses ofZorn's Lemma, as applied'
.to (ff, ~) are satisfied, so that ff" has a maximal element, say p* (this
means that if pi E ff and p* ~ P', then P* = Pi). Inasmuch as P* E ff,
it is a prime ideal of R with 1 S; P* S; P. There remains the task of showing
that p* is necessarily a m.inimal prime ideal of 1.' Forthis, we suppose that
pi is any prime ideal of R satisfying 1 S; pi S; P*. Then pi E ff and
p* ~ Pi. By the maximal nature of P*, we thus have P* = P', signifying
that P* is a minimal prime ideal of 1.
Corollary 1. Every proper ideal of the ring R possesses at least one
. minimal prime ideal.
. Proa! Since any proper ideal of R is contained in a maximal (hence, prime)
i<;leal of R, fue theorem can be applied.
MAXIMAL, PRIME', AND PRIMARY IDEALS 85
The existence of minimal prime ideals (ofR) is assured by taking 1 = {O}
in the statement ofTheorem 5-15. .
Corollary 2. If Pis a prime ideal of the ring R, then P contains a mini mal
prime ideal of R. '
Our final theorem concerns the (set-theoretic) union of a finite number
of prime ideals. In thi~ connection, we first observe that if an ideal 1 of the
. ring R iscontained in the union J u K of two arbitrary ideal s of R, then
1 must be contained :in one <;lf them. For, suppose that 1 S; J u K with
1 si; J. It is therefor~; possible to choose an element a El n K such tlÍat
a rt J. If b E 1 n J,..\~~n the sum a + b rt J (otherwise, a= (a + b) - b
isinJ)andsoa + b·'é7(,whencebEK. TheimplicationisthatI n J S; K;
consequently,~\:··r . .
1 == f~(J u K) = (1 n J) u (1 n K) S; K.
The next pOint\6'::~hich attention should be drawn is that the aboye
fact about the·unioil"Ó'r two ideals is no longer true when . we pass to the
union of three or more ideals. For a simple example, letR = Z2 x 2 2 : .
R = {(O, O), (O, 1), (1, O), (1, In.
We turn R into a ring by taking the addition to be componentwise addition
modulo 2 and defining all products to be zero. Then,
1 1 = {(O, O), (O, In, 12 = {(O, 0), (1, 0n, 13 = {(O, O), (1, in
are all ideals in R and R = 11 U 12 U 13' It is c1ear, however, ihat R
(regarded as an ideal) is not contained in any one of the I¡.
. The situation just described can be countered by imposing the demand
that each of the ideals irivolved in the union be prime. The theorem we
have in mind asserts that if an ideal is contained in a finite union of prime
ideals,then it is entirely contained in one of them. ActuaHy, it is easier to
prove the contrapositive' ofthis statement, v i z . : '
Theorem 5-16. LetI be an arbitraryideal ofthe ring R and PI' P 2' ... , Pn
be prime ideals of R. IfI si; p¡ for aH i, then there exists an element
a E 1 such that a rt u Pi; hence, 1 si; u Pi'
. i Proa! The argument will be by induction on the number n ofprime ideals.
Assume that the theorem has already been established when there are only
n - 1 ideals (when n = 1, the result is trivial). Then, for each i (1 ~ i ~ n),
there exists an element r¡ E 1 with r¡ rt Un¡ P j • If, for sorne value of i, it
happens that r¡ rt Pi' then r¡ rt u P j and there is nothing to be proved. Thus,
we may restrict our attention to the case where r¡ E,P¡ for aH i .
In what follows, let a¡ =r 1 .. ··r¡-lr¡+l "·r n • We assert that.a¡rtP¡.
Since Pi is prime, the contrary assumption a¡ E p¡ would imply that r j E p¡
 86 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 87

for sorne j =1= i, which is impossible by our original choice of r.. On the
other hand, if j =1= i, the element aj necessarily lies in Pi (r i being la factor of
aj). For the final stage of the proof, put a = L ajo We first note that,
because each of al' a2 , ••• , an is in l, the element a E 1. From the relation
ai = a - L!'Fiaj, with ¿j'fi aj E P¡, it follows that a ~ Pi; otherwise, we
would obtam ai E Pi' an obvious .contradiction. Our construction thus
ensures the existence of an element a = L aj which belongs to the ideal l
and not to any Pi' thereby proving the theorern.
CoroUary. Let l be an arbitrary ideal ofthe ring R and PI' P 2 , ••• ,
be prime ideals of R. If l S;; U Pi' then l S;; Pi for some i.
9. a) With the aid oC Theorem 5-5 and Example 5-1, obtain another prooC oC the Caet
that Zp is a field iC and only iC p is a prime number.
b) Prove that in Zn the maximal ideals are the principal ideals (p) = pZ", where
p is a prime dividing n.
10. Given thatfis a homomorphism Crom the ring R onto the ring R', veriCy that
a) R' is a field iC and only iC ker f is a maximal ideal oC R,
b) R' is an integral domain iC and only iC ker f is a prime ideal oC R.
11. a) Show that iC PI and P 2 are two ideals oC the ring R sueh that PI P 2 and '*
Pn P 2 $ PI' then the ideal PI n P 2 is not pririle.
b) Let {PJ be a ehain oC prime ideals oCthe ring R. Prove that u Pi and n Pi are
both prime ideals oC R. '

12. Prove that iC 1 is an ideal oC the ring R and P is a prime ideal oC 1, then P is an
PROBLEMS ideal oC the. whore ring R.

13. Let R denote the set oC all infinite sequenees {a n} oC rational numbers (that is,
In the Collowing set oC problems, all rings are assumed to be eornmutative with identity.
an E Q Cor every n). R becomes a eornmutative ring with identity iC the ring
1. a) Prove that Z Etl Z. is a maximal ideal oC the external direet sum Z Etl Z. operations are defined termwise:
b) Show that the ring R is a field iC and only iC {O} is a maximal ideal oC R.
{a n} + {b n} = {a n + bn}, {an}'{bn} = {anb n}·
2. Prove that a proper ideal M oC the ring R is maximal.iC and only iC, Cor every
element r ~ M, there exists some a E R sueh that 1 + ra E M. VerifY eaeh oC the Collowing statements:
a) the set B oC bounded sequences is a subring (with identity) oC R,
3. Letfbe a homomorphism Crom the ring R onto the ring R'. Pro ve that b) the set C oC eonvergent sequenees is a subring (with identity) oC B,
a) iC M is a maximal ideal oC R with M ;2 ker J, thenf(M) is a maximal ideal oC R', e) the set C o oC sequenees whieh converge to zero is a subring oC C,
b) iCM' is a fl1aKimal ideal oC R', thenf-~(M') is a maximal ideal oC R, d) C o is an ideal' oC B, but not a prime ideal,
e) the mapping M --+ f(M) defines a one-to-one eorrespondenee between the set e) C o is a maximal ideal oC C,
oC maximal ideals oC R whieh contain ker f and the set oC all maximal ideals l) the set D oC Cauehy sequences is a subring (with ideotity) oC B,
oCR'. g) C o is a maximal ideal oC D. .,1:

4. re MI and M 2 are distinet maximal ideals oC the ring R, estabJish the equ~Út~ Remark. Sinee the field D/C o is isomorphie to R#, thi,~ pfovides an alternative
M I M2 = MI nM2 • . ; ';
procedure Cor eonstrueting the real numbers [16J.

5. Let M be a proper ideal of the ring R. Prove that M is a maximal ideal if ¡;~d 14. Assume that P is a proper prime ideal oC the ring R ~i.t~< the property that the
only iC, Cor eaeh ideal 1 oC R, either 1 ~ Mor else 1 + M = R. 't', quotient ring R/P is finite. Show that P must be a ma~iinal ideal oC R.
'~l'

6. An ideal 1 oC the ring R is said to be minimal iC 1 =1= {O} and there exists no id~l:l) 15. Let R = R¡ Etl R 2 Etl ... Etl Rn be the direet sum oC a finite number oC rings Ri'
J oC R sueh that {O} e J e 1. t' Establish that a proper ideal 1 oC R is a maximal idealjf and only iC, Cor some i
a) Prove that a nonzero ideal 1 oC R is a minima1 ideal iC and only iC (a) = 1 for (1 :5: i :5: n); 1 is oC the Corm
eaeh nomero element a e 1. I
b) VeriCy that the ring Z oCintegers has no minimal ideals. 1, 1 = RI EB ••• Etl R i _¡ Etl Mi Etl Ri+ ¡ Etl·,· Etl R n, ,

7. ~et 1 be a proper ideal oC the ring R. Show that 1 is a prime ideal iC and oIily where Mi is a maximal ideal oC R¡. [Hint: Problem 26, Chapter 2.J
IC the eomplement (lC 1 is a multiplieatively closed subset oC R.
16. Let P and 1 be idealspCthe ring R, with P prime. re 1 $ P, prove that the quotient
8. In the ring R = map R"', define the set 1 by ideal P:I = P.

1 = {fe Rlf(l) = f( -1) = O}. 17. Letfbe a homomorphism Crom the ring R onto the ring R'. Prove that
a) iC P is a prime (primary) ideal oC R with P ;2 ker J, thenf(P) is a prime (primary)
Establish that 1 is an ideal oC R, but not a prime ideal. ideal oC R';
I
\
I
 86 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 87

for sorne j =1= i, which is impossible by our original choice of r.. On the
other hand, if j =1= i, the element aj necessarily lies in Pi (r i being la factor of
aj). For the final stage of the proof, put a = L ajo We first note that,
because each of al' a2 , ••• , an is in l, the element a E 1. From the relation
ai = a - L!'Fiaj, with ¿j'fi aj E P¡, it follows that a ~ Pi; otherwise, we
would obtam ai E Pi' an obvious .contradiction. Our construction thus
ensures the existence of an element a = L aj which belongs to the ideal l
and not to any Pi' thereby proving the theorern.
CoroUary. Let l be an arbitrary ideal ofthe ring R and PI' P 2 , ••• ,
be prime ideals of R. If l S;; U Pi' then l S;; Pi for some i.
9. a) With the aid oC Theorem 5-5 and Example 5-1, obtain another prooC oC the Caet
that Zp is a field iC and only iC p is a prime number.
b) Prove that in Zn the maximal ideals are the principal ideals (p) = pZ", where
p is a prime dividing n.
10. Given thatfis a homomorphism Crom the ring R onto the ring R', veriCy that
a) R' is a field iC and only iC ker f is a maximal ideal oC R,
b) R' is an integral domain iC and only iC ker f is a prime ideal oC R.
11. a) Show that iC PI and P 2 are two ideals oC the ring R sueh that PI P 2 and '*
Pn P 2 $ PI' then the ideal PI n P 2 is not pririle.
b) Let {PJ be a ehain oC prime ideals oCthe ring R. Prove that u Pi and n Pi are
both prime ideals oC R. '

12. Prove that iC 1 is an ideal oC the ring R and P is a prime ideal oC 1, then P is an
PROBLEMS ideal oC the. whore ring R.

13. Let R denote the set oC all infinite sequenees {a n} oC rational numbers (that is,
In the Collowing set oC problems, all rings are assumed to be eornmutative with identity.
an E Q Cor every n). R becomes a eornmutative ring with identity iC the ring
1. a) Prove that Z Etl Z. is a maximal ideal oC the external direet sum Z Etl Z. operations are defined termwise:
b) Show that the ring R is a field iC and only iC {O} is a maximal ideal oC R.
{a n} + {b n} = {a n + bn}, {an}'{bn} = {anb n}·
2. Prove that a proper ideal M oC the ring R is maximal.iC and only iC, Cor every
element r ~ M, there exists some a E R sueh that 1 + ra E M. VerifY eaeh oC the Collowing statements:
a) the set B oC bounded sequences is a subring (with identity) oC R,
3. Letfbe a homomorphism Crom the ring R onto the ring R'. Pro ve that b) the set C oC eonvergent sequenees is a subring (with identity) oC B,
a) iC M is a maximal ideal oC R with M ;2 ker J, thenf(M) is a maximal ideal oC R', e) the set C o oC sequenees whieh converge to zero is a subring oC C,
b) iCM' is a fl1aKimal ideal oC R', thenf-~(M') is a maximal ideal oC R, d) C o is an ideal' oC B, but not a prime ideal,
e) the mapping M --+ f(M) defines a one-to-one eorrespondenee between the set e) C o is a maximal ideal oC C,
oC maximal ideals oC R whieh contain ker f and the set oC all maximal ideals l) the set D oC Cauehy sequences is a subring (with ideotity) oC B,
oCR'. g) C o is a maximal ideal oC D. .,1:

4. re MI and M 2 are distinet maximal ideals oC the ring R, estabJish the equ~Út~ Remark. Sinee the field D/C o is isomorphie to R#, thi,~ pfovides an alternative
M I M2 = MI nM2 • . ; ';
procedure Cor eonstrueting the real numbers [16J.

5. Let M be a proper ideal of the ring R. Prove that M is a maximal ideal if ¡;~d 14. Assume that P is a proper prime ideal oC the ring R ~i.t~< the property that the
only iC, Cor eaeh ideal 1 oC R, either 1 ~ Mor else 1 + M = R. 't', quotient ring R/P is finite. Show that P must be a ma~iinal ideal oC R.
'~l'

6. An ideal 1 oC the ring R is said to be minimal iC 1 =1= {O} and there exists no id~l:l) 15. Let R = R¡ Etl R 2 Etl ... Etl Rn be the direet sum oC a finite number oC rings Ri'
J oC R sueh that {O} e J e 1. t' Establish that a proper ideal 1 oC R is a maximal idealjf and only iC, Cor some i
a) Prove that a nonzero ideal 1 oC R is a minima1 ideal iC and only iC (a) = 1 for (1 :5: i :5: n); 1 is oC the Corm
eaeh nomero element a e 1. I
b) VeriCy that the ring Z oCintegers has no minimal ideals. 1, 1 = RI EB ••• Etl R i _¡ Etl Mi Etl Ri+ ¡ Etl·,· Etl R n, ,

7. ~et 1 be a proper ideal oC the ring R. Show that 1 is a prime ideal iC and oIily where Mi is a maximal ideal oC R¡. [Hint: Problem 26, Chapter 2.J
IC the eomplement (lC 1 is a multiplieatively closed subset oC R.
16. Let P and 1 be idealspCthe ring R, with P prime. re 1 $ P, prove that the quotient
8. In the ring R = map R"', define the set 1 by ideal P:I = P.

1 = {fe Rlf(l) = f( -1) = O}. 17. Letfbe a homomorphism Crom the ring R onto the ring R'. Prove that
a) iC P is a prime (primary) ideal oC R with P ;2 ker J, thenf(P) is a prime (primary)
Establish that 1 is an ideal oC R, but not a prime ideal. ideal oC R';
I
\
I
 88 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 89

b) if P' is a prime (primary) ideal of R', thenf-1(p') is a prime (prirnary) ideal of R; d) If 1 is a proper ideal ,of R and bE R - 1, then 1 s:;bR.
e) the mapping P -+ f(P) defines a one-to-one corresponden ce between the set 29. For a fixed prime p, eonsider the subset of rational numbers defined by
of prime (prirnary) ideals of R whieh eontain ker f and the set of aH prime
(primary) ideals of R'. Vp = {a/b E Qlp .f' b}.

18. If M is a maxirnal ideal ofthe ring R and n E Z +, show that the quotient ring R/Mn Show that
has eX/1-etly one proper prime ideal. [Hint: Problem 17(e).] . a) Vp is a valuation ring of Q;
.¡
b) the tinique rnaidmal ideal of v" is Mp = {a/bE Qlp1b, butpla}; .
19. a) For. any ideal 1 of R, prove that 1 and .JI
are eontained in preeisely the same e) the field VJMp ~ Zp. [Hint: Let the homomorphismf: Vp -> Zpq~ defined
'prime ideals of R. byf(a/b) = [a] [b]-l.] . "
b) U~i~g part (a), deduoe that whenever 1 is a prime ideal of R, then 1 = .JI.
30. a) Let 11 , 12 , oo. ,In be arbitrary ideals of the ring R and P be a primeicl~al of R.
20. Letfb,~ a homomorphism from the ring R onto the ri¡;¡g R'. Prove that If 1112 oo. In' s:; P, establish that li s:; P for at least one value of i:, :;[Hint: If
, a) ifJ¡js an ideal of R with 1 ;2 ker f, then .JJ[i)
= f(.JI), li $ P for aH i, ehoose a i E li - P and eonsider the element a = ai;a~ an .] .oo

b) ift';is an ideal of R', theri .Jr

1(1') = r
\Jf).. b) Assume that M is a maximal ideal of R. Prove that, for eaeh integer n E Z+,
21. Verlt'y;that the intersection of semiprime ideals of the ring R is again a semiprime the only prime idea,l eontaining M n is M.
;:~t; .';'.
ide~CÓf R. '. . . . 31. Let R be an integral domain with the property that every proper ideal ist}:t~.:produet
22. If l:í~é:~ ideal ofthe ring R, pro ve that .JYis the smallest (in the set-theoretie sen se) of maxirnalideals. Prove that . ' . ~:.: ..:
semipdme ideal of R whieh eontains l. . a) If M is a rnaximal ideal of R, then there exists an element ,a E.R' iílid ideal
K =1= {O} suehthat MK = (a). [Hint: If M =1= {O}, piekO'=I= aEM. Then
23. Establish that every divisor of zero in the ring Z p" (p a prime, n > O) is nilpotent. M 1M 2 oo· M n = (a) s:; M for suitable rnaximal ideals Mi; henee, M = Mi for
sorne i.]
24. Let ~, J, and Q be ideals of the ring R, with Q primary. Prove the foHowing
b) If 1, J, M are ideals of R, with M maximal, then 1M = JM implies 1 = J.
statements:
a) if 1 $ JQ, then the quotient Q:l ,;. Q; 32. a) Ir 1 is an ideal of the ring R sueh that 1 s:; (a), show that there exists an jdeal
b) if IJ s;: Q and 1 $ JQ, thenJ s:; Q; J of R for which aJ = l. [Hint: Take J = (1: (a)).]
el if IJ s;: Q and the ideal J is finitely generated, then either 1 s:; Q orelse 1" s;: Q
for sorne n E Z+. [Hínt: If 1 $ Q, eaeh generator of J is in .JQ.J P, then P s:; n
b) Prove that if a principal ideal (a) of the ring R properly eontains a prime ideal
(a").
n=1
25. Assume that 1 is an ideal of the ring R. If.JI
is a maximal ideal of R, show that 33. Let 1 be a primary ideal of the ring R. Prove that 1 has exaetly one minimal prime
lis primary. [Hint: Mimie the argument of the eorollaryto Theorem 5-14.] ideal, namely, F
[Hint: Problem 19.]
26. Let R be an integral domain and P be a prime ideal of R. Consider Rp, the ring
of quotients of R relative to the corriplement of P:
Rp .= {ab- 1 E Qcl(R)laER; b'P}.
Prove that the ring Rp (whieh is known as the localizatíon of R at the prime ideal P)
has exaetly one maximal ideal, namely, 1 = {ab- 1 E QclR)la E P; b, P}.

rlng with M as its maximal ideal, show that any element a,

27. A ring R is said to be a local ring if it has a unique maximal ideal. If R is a local
M is in vertible in R.,
28. A subring R of a field F is said to be a valuation ring of F if for eaeh nonzero
. element a E F at least one of a or a- 1 belongs to R. Assuming that R is a valuation
ring of F, prove the following:
a) R eontains a1l the idempotent elements of F.
b) R is a local ring,with tiniquemaximal ideal M = {a ERla-1 'R}.
[Remarlc. iI- 1 denotes the inverse of a in F.]
e) For any two elements a, b ER, either aR S;; bR or bR ;2 aRo [Hint: Either
ab- 1 ER or ba- 1 ER.]
 88 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 89

b) if P' is a prime (primary) ideal of R', thenf-1(p') is a prime (prirnary) ideal of R; d) If 1 is a proper ideal ,of R and bE R - 1, then 1 s:;bR.
e) the mapping P -+ f(P) defines a one-to-one corresponden ce between the set 29. For a fixed prime p, eonsider the subset of rational numbers defined by
of prime (prirnary) ideals of R whieh eontain ker f and the set of aH prime
(primary) ideals of R'. Vp = {a/b E Qlp .f' b}.

18. If M is a maxirnal ideal ofthe ring R and n E Z +, show that the quotient ring R/Mn Show that
has eX/1-etly one proper prime ideal. [Hint: Problem 17(e).] . a) Vp is a valuation ring of Q;
.¡
b) the tinique rnaidmal ideal of v" is Mp = {a/bE Qlp1b, butpla}; .
19. a) For. any ideal 1 of R, prove that 1 and .JI
are eontained in preeisely the same e) the field VJMp ~ Zp. [Hint: Let the homomorphismf: Vp -> Zpq~ defined
'prime ideals of R. byf(a/b) = [a] [b]-l.] . "
b) U~i~g part (a), deduoe that whenever 1 is a prime ideal of R, then 1 = .JI.
30. a) Let 11 , 12 , oo. ,In be arbitrary ideals of the ring R and P be a primeicl~al of R.
20. Letfb,~ a homomorphism from the ring R onto the ri¡;¡g R'. Prove that If 1112 oo. In' s:; P, establish that li s:; P for at least one value of i:, :;[Hint: If
, a) ifJ¡js an ideal of R with 1 ;2 ker f, then .JJ[i)
= f(.JI), li $ P for aH i, ehoose a i E li - P and eonsider the element a = ai;a~ an .] .oo

b) ift';is an ideal of R', theri .Jr

1(1') = r
\Jf).. b) Assume that M is a maximal ideal of R. Prove that, for eaeh integer n E Z+,
21. Verlt'y;that the intersection of semiprime ideals of the ring R is again a semiprime the only prime idea,l eontaining M n is M.
;:~t; .';'.
ide~CÓf R. '. . . . 31. Let R be an integral domain with the property that every proper ideal ist}:t~.:produet
22. If l:í~é:~ ideal ofthe ring R, pro ve that .JYis the smallest (in the set-theoretie sen se) of maxirnalideals. Prove that . ' . ~:.: ..:
semipdme ideal of R whieh eontains l. . a) If M is a rnaximal ideal of R, then there exists an element ,a E.R' iílid ideal
K =1= {O} suehthat MK = (a). [Hint: If M =1= {O}, piekO'=I= aEM. Then
23. Establish that every divisor of zero in the ring Z p" (p a prime, n > O) is nilpotent. M 1M 2 oo· M n = (a) s:; M for suitable rnaximal ideals Mi; henee, M = Mi for
sorne i.]
24. Let ~, J, and Q be ideals of the ring R, with Q primary. Prove the foHowing
b) If 1, J, M are ideals of R, with M maximal, then 1M = JM implies 1 = J.
statements:
a) if 1 $ JQ, then the quotient Q:l ,;. Q; 32. a) Ir 1 is an ideal of the ring R sueh that 1 s:; (a), show that there exists an jdeal
b) if IJ s;: Q and 1 $ JQ, thenJ s:; Q; J of R for which aJ = l. [Hint: Take J = (1: (a)).]
el if IJ s;: Q and the ideal J is finitely generated, then either 1 s:; Q orelse 1" s;: Q
for sorne n E Z+. [Hínt: If 1 $ Q, eaeh generator of J is in .JQ.J P, then P s:; n
b) Prove that if a principal ideal (a) of the ring R properly eontains a prime ideal
(a").
n=1
25. Assume that 1 is an ideal of the ring R. If.JI
is a maximal ideal of R, show that 33. Let 1 be a primary ideal of the ring R. Prove that 1 has exaetly one minimal prime
lis primary. [Hint: Mimie the argument of the eorollaryto Theorem 5-14.] ideal, namely, F
[Hint: Problem 19.]
26. Let R be an integral domain and P be a prime ideal of R. Consider Rp, the ring
of quotients of R relative to the corriplement of P:
Rp .= {ab- 1 E Qcl(R)laER; b'P}.
Prove that the ring Rp (whieh is known as the localizatíon of R at the prime ideal P)
has exaetly one maximal ideal, namely, 1 = {ab- 1 E QclR)la E P; b, P}.

rlng with M as its maximal ideal, show that any element a,

27. A ring R is said to be a local ring if it has a unique maximal ideal. If R is a local
M is in vertible in R.,
28. A subring R of a field F is said to be a valuation ring of F if for eaeh nonzero
. element a E F at least one of a or a- 1 belongs to R. Assuming that R is a valuation
ring of F, prove the following:
a) R eontains a1l the idempotent elements of F.
b) R is a local ring,with tiniquemaximal ideal M = {a ERla-1 'R}.
[Remarlc. iI- 1 denotes the inverse of a in F.]
e) For any two elements a, b ER, either aR S;; bR or bR ;2 aRo [Hint: Either
ab- 1 ER or ba- 1 ER.]

SIX
DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL
DOMAINS
As the title sugg~sts, this chapter is concerned with the problem of factoring
elements of an 111tegral domain as productsof irreducible elements. The
particular impetus is furnished by th~ ring of integers, where the Funda-
~ental Theorem of Arithmetic states that every integer n' > 1 can be written
111 a~ essentia11y unique way, as a product of prime numbers; for example:
the 111teg~r 360 = 2·2· 2·3·3· 5. We are interested here in the possibility
of extendl~g the factorization theory of the ring Z and, in particular, the
afo~ementloned Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to a more general
settmg.. Needless to say, any reasonable abstraction of these number-
th~or~tic ideas depends on a suitable interpretation of prime elements (the
bUlldl?g blocks for the study of divisibility questions in Z) in integral
doma111s. Except for certain definitions, which we prefer to have available
~or arbitrary ~ii:J.gs, our hypothesis will, for the most part, restrict us to
mtegral. ~o.m.a~ns. !he plan .¡s to proceed from the most general results
ab.out dlVlSlblh~y, prIme elemerit~, and uniqueness offactorization to stronger
results concern111g specific c1a~ses of integral domains.
Throughout this chapter, the. rings considered are assumed to be com-
muta ti ve; and it is supposed that each possesses an identity element.
. .j •.•.,
D~finition 6-1. If a =1= O !:al¡1~ b are elements of the ring R, then a is
sald to divide b, in symbg.1s· alb, provided that there exists sorne e e' R
such that b == ae. In caseq does not divide b, we sha11 write a ! b.
Oth~r l~~g~age for the divisibility property alb is that a is afaetor of
b, th~t b IS dw!s!ble by a, and that b is a multiple of a. Whenever the notation
alb IS employed, it is to be uríderstood (even if not explicitIy mentioned)
that ~he element a =1= O; on the other hand, not only may b = O, but in
such mstances we always have divisibility.
Sorne immediate consequences of this definition are listed below' the
reader should convince himself of each of them. '
Theorem 6-1. Let the elements a, b, e E R. Then,
1) alO, lla, ala;
90
DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 91
2) al1 if and only if a is invertible;
3) ifalb,thenaelbe;
4) if alb and ble, then ale;
5) if ela and elb, then el(ax + by) for every x, y E R.
Division. of elements in a ring R is c10sely related to ideal inc1usion:
alb if and only if (b) f; (a).
Indeed, al b means that b = ae for sorne e E R; thus, b E (a), so that (b) f; (a).
Conversely, if(b) f; (a), then there exists an e1ement e in R for which b = ae,
implying that alb.
Questions concerning divisibility are complicated somewhat by the
presence of in vertible elements. For, if u has a multiplicative inverse, any
element of a E R can be expressed in the form a = a(uu- 1), so that both ula
and u - 11 a. An extreme situation occurs in the case of fields, where every
nonzero element divides every other element. On the other hand, in the
ring Ze of even integers, the element 2 has no divisors at a11.
In order to overcome the difficulty that is produced by invertible ele-
ments, we introduce the following definition.
Definition 6-2. Two elements a, bE R are said to be associated elements
or simply assoeiates if a = bu, where u is an in vertible element of R.
A simple argument shows that the relation "', defined on R by taking
a '" b if and only if a is an associate of b, is an equivalence relation with
equivalence c1asses which are sets of associated elements. The associates of
the identity are just the invertible elements of R.
Example .6·,.,1. In the case of the ring Z, the only associates of an integer
n E Z are;'±n, since ± 1 are the only invertible elements.
Example 6-;2. Consider the domain Z(i) of Gaussian integers, a subdomain
of the complex number field, whose elements form the set
Z(i) = {a' + bila, b E Z; i2 = -1}.
Here, the Qnly invertible elements are ± 1 and ± i. For, suppose a + bi E Z(i)
hasamultiplicativeinversee + di. Then,wemusthave(a + bi)(e + di) = 1,
so that (a '- bi)(e - di) = 1. Therefore,
1 = (a + bi)(e + di)(a - bi)(e - di)
= (a 2 + b2 )(e 2 + d2 ).
From the fact that a, b, e, d are a11 integers, it follows that a2 + b 2 = 1.
The only solutions of this last equation are a = ± 1, b = O or a = O,
b = ± 1. This leads to the four invertible elements ± 1, ± i. In con-

SIX
DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL
DOMAINS
As the title sugg~sts, this chapter is concerned with the problem of factoring
elements of an 111tegral domain as productsof irreducible elements. The
particular impetus is furnished by th~ ring of integers, where the Funda-
~ental Theorem of Arithmetic states that every integer n' > 1 can be written
111 a~ essentia11y unique way, as a product of prime numbers; for example:
the 111teg~r 360 = 2·2· 2·3·3· 5. We are interested here in the possibility
of extendl~g the factorization theory of the ring Z and, in particular, the
afo~ementloned Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to a more general
settmg.. Needless to say, any reasonable abstraction of these number-
th~or~tic ideas depends on a suitable interpretation of prime elements (the
bUlldl?g blocks for the study of divisibility questions in Z) in integral
doma111s. Except for certain definitions, which we prefer to have available
~or arbitrary ~ii:J.gs, our hypothesis will, for the most part, restrict us to
mtegral. ~o.m.a~ns. !he plan .¡s to proceed from the most general results
ab.out dlVlSlblh~y, prIme elemerit~, and uniqueness offactorization to stronger
results concern111g specific c1a~ses of integral domains.
Throughout this chapter, the. rings considered are assumed to be com-
muta ti ve; and it is supposed that each possesses an identity element.
. .j •.•.,
D~finition 6-1. If a =1= O !:al¡1~ b are elements of the ring R, then a is
sald to divide b, in symbg.1s· alb, provided that there exists sorne e e' R
such that b == ae. In caseq does not divide b, we sha11 write a ! b.
Oth~r l~~g~age for the divisibility property alb is that a is afaetor of
b, th~t b IS dw!s!ble by a, and that b is a multiple of a. Whenever the notation
alb IS employed, it is to be uríderstood (even if not explicitIy mentioned)
that ~he element a =1= O; on the other hand, not only may b = O, but in
such mstances we always have divisibility.
Sorne immediate consequences of this definition are listed below' the
reader should convince himself of each of them. '
Theorem 6-1. Let the elements a, b, e E R. Then,
1) alO, lla, ala;
90
DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 91
2) al1 if and only if a is invertible;
3) ifalb,thenaelbe;
4) if alb and ble, then ale;
5) if ela and elb, then el(ax + by) for every x, y E R.
Division. of elements in a ring R is c10sely related to ideal inc1usion:
alb if and only if (b) f; (a).
Indeed, al b means that b = ae for sorne e E R; thus, b E (a), so that (b) f; (a).
Conversely, if(b) f; (a), then there exists an e1ement e in R for which b = ae,
implying that alb.
Questions concerning divisibility are complicated somewhat by the
presence of in vertible elements. For, if u has a multiplicative inverse, any
element of a E R can be expressed in the form a = a(uu- 1), so that both ula
and u - 11 a. An extreme situation occurs in the case of fields, where every
nonzero element divides every other element. On the other hand, in the
ring Ze of even integers, the element 2 has no divisors at a11.
In order to overcome the difficulty that is produced by invertible ele-
ments, we introduce the following definition.
Definition 6-2. Two elements a, bE R are said to be associated elements
or simply assoeiates if a = bu, where u is an in vertible element of R.
A simple argument shows that the relation "', defined on R by taking
a '" b if and only if a is an associate of b, is an equivalence relation with
equivalence c1asses which are sets of associated elements. The associates of
the identity are just the invertible elements of R.
Example .6·,.,1. In the case of the ring Z, the only associates of an integer
n E Z are;'±n, since ± 1 are the only invertible elements.
Example 6-;2. Consider the domain Z(i) of Gaussian integers, a subdomain
of the complex number field, whose elements form the set
Z(i) = {a' + bila, b E Z; i2 = -1}.
Here, the Qnly invertible elements are ± 1 and ± i. For, suppose a + bi E Z(i)
hasamultiplicativeinversee + di. Then,wemusthave(a + bi)(e + di) = 1,
so that (a '- bi)(e - di) = 1. Therefore,
1 = (a + bi)(e + di)(a - bi)(e - di)
= (a 2 + b2 )(e 2 + d2 ).
From the fact that a, b, e, d are a11 integers, it follows that a2 + b 2 = 1.
The only solutions of this last equation are a = ± 1, b = O or a = O,
b = ± 1. This leads to the four invertible elements ± 1, ± i. In con-
 92 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS DIVISIBILITY THBORY 'IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 93

sequence, the c1ass of associates determined by any Gaussian integer a
consists of exactly four members:
a + bi, -a - bi, -b + ai, b - aL
Since associated elements are rather c10sely related, it is not surprising
that they have similar properties; for instance:
Theo'rem 6-2. Let a, b be nonzero elements integral domain R.
Then the Iollowing statements are eq~ivalent:
1) a and b are associates,
2) both alb and bla,
3).(a) = (b).
Proof To prove the ~\livalence of (1) anó (2), suppose that a = bu, where
u is an invertible element; then, also, b. au-l,s~rtbat both alb and bla.
Going in the opposite direction, ir al b, we can writeq;~= ax for sorne x E R;
+ bi Theorem 6-3. Let ,al' a 2 , ,.;, an be nonzero elements qf the ring R.
Then al' a2' ... , an bave a greatest common divisor d, expressible in the
form
(r¡ ER),
ifand only iftbe ideal (al' a 2, ''', an) is principal.
Proof Suppose that d gcd (al' a2 , '" , an) exists and can be written in •
the form d = rla l + r 2 a 2 + ..,~ + rnan' with r¡ E R. Tben tbe element d
líes in the ideal (al' a2, ... , a.)i 'which implies tbat (d) s;:; (al' a 2, .. " an)·
To obtain the reverse inc1usion;:'observe that sin ce d = gcd (al' a2' ... , a.),
a;
each a¡ is a multiple of d; say, ';-= x¡d, wbere X¡ E R. Thus, for an arbitrary
member yla l + yza z + .. , + jy~.an ofthe ideal (al' a2, ... , an), we must have
yla l + Y2al + ... + Yna~i~ (YlXl + Y2X2 + ... + y.x.)d E (d).
Tbis fact shows that (al' a 2 , ",:¡,!:.'qn) s;:; (d), and equality follows.
For the converse, let (al' 1l~?. , a.) be a principal ideal of R:
~:"::·:~l.,

while, from bla, ít follows that a by wíth y E R. 1h'erefore, b :::. (by)x· (ai' al' ... ;'(sn) = (d) (d E R).
b(yx). Since b =1= ,O, the cancellation law implies that 1 = yx. Hence, y is. Qur aim, of course, is to prové tbat d gcd (al' al' ... ,an ). Since each
an invertible element of R, with a = by, proving that a and b must be a, E (d), there exist elements b¡ in R for which al = bid, whence dja; for
associates. The equivalence oI (2) and (3) stems from our earlier remarks i '= 1,2, ... , n. It remains only to establish that any common divisor e of
. relating division of ring elements to ideal inclusion. tbe a· also divides d. Now, a¡ SiC for suitable S¡ E R. As an elementof

We next examine the notion of a greatest common divisor. (al' a~, ... , an), d must have tbe form d = r1a 1 + r2 a2 + ... + rnan' witb
r¡ in R. This mean s tbat
Definition 6':'3. Let al' a2 , ••• , an be nonzero elements of the ring R.
d (rls l + r2sl + ... + rnsn)e,
An element dE R is a greatest eommon divisor oI al' a2• ... ,an if it
possesses the properties . which is to say tbat cid. Thus, dis a greatest common divisor of al' a 2 , ... , an
and has tbe desired representation.
1) dja¡for i = 1,2, ... , n (d is acornmon divisor),
2) ela¡ for i = 1,2, ... , n imp,lies that cid. Corollary. Any finite set ofnonzero dementsa l , a2 , ••• , a. ofa principal
ideal ring R bas a greatest common divisor; in fact,
The use of tbe superlative adjective "greatest" in this definitiol,1 does gcd (al' a2 , ... , an) = r1a l + r2a2 + ... + rnan
not imply that d has greater magnitude than any other common divisor e,
but only that d is a multiple of any such e. for suitable choice of r l , r2 , ... , rn E R.
A natural question to ask is wbetber the elements al' a2, ... , an E R I When. (al' a 2, ... , an ) = R, the elements al' a2, ... ,an must have a
can possess two different greatest common dívisors. For an answer, suppose common divisor which is an invertible element of R; in this case, we say
tbat there are two elements d and d' in R satisfying the conditions of
Definition 6-3. Then, by (2), we must have dld' as well as d'jd; according
,1
1 a.
tbat al' al' ... , are relatively prime and sball wríte gcd (al' a2, ... ,an ) = 1.
Ir al' a2 , '" , a" are nonzero elements of a principal ideal ring R, then
to Theorem 6-2, this implies that d and d' are associates. Thus, the greatest the corollary to Theorem 6-3 tells us that al' a2 , '" , an are re1atively prime
common divisor of al' a 2, .. ' , an is unique, wbenever it exists, up to arbitrary ¡fand only iftbere exist r l , r2 , .;" r" E R such tbat
invertible faétors. We shall find. it convenient to denote any greatest com-
mon divisor of al' a2, ... , all by gcd (al' a 2, ... , an ). rla l + r2a2 + ... + rilan = 1 (Bezout's Identity).
The next tbeorem wiI1 prove, at least for principal ideal ríngs, tbat any Qne of the most useful applications of Bezout's Identity is the following
finite set ofnonzero elements actualIy does have a greatest common divisor. (it also serves to motívate our coming definition of a prime element).
 92 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS DIVISIBILITY THBORY 'IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 93

sequence, the c1ass of associates determined by any Gaussian integer a
consists of exactly four members:
a + bi, -a - bi, -b + ai, b - aL
Since associated elements are rather c10sely related, it is not surprising
that they have similar properties; for instance:
Theo'rem 6-2. Let a, b be nonzero elements integral domain R.
Then the Iollowing statements are eq~ivalent:
1) a and b are associates,
2) both alb and bla,
3).(a) = (b).
Proof To prove the ~\livalence of (1) anó (2), suppose that a = bu, where
u is an invertible element; then, also, b. au-l,s~rtbat both alb and bla.
Going in the opposite direction, ir al b, we can writeq;~= ax for sorne x E R;
+ bi Theorem 6-3. Let ,al' a 2 , ,.;, an be nonzero elements qf the ring R.
Then al' a2' ... , an bave a greatest common divisor d, expressible in the
form
(r¡ ER),
ifand only iftbe ideal (al' a 2, ''', an) is principal.
Proof Suppose that d gcd (al' a2 , '" , an) exists and can be written in •
the form d = rla l + r 2 a 2 + ..,~ + rnan' with r¡ E R. Tben tbe element d
líes in the ideal (al' a2, ... , a.)i 'which implies tbat (d) s;:; (al' a 2, .. " an)·
To obtain the reverse inc1usion;:'observe that sin ce d = gcd (al' a2' ... , a.),
a;
each a¡ is a multiple of d; say, ';-= x¡d, wbere X¡ E R. Thus, for an arbitrary
member yla l + yza z + .. , + jy~.an ofthe ideal (al' a2, ... , an), we must have
yla l + Y2al + ... + Yna~i~ (YlXl + Y2X2 + ... + y.x.)d E (d).
Tbis fact shows that (al' a 2 , ",:¡,!:.'qn) s;:; (d), and equality follows.
For the converse, let (al' 1l~?. , a.) be a principal ideal of R:
~:"::·:~l.,

while, from bla, ít follows that a by wíth y E R. 1h'erefore, b :::. (by)x· (ai' al' ... ;'(sn) = (d) (d E R).
b(yx). Since b =1= ,O, the cancellation law implies that 1 = yx. Hence, y is. Qur aim, of course, is to prové tbat d gcd (al' al' ... ,an ). Since each
an invertible element of R, with a = by, proving that a and b must be a, E (d), there exist elements b¡ in R for which al = bid, whence dja; for
associates. The equivalence oI (2) and (3) stems from our earlier remarks i '= 1,2, ... , n. It remains only to establish that any common divisor e of
. relating division of ring elements to ideal inclusion. tbe a· also divides d. Now, a¡ SiC for suitable S¡ E R. As an elementof

We next examine the notion of a greatest common divisor. (al' a~, ... , an), d must have tbe form d = r1a 1 + r2 a2 + ... + rnan' witb
r¡ in R. This mean s tbat
Definition 6':'3. Let al' a2 , ••• , an be nonzero elements of the ring R.
d (rls l + r2sl + ... + rnsn)e,
An element dE R is a greatest eommon divisor oI al' a2• ... ,an if it
possesses the properties . which is to say tbat cid. Thus, dis a greatest common divisor of al' a 2 , ... , an
and has tbe desired representation.
1) dja¡for i = 1,2, ... , n (d is acornmon divisor),
2) ela¡ for i = 1,2, ... , n imp,lies that cid. Corollary. Any finite set ofnonzero dementsa l , a2 , ••• , a. ofa principal
ideal ring R bas a greatest common divisor; in fact,
The use of tbe superlative adjective "greatest" in this definitiol,1 does gcd (al' a2 , ... , an) = r1a l + r2a2 + ... + rnan
not imply that d has greater magnitude than any other common divisor e,
but only that d is a multiple of any such e. for suitable choice of r l , r2 , ... , rn E R.
A natural question to ask is wbetber the elements al' a2, ... , an E R I When. (al' a 2, ... , an ) = R, the elements al' a2, ... ,an must have a
can possess two different greatest common dívisors. For an answer, suppose common divisor which is an invertible element of R; in this case, we say
tbat there are two elements d and d' in R satisfying the conditions of
Definition 6-3. Then, by (2), we must have dld' as well as d'jd; according
,1
1 a.
tbat al' al' ... , are relatively prime and sball wríte gcd (al' a2, ... ,an ) = 1.
Ir al' a2 , '" , a" are nonzero elements of a principal ideal ring R, then
to Theorem 6-2, this implies that d and d' are associates. Thus, the greatest the corollary to Theorem 6-3 tells us that al' a2 , '" , an are re1atively prime
common divisor of al' a 2, .. ' , an is unique, wbenever it exists, up to arbitrary ¡fand only iftbere exist r l , r2 , .;" r" E R such tbat
invertible faétors. We shall find. it convenient to denote any greatest com-
mon divisor of al' a2, ... , all by gcd (al' a 2, ... , an ). rla l + r2a2 + ... + rilan = 1 (Bezout's Identity).
The next tbeorem wiI1 prove, at least for principal ideal ríngs, tbat any Qne of the most useful applications of Bezout's Identity is the following
finite set ofnonzero elements actualIy does have a greatest common divisor. (it also serves to motívate our coming definition of a prime element).
 94 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 95

Th~orem 6-4. , Let a, b, e be elements ofthe principal ideal ring R. If At this point, we introduce two additional definitions. These will help
elab, wIth a and e relatively prime, then elb. to describe, in a fairly concise manner, certain situations wbich will occur
Proof. Since a and e are relatively prime, so that gcd (a, e) = 1, there exist in the sequel.
elements r, s E R satisfying 1 = ra + se; hence, Definition 6-5. A ring R is said to have the ged-property (lem-property)
provided that any finite number of nonzero elements of R admit a
b = lb = rab + sebo greatest common divisor (least common multiple).
~~.elab ánd ele, Theorem 6-1(5) guarantees that el(rab + seb), or rather, The content of Theorem 6-3 is that a ring R ha.s the gcd-property if
and only if every finitely generated ideal of R is principal. Likewise,
Dual to the notion of greatest common divisor there is the idea of a Theorem 6-5 tells us that R possesses the lcm-property if and only if the
least cornmon multiple, defined below. intersection of any finite number of principal ideals of R is again principal.
Suffice it to say, every principal ideal ring satisfies both these properties.
Definition 6-4.. Let al' a2 , ... , an be nonzero elements of a ring R. An The immediate task is to prove that any integral domain has the gcd-
element dE R IS a least eommon multiple of al' a2 , ... , an if property if and only if it has the lcm-property. In the pro ces s, we shall
1) a¡ld for i = 1,2, ... ,n (d is a common multiple), acquire certain other facts which have significance for our subsequent
investigation. So as to avoid becoming submerged in minor details at a
2) ade for i = 1,2, ... , n implies dic. critical stage of the discussion, let us first establish a lemma.
. . !n brief, an eleme~t dE R is a least cornmon multiple of al' a2 , ... ,a Lemma. Let al' a2 , an and rbe nonzero elements of an integral
n ... ,
If It I~ a common multIple of al' a2 , ••• , an which divides any other common domain R.
~ult.lple.. Th~ reader should note that a least common multiple, in case
It eXIsts, IS ulllque apart from the distinction between associates' indeed if 1) Iflcm (al' a2 , ... , an ) exists, then lcm (ra l , ra 2 , ... , ran) also exists and
d and d' are both least cornmon multiples of al' a2', ... , an, the~ dld' a~d lcm (ra l , ra2 , ... , ra n) = r lcm (al' a2 , ... , a,,).
d'ld; hence, d and d' are associates. We hereafter adopt the standard notation
lcm (al' a2 , ... , iln) t~ represent an~ least common multiple of al' a2 , ... , an0 2) If gcd (ra l , ra 2 , ... , ran ) exists, then gcd (al' a2 , ... , an ) also exists and
The next result IS a useful companion to Theorem 6-3.
gcd (ra l , ra 2 , ... ,ran ) = ~ gcd (al' a2 , ... , an ).
Theorem 6-5. Let al' a2 , ... ,all be nonzero elements ott:h~ ring R.
Then al' a2 , ... , an have a least common multiple if and only'ifthe ideal Proof. First, as sume that d = lcm (al'~ 'q.ú ... ,a,,) exists. Then a¡jd for
n (a¡) is principal. . each value of i, whence ra;jrd. Now, let d' be any common multiple of
ra 2 , ra 2 , ... ,ran • Then rld', say d' = rs, w~ere s E R. It follows that a¡ls
Proof. We begin by assuming that d = lcm (al' a2 , ••• ,an) exi~is. Then for every i and so dls. As a result, rdk.if:or rdld'. But this means that
the ele~ent d ~ies in each of the 'principal ideals (a¡), for i =1 1,2, ... , n, lcm (ra l , ra 2 , ... , ran ) exists and equals r{'';' r lcm (al' a2 , ... , an ).
whence rn the rntersection n (a¡). This means that (d) !;; n (di). On the As regards the second assertion, suPP<i~ that e = gcd (ra l , ra 2 , ... , ran )
other ~and, any element rE n (a¡) is a common multiple of eadí of the a¡. exists. Then rle; hence, e = rt for suitable;'tE R. Since elra¡, we have tla¡ for
But d IS a least common multiple, so that dlr, or, equivalently, r~ (d). This every i, signifying that t is a common divisor of the a¡. Now; consider an
leads t~ th~ inc1usion n (a¡) !;; (ti) and the subsequent equality... arbitrary'common divisor t' of al' a2 , ... , a~. Then rt'lra¡ for i = 1,2, ... , n
?o~g I~ the opposite direction, suppose that the intersection n (a¡) is and therefore rt'le. But e = rt, so that rt'lrt or t'lt. The implication is
a prIncIpal Ideal of R, say n (a¡) = (a). Since (a) !;; (a¡), it follows that that gcd (al' a2 , ... , an ) exists and equals t. This pro ves what we wanted:
ada for every i, ma~ng a a common multiple of al' a2 , ... ,an • Given any
other common multIple b of al' a2 , ... , an , the condition a;/b implies that gcd (ra l , ra 2 , ... ,ran) = e = rt = r gcd (al' a2 , ... , an ).
(b) !;; (a¡) for each val.ue of i. As a result, (b) !;; n (a¡) = (a) and so alb. Remark. It is entirely possible for gcd (al' a2 , ... , an ) to exist without the
Our argument estabhshes that a = lcm (al' a2 , ... ,an ), completing the existence of gcd (ra l , ra 2 , ... , ran ); tbis accounts for the lack of symmetry
proof.
in the statement of the aboye lemma. (See Example 6-4.)
 94 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 95

Th~orem 6-4. , Let a, b, e be elements ofthe principal ideal ring R. If At this point, we introduce two additional definitions. These will help
elab, wIth a and e relatively prime, then elb. to describe, in a fairly concise manner, certain situations wbich will occur
Proof. Since a and e are relatively prime, so that gcd (a, e) = 1, there exist in the sequel.
elements r, s E R satisfying 1 = ra + se; hence, Definition 6-5. A ring R is said to have the ged-property (lem-property)
provided that any finite number of nonzero elements of R admit a
b = lb = rab + sebo greatest common divisor (least common multiple).
~~.elab ánd ele, Theorem 6-1(5) guarantees that el(rab + seb), or rather, The content of Theorem 6-3 is that a ring R ha.s the gcd-property if
and only if every finitely generated ideal of R is principal. Likewise,
Dual to the notion of greatest common divisor there is the idea of a Theorem 6-5 tells us that R possesses the lcm-property if and only if the
least cornmon multiple, defined below. intersection of any finite number of principal ideals of R is again principal.
Suffice it to say, every principal ideal ring satisfies both these properties.
Definition 6-4.. Let al' a2 , ... , an be nonzero elements of a ring R. An The immediate task is to prove that any integral domain has the gcd-
element dE R IS a least eommon multiple of al' a2 , ... , an if property if and only if it has the lcm-property. In the pro ces s, we shall
1) a¡ld for i = 1,2, ... ,n (d is a common multiple), acquire certain other facts which have significance for our subsequent
investigation. So as to avoid becoming submerged in minor details at a
2) ade for i = 1,2, ... , n implies dic. critical stage of the discussion, let us first establish a lemma.
. . !n brief, an eleme~t dE R is a least cornmon multiple of al' a2 , ... ,a Lemma. Let al' a2 , an and rbe nonzero elements of an integral
n ... ,
If It I~ a common multIple of al' a2 , ••• , an which divides any other common domain R.
~ult.lple.. Th~ reader should note that a least common multiple, in case
It eXIsts, IS ulllque apart from the distinction between associates' indeed if 1) Iflcm (al' a2 , ... , an ) exists, then lcm (ra l , ra 2 , ... , ran) also exists and
d and d' are both least cornmon multiples of al' a2', ... , an, the~ dld' a~d lcm (ra l , ra2 , ... , ra n) = r lcm (al' a2 , ... , a,,).
d'ld; hence, d and d' are associates. We hereafter adopt the standard notation
lcm (al' a2 , ... , iln) t~ represent an~ least common multiple of al' a2 , ... , an0 2) If gcd (ra l , ra 2 , ... , ran ) exists, then gcd (al' a2 , ... , an ) also exists and
The next result IS a useful companion to Theorem 6-3.
gcd (ra l , ra 2 , ... ,ran ) = ~ gcd (al' a2 , ... , an ).
Theorem 6-5. Let al' a2 , ... ,all be nonzero elements ott:h~ ring R.
Then al' a2 , ... , an have a least common multiple if and only'ifthe ideal Proof. First, as sume that d = lcm (al'~ 'q.ú ... ,a,,) exists. Then a¡jd for
n (a¡) is principal. . each value of i, whence ra;jrd. Now, let d' be any common multiple of
ra 2 , ra 2 , ... ,ran • Then rld', say d' = rs, w~ere s E R. It follows that a¡ls
Proof. We begin by assuming that d = lcm (al' a2 , ••• ,an) exi~is. Then for every i and so dls. As a result, rdk.if:or rdld'. But this means that
the ele~ent d ~ies in each of the 'principal ideals (a¡), for i =1 1,2, ... , n, lcm (ra l , ra 2 , ... , ran ) exists and equals r{'';' r lcm (al' a2 , ... , an ).
whence rn the rntersection n (a¡). This means that (d) !;; n (di). On the As regards the second assertion, suPP<i~ that e = gcd (ra l , ra 2 , ... , ran )
other ~and, any element rE n (a¡) is a common multiple of eadí of the a¡. exists. Then rle; hence, e = rt for suitable;'tE R. Since elra¡, we have tla¡ for
But d IS a least common multiple, so that dlr, or, equivalently, r~ (d). This every i, signifying that t is a common divisor of the a¡. Now; consider an
leads t~ th~ inc1usion n (a¡) !;; (ti) and the subsequent equality... arbitrary'common divisor t' of al' a2 , ... , a~. Then rt'lra¡ for i = 1,2, ... , n
?o~g I~ the opposite direction, suppose that the intersection n (a¡) is and therefore rt'le. But e = rt, so that rt'lrt or t'lt. The implication is
a prIncIpal Ideal of R, say n (a¡) = (a). Since (a) !;; (a¡), it follows that that gcd (al' a2 , ... , an ) exists and equals t. This pro ves what we wanted:
ada for every i, ma~ng a a common multiple of al' a2 , ... ,an • Given any
other common multIple b of al' a2 , ... , an , the condition a;/b implies that gcd (ra l , ra 2 , ... ,ran) = e = rt = r gcd (al' a2 , ... , an ).
(b) !;; (a¡) for each val.ue of i. As a result, (b) !;; n (a¡) = (a) and so alb. Remark. It is entirely possible for gcd (al' a2 , ... , an ) to exist without the
Our argument estabhshes that a = lcm (al' a2 , ... ,an ), completing the existence of gcd (ra l , ra 2 , ... , ran ); tbis accounts for the lack of symmetry
proof.
in the statement of the aboye lemma. (See Example 6-4.)

96 FIRST COURSB IN RINGS AND IDBALS
Although the corning theorern is sornewhat specialized in character, the
inforrnation it contains is frequent1y useful.
Theorem 6-6. Let al' al• ... , a,. and b l , b2 , ••• , b. be nonzero elernents ,
of an integral dornain R such that al b 1 = a2 b2 = ... = a.b. = x.
1) Ir !cm (al' a2 , ••• , a.) exists, then gcd (b l , b2 , •• , , b.) also exists and
satisfies '
lcm (al' a2 , ••• , a,.) gcd (b l , bl , ... , b.) = x.
2) Ir gcd (rdÚ ra2 , ••• , ra.) exists for all o =1= rE R, then lcm (b l' b2 ,
b.) also ,eiists and satisfies
\';; gcd (al' a2 , ••• ,a.) lcm (b l , b 2 : '" , b.) x.
,"',
Proo! 'For a":p;oof of statément (1), set a = lcm (al' a2 , ••• , a.). Then
ada for i = 1/2,~ ... , n,'say a = ría¡. Frorn the relation x a;b¡, we see
tbat ab í = (r¡J:iiJli¡ = riJa and so xlab;. On the other band, consider any
divisor y of th.~''izb¡. Then ya¡l(ah¡)a¡, or ya¡lxa, making xa a commOn
rnultiple of yal;Y9~, ... , ya•. According to the lemrna, lcm (ya l' ya 2 , '" , ya.)
exists and equals ya. Tbus, by tbe definition of least COn;lmon multiple, we
conclude tbat yalxa, whence ylx. To recapitulate, we have shown that
x/ab¡ for each i and wbenever y/ah¡, then ylx. This simply asserts that
'x = gcd (ab 1, ab2 , ... , abn)
= a gcd (b 1, bz, ... , bn ) = lcm (al' a2 , ... , a.) gcd (b l , b2 , ... ,
where, once again, tbe lernrna has been invoked.
We omit the proof of the other half of the tbeorem, wbich follows by
mucb the sarne reasoning. In order to apply the lernma, it is now necessary
to assurne n .... only that gcd (al' a2 , ••• , a.) exists but, more generally, the
existenceof' gcc (raí> ra2 , ... , ra.) for all r f O.
Dur next result is rather striking in that it tells us tbat, at leas't.ror integral
domains, tbe gcd-property implies tbe lcm-property, and conversely.
Theorem 6-7. An integral dornain R has tbe gcd-property if and only
if R has tbe lcrn-property. ' the theorem below.
Proo! Let bl , b2 , '" , b.' be nonzero elements of R and suppose that R
possesses the lcm-property. Taking x b 1 b2 .. , b. and' ak = bl ... bk - 1
bk+ 1 ... b. for k = 1, 2, ... , n; we may appeal to the first part of Theorem
6-6 to conclude that gcd (b 1 , b2 , ••• ,b.) exists; hence, the gcd-property
holds in R. Conversely, if it is hypothesized tbat any finité number of non-
zero elements of R adrnit a greatest common divisor, then the existen ce of
lcm (Él l , b2 , ... , b,.) can be inferred in the same way.
We now have quite a bit of information about divisibility in integral
domains, but the basic question rernains unanswered: when does a ring
' I j,l
i
DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 97
,
i' possess a factorization· theory in which the analog of the Fundamental
Theorem of Arithmetic holds? To this end, let us introduce two new classes
of elements, prime and irreducible elernents; when the ring is specialized
to the ring of integers, these concepts are equivalent and yield the usual
notion of a prime number.
Definition 6-6. 1) A nonzero element p E R is called a prime if and only
:: i if p is not invertible and plab implies that either pla or else plb.
... , 2) A nonzero element q E R is said to be irreducible (or nonfaetorizgble)
if and only if q is not invertible and ro
every factorization q bc:cw.ith
b, e E R, either b or e is invertible. .'
Briefly, an irreducible eleme~t q is an element which cannot be fa~'t~~ed
in R in a nontrivial way; the only factors of q are its associates an(í'the
inverÍible elements of R. In such rings as division rings and fields;;~,here
each nonzero element possesses a rnultiplicative inverse, the concepi:~or:an
irreducible element is Mno significance. ;:<
Observe idso that every element which is an associate oran irreducible
(prime) element is itself irreducible (prime). 1t foUows by an easy in'duction
argument that ifa product a 1a2 .. : a. is divisible by a prime p, then p must
divide at least one ofthe factors a¡ (i = 1, 2, ... , n).
b.), Lemma. In an mtegral domain R, any prime element p is irreducible.
Proo! Suppose that p = ab for SOlDe a, bE R. Since p is prime, either pla
or plb; say p divides b, so that there exists some element e in R for which,
b =. pe. We then have abe pc = b. It follows from the cancellation
law that ae 1; hence, a is invertible. This allows us to conclude that p
must be an irreducible'element of R.
Although prime elements are irreducible in integral domains, the con-
verse is not always true, as we shall see later on: In thecontext of principal
ideal domains (our primary interest in this chapter), the no'tions of an
irreducible element and a prime element coincide. This is brought out in
.
Theorern 6-8. Let R be a principal ideal domain. A nonzero element
PE R is irreducible if and only if it is prime.
Proo! By what we have just proved, p prime always implies p irreducible.
So; assurne that p is an irreducible elernent and that p divides the product
ab, say pe = ab, with e E R. As R is a principal ideal ring, the ideal
generated by p and a,
(p, a) = (d)
for some choice of d in R; hence, p = rd, for suitable rE R. Bllt p is
irreducible by hypothesis, so that either r or d must be an ipvertible element.
.1

96 FIRST COURSB IN RINGS AND IDBALS
Although the corning theorern is sornewhat specialized in character, the
inforrnation it contains is frequent1y useful.
Theorem 6-6. Let al' al• ... , a,. and b l , b2 , ••• , b. be nonzero elernents ,
of an integral dornain R such that al b 1 = a2 b2 = ... = a.b. = x.
1) Ir !cm (al' a2 , ••• , a.) exists, then gcd (b l , b2 , •• , , b.) also exists and
satisfies '
lcm (al' a2 , ••• , a,.) gcd (b l , bl , ... , b.) = x.
2) Ir gcd (rdÚ ra2 , ••• , ra.) exists for all o =1= rE R, then lcm (b l' b2 ,
b.) also ,eiists and satisfies
\';; gcd (al' a2 , ••• ,a.) lcm (b l , b 2 : '" , b.) x.
,"',
Proo! 'For a":p;oof of statément (1), set a = lcm (al' a2 , ••• , a.). Then
ada for i = 1/2,~ ... , n,'say a = ría¡. Frorn the relation x a;b¡, we see
tbat ab í = (r¡J:iiJli¡ = riJa and so xlab;. On the other band, consider any
divisor y of th.~''izb¡. Then ya¡l(ah¡)a¡, or ya¡lxa, making xa a commOn
rnultiple of yal;Y9~, ... , ya•. According to the lemrna, lcm (ya l' ya 2 , '" , ya.)
exists and equals ya. Tbus, by tbe definition of least COn;lmon multiple, we
conclude tbat yalxa, whence ylx. To recapitulate, we have shown that
x/ab¡ for each i and wbenever y/ah¡, then ylx. This simply asserts that
'x = gcd (ab 1, ab2 , ... , abn)
= a gcd (b 1, bz, ... , bn ) = lcm (al' a2 , ... , a.) gcd (b l , b2 , ... ,
where, once again, tbe lernrna has been invoked.
We omit the proof of the other half of the tbeorem, wbich follows by
mucb the sarne reasoning. In order to apply the lernma, it is now necessary
to assurne n .... only that gcd (al' a2 , ••• , a.) exists but, more generally, the
existenceof' gcc (raí> ra2 , ... , ra.) for all r f O.
Dur next result is rather striking in that it tells us tbat, at leas't.ror integral
domains, tbe gcd-property implies tbe lcm-property, and conversely.
Theorem 6-7. An integral dornain R has tbe gcd-property if and only
if R has tbe lcrn-property. ' the theorem below.
Proo! Let bl , b2 , '" , b.' be nonzero elements of R and suppose that R
possesses the lcm-property. Taking x b 1 b2 .. , b. and' ak = bl ... bk - 1
bk+ 1 ... b. for k = 1, 2, ... , n; we may appeal to the first part of Theorem
6-6 to conclude that gcd (b 1 , b2 , ••• ,b.) exists; hence, the gcd-property
holds in R. Conversely, if it is hypothesized tbat any finité number of non-
zero elements of R adrnit a greatest common divisor, then the existen ce of
lcm (Él l , b2 , ... , b,.) can be inferred in the same way.
We now have quite a bit of information about divisibility in integral
domains, but the basic question rernains unanswered: when does a ring
' I j,l
i
DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 97
,
i' possess a factorization· theory in which the analog of the Fundamental
Theorem of Arithmetic holds? To this end, let us introduce two new classes
of elements, prime and irreducible elernents; when the ring is specialized
to the ring of integers, these concepts are equivalent and yield the usual
notion of a prime number.
Definition 6-6. 1) A nonzero element p E R is called a prime if and only
:: i if p is not invertible and plab implies that either pla or else plb.
... , 2) A nonzero element q E R is said to be irreducible (or nonfaetorizgble)
if and only if q is not invertible and ro
every factorization q bc:cw.ith
b, e E R, either b or e is invertible. .'
Briefly, an irreducible eleme~t q is an element which cannot be fa~'t~~ed
in R in a nontrivial way; the only factors of q are its associates an(í'the
inverÍible elements of R. In such rings as division rings and fields;;~,here
each nonzero element possesses a rnultiplicative inverse, the concepi:~or:an
irreducible element is Mno significance. ;:<
Observe idso that every element which is an associate oran irreducible
(prime) element is itself irreducible (prime). 1t foUows by an easy in'duction
argument that ifa product a 1a2 .. : a. is divisible by a prime p, then p must
divide at least one ofthe factors a¡ (i = 1, 2, ... , n).
b.), Lemma. In an mtegral domain R, any prime element p is irreducible.
Proo! Suppose that p = ab for SOlDe a, bE R. Since p is prime, either pla
or plb; say p divides b, so that there exists some element e in R for which,
b =. pe. We then have abe pc = b. It follows from the cancellation
law that ae 1; hence, a is invertible. This allows us to conclude that p
must be an irreducible'element of R.
Although prime elements are irreducible in integral domains, the con-
verse is not always true, as we shall see later on: In thecontext of principal
ideal domains (our primary interest in this chapter), the no'tions of an
irreducible element and a prime element coincide. This is brought out in
.
Theorern 6-8. Let R be a principal ideal domain. A nonzero element
PE R is irreducible if and only if it is prime.
Proo! By what we have just proved, p prime always implies p irreducible.
So; assurne that p is an irreducible elernent and that p divides the product
ab, say pe = ab, with e E R. As R is a principal ideal ring, the ideal
generated by p and a,
(p, a) = (d)
for some choice of d in R; hence, p = rd, for suitable rE R. Bllt p is
irreducible by hypothesis, so that either r or d must be an ipvertible element.
.1
 98 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
If d happened to possess an inverse, we would háve (p, a) = R. Thus,
there would exist elements s, tER for which 1 = sp + tao Then,
b = bl = bsp + bta = bsp + pct = p(bs + ct),
which implies that plb.
On the other hand, if r is invertible in R, then d = r-1p E (p), whence
(d) s: (p) .. It follows that the element a E (p) and, in con sequen ce, pla. At
any rate, if plab, then p must divide one of the factors, making p a prime
element of R. ' so may be ruled out). Now, if the element a were in (p), then a = rp ~or
We next take up two theorems having to do with the ideal structure of
a principal ideal domain; the first result has considerable theoretical
importance and will, in particular, serve as our basic tool for tbis section.
Theorem 6-9. Let.k be a principal ideal domain. If {In}, n E Z+, is
any infinite sequence of ideals of R satisfying
then there exists an integer m such that In = 1m for all n > m.
Proa! It is an easy matter to verify that 1 = u In is an ideal of R (see
the argument of Theorem 5-2). Being an ideal of a principal ideal ring,
1 = (a) for suitable choice of a E R. Now, the element a must He in one
of the ideals of the union, say the ideal 1m. For n > m, it then follows that
1 = (a) s: 1m s: In s: 1;
hence, In = 1m , as ass~rted.
In asserting the equivalence of maximal and prime ideals in principal
ideal domains, Theoreri1h5-9 failed to identify these ideals; this situation is
taken care of by our next theorem. First, let us define a principal ideal of
the ring R to be a mqfimal principal ideal if it is maximal (with respect to
inc1usion) in the set of;proper principal ideals of R.
Lemma. Let R be an integral domain. For a nonzero element p E R,
the following hold~
a) p is an irreducible element of R if and only if (p) is a maximal
principal ideal;
b) p is a prime element of R if and only if the principal ideal (P) =F R
is prime.
Proa! To begin, we suppose that p is an irreducible element of R and that
(a) is any principal ideal for which (p) e (a)s: R. As p E (a), we must have
p = ra for sorne rE R. The fact that p is an irreducible element implies
that either r or a is invertible. Were r allowed to possess a multiplicative
DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 99
inverse, then a = r-1p E (P), from wbich it follows that (a) s: (p), an obvious
contradiction. Accordingly, the element a is invertible, whence (a) = R.
This argument shows that no principal ideallies between (p) and the whole
ring R, so that (p) is a maximal principal ideal.
On the other hand, let (p) be a maximal principal ideal of R. For a
proof by contradiction, assume that p is not an irreducible elemento Then
p admits a factorization p = ab where a, b E R and neither a nor b is in-
vertible (the alternative possibility that p has an inverse implies (p) = R,
sorne choice of r E R; hence, p = ab = (rp)b. Using the cancellation law,
we could deduce that 1 = rb; but' this results in the contradiction that b
is invertible. Therefore, a ~ (p), yielding the proper inclusion (p) e (a).
Next, observe that if (a) = R, then a will possess an inverse, contrary to
assumption. We thus conclude that (p) e (a) e R, which denies that (p)
is a maximal principal ideal. Our original supposition is false and a must
be an irreducible element of R.
With regard to the second assertion ofthe lemma, suppose that p is any
prime element of R. To see that the principal ideal (p) is in fact a prime
ideal, we let the product ab E (p). Then thére exists an element rE R for
wbich ab = rp; hence, plab. By hypothesis, p is a prime element, so th~t
either pi a or pi b. Translating this into ideals, either a E (p) or b E {p); In
consequence, (p) is a prime ideal of R.
The converse is proved in much the same way. Let (p) be a prime ideal
and plab. Then ab E (p). Using the factthat (p) is a prime ideal, it follows
that one of a or b lies in (p). This means that either pla or else plb, and makes
'p a prime element of R.
" For principal ide~l domains, aH of this may be summarized by the;;'
, following theorem. ,'
Theorem 6-10. Let R be a principal ideal domain. The non trivial ideal
(p) is a maximal {prime) ideal of R if and only if pis an irreducible (prime),
element of R.
An immediate consequence of this theorem is that every nonzero non-
invertible element of R is divisible by sorne prime.
CoroUary. Let a =F O be a noninvertible element of the principal ideal
domain R. Then there exists a prime p E R such that pla.
Proa! Since a is not invertible, the principal ideal (a) =F R. Thus, by
Theorem 5-2, there exists a maximal ideal M of R such that (a) s: M. But
the preceding result teHs us that every maximal ideal is ofthe form M = (p),
where p is a prime element of R (in this setting, there is no distinction
between prime and irreducible elements). Thus, (a) s: (p), wbich is to say
that pla. '
 98 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
If d happened to possess an inverse, we would háve (p, a) = R. Thus,
there would exist elements s, tER for which 1 = sp + tao Then,
b = bl = bsp + bta = bsp + pct = p(bs + ct),
which implies that plb.
On the other hand, if r is invertible in R, then d = r-1p E (p), whence
(d) s: (p) .. It follows that the element a E (p) and, in con sequen ce, pla. At
any rate, if plab, then p must divide one of the factors, making p a prime
element of R. ' so may be ruled out). Now, if the element a were in (p), then a = rp ~or
We next take up two theorems having to do with the ideal structure of
a principal ideal domain; the first result has considerable theoretical
importance and will, in particular, serve as our basic tool for tbis section.
Theorem 6-9. Let.k be a principal ideal domain. If {In}, n E Z+, is
any infinite sequence of ideals of R satisfying
then there exists an integer m such that In = 1m for all n > m.
Proa! It is an easy matter to verify that 1 = u In is an ideal of R (see
the argument of Theorem 5-2). Being an ideal of a principal ideal ring,
1 = (a) for suitable choice of a E R. Now, the element a must He in one
of the ideals of the union, say the ideal 1m. For n > m, it then follows that
1 = (a) s: 1m s: In s: 1;
hence, In = 1m , as ass~rted.
In asserting the equivalence of maximal and prime ideals in principal
ideal domains, Theoreri1h5-9 failed to identify these ideals; this situation is
taken care of by our next theorem. First, let us define a principal ideal of
the ring R to be a mqfimal principal ideal if it is maximal (with respect to
inc1usion) in the set of;proper principal ideals of R.
Lemma. Let R be an integral domain. For a nonzero element p E R,
the following hold~
a) p is an irreducible element of R if and only if (p) is a maximal
principal ideal;
b) p is a prime element of R if and only if the principal ideal (P) =F R
is prime.
Proa! To begin, we suppose that p is an irreducible element of R and that
(a) is any principal ideal for which (p) e (a)s: R. As p E (a), we must have
p = ra for sorne rE R. The fact that p is an irreducible element implies
that either r or a is invertible. Were r allowed to possess a multiplicative
DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 99
inverse, then a = r-1p E (P), from wbich it follows that (a) s: (p), an obvious
contradiction. Accordingly, the element a is invertible, whence (a) = R.
This argument shows that no principal ideallies between (p) and the whole
ring R, so that (p) is a maximal principal ideal.
On the other hand, let (p) be a maximal principal ideal of R. For a
proof by contradiction, assume that p is not an irreducible elemento Then
p admits a factorization p = ab where a, b E R and neither a nor b is in-
vertible (the alternative possibility that p has an inverse implies (p) = R,
sorne choice of r E R; hence, p = ab = (rp)b. Using the cancellation law,
we could deduce that 1 = rb; but' this results in the contradiction that b
is invertible. Therefore, a ~ (p), yielding the proper inclusion (p) e (a).
Next, observe that if (a) = R, then a will possess an inverse, contrary to
assumption. We thus conclude that (p) e (a) e R, which denies that (p)
is a maximal principal ideal. Our original supposition is false and a must
be an irreducible element of R.
With regard to the second assertion ofthe lemma, suppose that p is any
prime element of R. To see that the principal ideal (p) is in fact a prime
ideal, we let the product ab E (p). Then thére exists an element rE R for
wbich ab = rp; hence, plab. By hypothesis, p is a prime element, so th~t
either pi a or pi b. Translating this into ideals, either a E (p) or b E {p); In
consequence, (p) is a prime ideal of R.
The converse is proved in much the same way. Let (p) be a prime ideal
and plab. Then ab E (p). Using the factthat (p) is a prime ideal, it follows
that one of a or b lies in (p). This means that either pla or else plb, and makes
'p a prime element of R.
" For principal ide~l domains, aH of this may be summarized by the;;'
, following theorem. ,'
Theorem 6-10. Let R be a principal ideal domain. The non trivial ideal
(p) is a maximal {prime) ideal of R if and only if pis an irreducible (prime),
element of R.
An immediate consequence of this theorem is that every nonzero non-
invertible element of R is divisible by sorne prime.
CoroUary. Let a =F O be a noninvertible element of the principal ideal
domain R. Then there exists a prime p E R such that pla.
Proa! Since a is not invertible, the principal ideal (a) =F R. Thus, by
Theorem 5-2, there exists a maximal ideal M of R such that (a) s: M. But
the preceding result teHs us that every maximal ideal is ofthe form M = (p),
where p is a prime element of R (in this setting, there is no distinction
between prime and irreducible elements). Thus, (a) s: (p), wbich is to say
that pla. '
100 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Many authors do not insist that an integral domain possess an identity
element; for this reason, let us sketch a second proof of the foregoing
corollary which avoids the use of Theorem 5-2, First, put (a) I l' If I 1
is not already a maximal ideal, then there exists an ideal 12 of R such that
I 1 e 12 , . By tbe same reasoning, if 12 is not maximal, tben 11 e 12 e 13
for sorne ideal 13 , Appealing to Tbeorem 6-9, this process must termínate'
after a finite number of steps; in other words, we can eventual1y find a
maximal' ideal M oC R containing I 1 = (a), As before, M = (p),witb P a
prime In R; tbe remainder ofthe proof is like that abo ve, " ; ; :
If R is an integral domain with tbe property that every noniliVertible
element of R can be eJ!:pressed uniquely (up to invertible elementsa:S)actors
and the order of factors) as a product of irreducible elements, tbéli'we say
tbat R is a unique factorization domain; for a more formal defini~ion:
Definition 6-7. Anintegral dornain R is a unique factorizati~i(domain
.in case tbe fol1owing two conditions bold: F/.· '."
O everyelement a e R, wbicb is neither zero nor invertible, be
factored into a finite product of irreducible elements; . with (p;) a prime ideal of R.
2) i(a = PlP2 '" Pn = qlq2 ... qm .are two factorizations of a into
irreducible elements, tben n = mand tbere is a permutation 1& of tbe
indices sucb tbat Pi and q"(i) are associates (i = 1, 2, ... , n).
In sbort, an integral domain is a unique factorization domain if it
possesses a factorization theory in wbicb the analog oC the Fundamental
Theorem oC Aritbmetic bolds. We intend to sboW tbat any principal ideal
domain ls a unique factorization domain; towards tbis goal, let us first
prove:
Tbeorem 6-11. If R is a principal ideal domairi, tben every element oC
R wbicb is neitber zero nor invertible bas a factorization into a finite
product of primes.
Proo! Consider any nonzero noninvertible element a e R. By tbe last
corollary, tbere exists a prime PI in R witb p1la. Tben a = PI al for sorne
(nonzero) ai e R, wbence (a) S (al)' Were (a) = (al), we would have
al = raforsuitablereR;itwouldfollowtbata = Pla l = Plra,orl PIr,
resulting in tbe contradiction that PI i8 invertible. Consequently, we have
the proper inclusion (a) e (al)'
Repeat tbe' procedure, now starting witb al> to obtain an increasing
cb!!in of principal ideals
(a) e (al) e (a2 ) e , .. e (a,,) e ... ,
with all-l = p"a" for sorne prime Pn E R. This process goes on as long as
all is not an invertible element of R.. But Theorem 6-9 asserts that the
DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 101
displayed cbain of ideals eventually terminates; in other words, a" must
possess an inverse for sorne n, anQ:
(a) e (al) e (a 2) e , .. e (an) R.
We conclude from tbis that the element a is expressible as the finite product
oC primes
"''.,
a = PIP2'" Pn-ll!n'
·1 ':' "
where p~ Pnan • being an associate of a pri I1l e, is itself prime.
CorolJary. In a principal ideal domain .R.;é·every nontrivial ideal is the
product of a finite number of prime (rna){i~al) ideals.
Proo! . Iftbe element O +- a e R is not inverÜ~'Ie, then a bas a representation
as a finite product of primes; saya = PlP;',-":~ Pn , wbere each Pi is a prime
element of R. It then follows tbat ff{é';",
.,"
Specializing to tbe ring of integers, we obtain a celebrated result.
TheorellÍ 6-12. (Euclid). Tbere are an ínfinite number oC primes in Z.
Proo! Assume that tbe assertion i8 false;' tbat is, suppose tbat there are
only a finite number of primes, say PI' P2' ... ,p~. Consider the positive
integer.
a (PlP2 ... Pn)' + 1.
None of tbe listed primes p¡ divides a. If a were divisible by Pi' for instance,
we would tben have p¡l(a - PlP2 ... Pm), by Tbeorem 6-1 (S), or p¡J1; but
this is impossible by part (2) of the same tbeorem. Since a > 1, Theorem
6-11' asserts that it must llave a prime factor. Accordingly, a isdivisible
by a prime whicb is not among those enumerated. Tbis arguments shows
tbat tbere is no finite listing of tbe prime numbers.
"
Having proved tbe existence of a prime factorization in .principal ideal
dorna¡ns, one is naturally led to tbe question of uniqueness. Our next
r theorem is tbe focal point of this cbapter. .
!
Theoiem 6-13. Every principal ideal domain R is a unique factorízation
domain.
Proo! Tbeorem 6-11 shows that each noninvertible element O +- a E R,
bas a prime factorization. To establish uniqueness, let us suppose tbat a
can be representeq as a product ofprimes in two ways, say
a = PlP2 , .. PII = qlq2 ... qm (n 5: m)"
100 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Many authors do not insist that an integral domain possess an identity
element; for this reason, let us sketch a second proof of the foregoing
corollary which avoids the use of Theorem 5-2, First, put (a) I l' If I 1
is not already a maximal ideal, then there exists an ideal 12 of R such that
I 1 e 12 , . By tbe same reasoning, if 12 is not maximal, tben 11 e 12 e 13
for sorne ideal 13 , Appealing to Tbeorem 6-9, this process must termínate'
after a finite number of steps; in other words, we can eventual1y find a
maximal' ideal M oC R containing I 1 = (a), As before, M = (p),witb P a
prime In R; tbe remainder ofthe proof is like that abo ve, " ; ; :
If R is an integral domain with tbe property that every noniliVertible
element of R can be eJ!:pressed uniquely (up to invertible elementsa:S)actors
and the order of factors) as a product of irreducible elements, tbéli'we say
tbat R is a unique factorization domain; for a more formal defini~ion:
Definition 6-7. Anintegral dornain R is a unique factorizati~i(domain
.in case tbe fol1owing two conditions bold: F/.· '."
O everyelement a e R, wbicb is neither zero nor invertible, be
factored into a finite product of irreducible elements; . with (p;) a prime ideal of R.
2) i(a = PlP2 '" Pn = qlq2 ... qm .are two factorizations of a into
irreducible elements, tben n = mand tbere is a permutation 1& of tbe
indices sucb tbat Pi and q"(i) are associates (i = 1, 2, ... , n).
In sbort, an integral domain is a unique factorization domain if it
possesses a factorization theory in wbicb the analog oC the Fundamental
Theorem oC Aritbmetic bolds. We intend to sboW tbat any principal ideal
domain ls a unique factorization domain; towards tbis goal, let us first
prove:
Tbeorem 6-11. If R is a principal ideal domairi, tben every element oC
R wbicb is neitber zero nor invertible bas a factorization into a finite
product of primes.
Proo! Consider any nonzero noninvertible element a e R. By tbe last
corollary, tbere exists a prime PI in R witb p1la. Tben a = PI al for sorne
(nonzero) ai e R, wbence (a) S (al)' Were (a) = (al), we would have
al = raforsuitablereR;itwouldfollowtbata = Pla l = Plra,orl PIr,
resulting in tbe contradiction that PI i8 invertible. Consequently, we have
the proper inclusion (a) e (al)'
Repeat tbe' procedure, now starting witb al> to obtain an increasing
cb!!in of principal ideals
(a) e (al) e (a2 ) e , .. e (a,,) e ... ,
with all-l = p"a" for sorne prime Pn E R. This process goes on as long as
all is not an invertible element of R.. But Theorem 6-9 asserts that the
DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 101
displayed cbain of ideals eventually terminates; in other words, a" must
possess an inverse for sorne n, anQ:
(a) e (al) e (a 2) e , .. e (an) R.
We conclude from tbis that the element a is expressible as the finite product
oC primes
"''.,
a = PIP2'" Pn-ll!n'
·1 ':' "
where p~ Pnan • being an associate of a pri I1l e, is itself prime.
CorolJary. In a principal ideal domain .R.;é·every nontrivial ideal is the
product of a finite number of prime (rna){i~al) ideals.
Proo! . Iftbe element O +- a e R is not inverÜ~'Ie, then a bas a representation
as a finite product of primes; saya = PlP;',-":~ Pn , wbere each Pi is a prime
element of R. It then follows tbat ff{é';",
.,"
Specializing to tbe ring of integers, we obtain a celebrated result.
TheorellÍ 6-12. (Euclid). Tbere are an ínfinite number oC primes in Z.
Proo! Assume that tbe assertion i8 false;' tbat is, suppose tbat there are
only a finite number of primes, say PI' P2' ... ,p~. Consider the positive
integer.
a (PlP2 ... Pn)' + 1.
None of tbe listed primes p¡ divides a. If a were divisible by Pi' for instance,
we would tben have p¡l(a - PlP2 ... Pm), by Tbeorem 6-1 (S), or p¡J1; but
this is impossible by part (2) of the same tbeorem. Since a > 1, Theorem
6-11' asserts that it must llave a prime factor. Accordingly, a isdivisible
by a prime whicb is not among those enumerated. Tbis arguments shows
tbat tbere is no finite listing of tbe prime numbers.
"
Having proved tbe existence of a prime factorization in .principal ideal
dorna¡ns, one is naturally led to tbe question of uniqueness. Our next
r theorem is tbe focal point of this cbapter. .
!
Theoiem 6-13. Every principal ideal domain R is a unique factorízation
domain.
Proo! Tbeorem 6-11 shows that each noninvertible element O +- a E R,
bas a prime factorization. To establish uniqueness, let us suppose tbat a
can be representeq as a product ofprimes in two ways, say
a = PlP2 , .. PII = qlq2 ... qm (n 5: m)"
 102 FI.RST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
OIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL OOMAINS 103

whe~e. the p¡and q¡ are aH primes. Since Pll(qlq2 '" qm), it foHows that Although property'(2) seems unsyrnmetric, R is a commutative ring;
PI dIVIdes sorne q¡ (1 :::;; i :::;; m); renumbering, if necessary, we may suppose
hence, (2) al so asserts that r5(ab) ;;::: r5(b) as weH as r5(ab) ;;::: r5(a).
that Pllql' Now, P~ and qf are both prime elements of R, with pllql' so As simple examples of Euc1idean domains, we may take
they m~st be assoClates: ql = PIU 1 for sorne invertible element U E R.
l 1) any p.eld F, with valuation defined by r5(a) = 1 for a11 nonzero a E F;
Cancelhng the cornmon factor PI' we are left with
2) the ring Z, with valuation defined by r5(a) = lal" for a11 nonzero a E Z
P2"'Pn = ul q2"'qm' (fixed n E Z +) ;
ContinuiÍlg this argument, we arrive (after n steps) at 3) ,the Gaussian integers Z(i), with valuation defined by r5(a + bi)= a2 + b2
1= U I U2 '" unq,,+'l '" qm'
for all nonzero a + bi E Z(i) (see Theorem 6-17).

Since the q¡ are not invertible, tbis forces m = n. It has also been shown
th~t every p! has sorne qj as an associate and conversely. Thus, the two
pnme factonzations are identical, apart from the order in which the factors
appear and from replac~ment of factors by associates.
Attention is called to' the fact that the converse of Theorem 6-13 is not
true; ~n the next chapter, we shall give an exarnple of a unique factorization
domalll which is not a principal ideal domain.
A useful fact to bear in mind is that in a unique factorization domain
~ ~y irreducible element P E R is necessarily prime. For, suppose that P
dIvIdes the prodúct ab, say pe = abo Let
a = PI ... Pn , b = ql ... qm' and e = tI ... ts
Several rudimentary properties of Euclidean domains appear in the
lernma below.
Lernma. Let R be a Euc1idean domain with vaJu,ation r5. Then,
1) for each nonzero a E R, r5(a) ;;::: r5(1);
-2) iftwo ÍlOnzero elements a, bE R are associates, then r5(a) = r5(b);
3) an element O =1= a E R is invertible if and only if r5(a) = r5(1).
Proo! Assertion (1) follows from the fact that a = al, whence
r5(a) = r5(a1) ;;::: r5(1).
If a and b are associates, then a = bu, with u an invertible element of
R ; then, also, b = au - 1. This means that

be the unique factorizations of a, b, and e into irreducible factors. We then r5(a) = r5(bu) ;;::: r5(b), r5(b) = r5(au- l ) ;;::: r5(a),
have
which says that r5(a) = r5(b).
To prove (3), suppose that a =1= O has an inverse in R, so that ab = 1 for
sorne choice 'of bE R. Then, using (1),
Since the factorization of ah into irreducibles is unique~ #i.e
element P must j ".,
be an associate of one of the p¡ or q¡, and, consequeti'tly, P divides either r5(a) :::;; r5(ab) = r5(1) :::;; r5(a),
am~ ~t
or r5(a) = 1. Conversely, suppose. that the element O =1= a E R is such that
Another interesting c1ass of integral domains, whichiUe propose to look r5(a) = 1. Applying the division álgorithm to 1 and a, there exist q, rE R
at now, is provided by the so-called Euc1idean domains; these arose out of for which
attempts to generalize the familiar Division AIgorithm feir ordinary integers 1 = qa + r,
to arbitrary rings. The precise definition follows. . l.!~ where r = O or r5(r) < r5(a). Th~ latter alternative implies that r5(r) < 1,
Definition 6-8. An integral domain R is said to be Euclidean if there wbich is impossible, so that r = Oi'in other words, 1 = qa and a is invertible
exists a function r5 (the Euclidean valuation) such' that the following in R.
conditions are satisfied: . Theorem 6-14. The quotient and remainder in condition (3) of the
1) r5 (a) is a nonnegative integer for every O =1= a E R; definition of a Euc1idean domain are unique if and only if
2) for any a, b E R, both nonzero, r5(ab) ;;::: r5(a); r5(a + b) :::;; max {r5(a), r5(b)}.
3) for any a, bE R, with b =1= O, there exist elements q, rE R (the quotient Proo! Suppose that there exist nonzero a, bE R such that r5(a + b) >
and remainder) such that a = qb + r, where either r = O or el se max {r5(a), r5(b)}; then,
r5(r) < r5(b). '
b = O(a + b) + b = l(a + b) - a,

I
 102 FI.RST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
OIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL OOMAINS 103

whe~e. the p¡and q¡ are aH primes. Since Pll(qlq2 '" qm), it foHows that Although property'(2) seems unsyrnmetric, R is a commutative ring;
PI dIVIdes sorne q¡ (1 :::;; i :::;; m); renumbering, if necessary, we may suppose
hence, (2) al so asserts that r5(ab) ;;::: r5(b) as weH as r5(ab) ;;::: r5(a).
that Pllql' Now, P~ and qf are both prime elements of R, with pllql' so As simple examples of Euc1idean domains, we may take
they m~st be assoClates: ql = PIU 1 for sorne invertible element U E R.
l 1) any p.eld F, with valuation defined by r5(a) = 1 for a11 nonzero a E F;
Cancelhng the cornmon factor PI' we are left with
2) the ring Z, with valuation defined by r5(a) = lal" for a11 nonzero a E Z
P2"'Pn = ul q2"'qm' (fixed n E Z +) ;
ContinuiÍlg this argument, we arrive (after n steps) at 3) ,the Gaussian integers Z(i), with valuation defined by r5(a + bi)= a2 + b2
1= U I U2 '" unq,,+'l '" qm'
for all nonzero a + bi E Z(i) (see Theorem 6-17).

Since the q¡ are not invertible, tbis forces m = n. It has also been shown
th~t every p! has sorne qj as an associate and conversely. Thus, the two
pnme factonzations are identical, apart from the order in which the factors
appear and from replac~ment of factors by associates.
Attention is called to' the fact that the converse of Theorem 6-13 is not
true; ~n the next chapter, we shall give an exarnple of a unique factorization
domalll which is not a principal ideal domain.
A useful fact to bear in mind is that in a unique factorization domain
~ ~y irreducible element P E R is necessarily prime. For, suppose that P
dIvIdes the prodúct ab, say pe = abo Let
a = PI ... Pn , b = ql ... qm' and e = tI ... ts
Several rudimentary properties of Euclidean domains appear in the
lernma below.
Lernma. Let R be a Euc1idean domain with vaJu,ation r5. Then,
1) for each nonzero a E R, r5(a) ;;::: r5(1);
-2) iftwo ÍlOnzero elements a, bE R are associates, then r5(a) = r5(b);
3) an element O =1= a E R is invertible if and only if r5(a) = r5(1).
Proo! Assertion (1) follows from the fact that a = al, whence
r5(a) = r5(a1) ;;::: r5(1).
If a and b are associates, then a = bu, with u an invertible element of
R ; then, also, b = au - 1. This means that

be the unique factorizations of a, b, and e into irreducible factors. We then r5(a) = r5(bu) ;;::: r5(b), r5(b) = r5(au- l ) ;;::: r5(a),
have
which says that r5(a) = r5(b).
To prove (3), suppose that a =1= O has an inverse in R, so that ab = 1 for
sorne choice 'of bE R. Then, using (1),
Since the factorization of ah into irreducibles is unique~ #i.e
element P must j ".,
be an associate of one of the p¡ or q¡, and, consequeti'tly, P divides either r5(a) :::;; r5(ab) = r5(1) :::;; r5(a),
am~ ~t
or r5(a) = 1. Conversely, suppose. that the element O =1= a E R is such that
Another interesting c1ass of integral domains, whichiUe propose to look r5(a) = 1. Applying the division álgorithm to 1 and a, there exist q, rE R
at now, is provided by the so-called Euc1idean domains; these arose out of for which
attempts to generalize the familiar Division AIgorithm feir ordinary integers 1 = qa + r,
to arbitrary rings. The precise definition follows. . l.!~ where r = O or r5(r) < r5(a). Th~ latter alternative implies that r5(r) < 1,
Definition 6-8. An integral domain R is said to be Euclidean if there wbich is impossible, so that r = Oi'in other words, 1 = qa and a is invertible
exists a function r5 (the Euclidean valuation) such' that the following in R.
conditions are satisfied: . Theorem 6-14. The quotient and remainder in condition (3) of the
1) r5 (a) is a nonnegative integer for every O =1= a E R; definition of a Euc1idean domain are unique if and only if
2) for any a, b E R, both nonzero, r5(ab) ;;::: r5(a); r5(a + b) :::;; max {r5(a), r5(b)}.
3) for any a, bE R, with b =1= O, there exist elements q, rE R (the quotient Proo! Suppose that there exist nonzero a, bE R such that r5(a + b) >
and remainder) such that a = qb + r, where either r = O or el se max {r5(a), r5(b)}; then,
r5(r) < r5(b). '
b = O(a + b) + b = l(a + b) - a,

I
104 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEAL S DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 105

with both ó( -a) = ó(a) < ó(a + b) and ó(b) < ó(a + b). This exhibits the It would seem inappropriate to concIude this chapter without sorne
lack of uniqueness of quotient and remainder in condition (3). mention of the quadratic number fields; the elements of these domains form
Conversely, assume that the indicated inequality holds and that the the sets
element a E R has two representations; Q(Jñ) = {a + bJñla, b E Q},
a = qb + r (r = O or ó(r) < ó(b) ), with n =1= 1 a square-free integer (that is, an integer not divisible by the
a = q'b + r' (T' = O or ó(r') < ó(b)) square of any positive integer > 1). When n < O, we may view Q(.Jñ) as
with r =1: ;.' and q =1=. q'. Then we:have a subdomairt ofthe complex number system e and represent its elements in
the standar4form a + b.Jñ i. It is not difficult to show that if nI' n 2 are
ó(b) ~ ó((q - q')b) = ó(r·t. r') < max {ó(r), ó( -r')} < ó(b). square-freeintegers, then Q(.Jn l ) = Q(Jn 2 ) if and only if nI = n2 •
Each ele~ent ex ~ a + bJñ E Q(Jñ) gives rise to, another element
This is only possible if one of r Tr' or q - q' is zero. Since each of these
conditions implies the other, uniq'iieness follows ..
.a = a- bjJn of Q(.Jn), which we shall call the conjugate of ex (for n < O,
.,:' ais the usual: complex conjugate of ex). A simple argument establishes that
CoroJlary. (Division'AlgoritJii¡ffor Z). If a, b E Z, with b =1= O, then there the mappi~g;j: Q("¡-n) 4 Q(Jñ) defined by f(ex) = a is anisomorphism.
exist unique integers q and ~}~uch that To studydivisibility properties of Q(Jñ), it is convenient to make use
O~ r <
of the concept of the norm of an element (an analog of the absolute value
a = qb¡;;; la¡. notion inZY;:. . '.'
Proof Utilize the valuation ó gi~:~ by ó(a) = la¡, for all nonzero a E Z. Definition 6-9. For each element ex = a + b.Jñ in Q(.Jñ), the norm N(ex)
Unique factorization in Z folJows ultimately from the Division Algo- of ex is simply the product of ex and its conjugate a:
rithm. It is not surprising that in rings where there is an analog of division
with remainder, we can also prove uniqueness of factórization. The rnain
N(ex) = exa = (a + b.Jñ) (a - bJñ) = a2 - b 2 n.
line of argument consists of showing that every EucIidean domain is a Sorne properties of the norm function which follow easily from the
principal ideal domain. (One need only consider the ring Ze to see that the definition are listed below.
converse of tbis does not hold.)
Lemma. For all ex, f3 E Q(Jñ), the following hold:
Theo.rem 6-15. Every EucIidean domain is a principal ideal domain. 1) N(ex) = Oif and only if ex = O;
Proof Let R be a EucIidean dornain with valuation Ó and 1 be an ideal of 2) N(ex{J) = N(ex)N({J);
1 =1= {O}, Consider the set
R; ignoring trivial cases, we may suppose that 3) N(l) = 1;
Sdefined by
Proof Given ex = a + b.Jñ in Q(Jñ), N(ex) ~ a 2 - b 2 n = O if and only
s= {ó(a)laE1; a =1= O}, if both a = b = O (that is, ex = O); otherwise, we would contradict the
choice of n as a square-free integer.
Since S ii; a nonempty subset of nonnegative integers, it has a least element
by the Well-Ordering Principal. Pick bE 1, so that ó(b) is mini mal in S. Since the mapping f(ex) = IX is an isomorphism, N is a multiplicative
function in the sense that
Our contention is that 1 = (b).
N(ex{J) = exf3exf3 = exf3IXlJ = exaf3p = N(ex)N({J)
Let a be an arbitrary element of l. By the definition of EucIidean
domain, there exist elements q, rE R for which a = qb + r, where either for all ex, f3 E Q(.Jñ). .
r =/ O or ó(r) < ó(b). Now, r = a - qb El, since 1 is an ideal containing " The proof of assertion (3) follows from the fact that
both a and b. The alternative ó(r) < ó(b) would therefore contradict the
minimality of ó(b). Consequently, we must have r = 0, and a = qb E (b);
N(l) = N(1 2 ) = N(l)N(l) = N(W,
this implies that 1 ~ (b). The reverse incIusion cIearIy holds, since bE 1, .~ whence N(l) = L
thereby completing the proof.
AJthough Q(.jn) has been labeled as a field, we actua1Jy have not proved
Corollary. Every EucIidean domáin is a unique factorization domain. this to be the case; it is high time to remedy this situation.
104 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEAL S DIVISIBILITY THEORY IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 105

with both ó( -a) = ó(a) < ó(a + b) and ó(b) < ó(a + b). This exhibits the It would seem inappropriate to concIude this chapter without sorne
lack of uniqueness of quotient and remainder in condition (3). mention of the quadratic number fields; the elements of these domains form
Conversely, assume that the indicated inequality holds and that the the sets
element a E R has two representations; Q(Jñ) = {a + bJñla, b E Q},
a = qb + r (r = O or ó(r) < ó(b) ), with n =1= 1 a square-free integer (that is, an integer not divisible by the
a = q'b + r' (T' = O or ó(r') < ó(b)) square of any positive integer > 1). When n < O, we may view Q(.Jñ) as
with r =1: ;.' and q =1=. q'. Then we:have a subdomairt ofthe complex number system e and represent its elements in
the standar4form a + b.Jñ i. It is not difficult to show that if nI' n 2 are
ó(b) ~ ó((q - q')b) = ó(r·t. r') < max {ó(r), ó( -r')} < ó(b). square-freeintegers, then Q(.Jn l ) = Q(Jn 2 ) if and only if nI = n2 •
Each ele~ent ex ~ a + bJñ E Q(Jñ) gives rise to, another element
This is only possible if one of r Tr' or q - q' is zero. Since each of these
conditions implies the other, uniq'iieness follows ..
.a = a- bjJn of Q(.Jn), which we shall call the conjugate of ex (for n < O,
.,:' ais the usual: complex conjugate of ex). A simple argument establishes that
CoroJlary. (Division'AlgoritJii¡ffor Z). If a, b E Z, with b =1= O, then there the mappi~g;j: Q("¡-n) 4 Q(Jñ) defined by f(ex) = a is anisomorphism.
exist unique integers q and ~}~uch that To studydivisibility properties of Q(Jñ), it is convenient to make use
O~ r <
of the concept of the norm of an element (an analog of the absolute value
a = qb¡;;; la¡. notion inZY;:. . '.'
Proof Utilize the valuation ó gi~:~ by ó(a) = la¡, for all nonzero a E Z. Definition 6-9. For each element ex = a + b.Jñ in Q(.Jñ), the norm N(ex)
Unique factorization in Z folJows ultimately from the Division Algo- of ex is simply the product of ex and its conjugate a:
rithm. It is not surprising that in rings where there is an analog of division
with remainder, we can also prove uniqueness of factórization. The rnain
N(ex) = exa = (a + b.Jñ) (a - bJñ) = a2 - b 2 n.
line of argument consists of showing that every EucIidean domain is a Sorne properties of the norm function which follow easily from the
principal ideal domain. (One need only consider the ring Ze to see that the definition are listed below.
converse of tbis does not hold.)
Lemma. For all ex, f3 E Q(Jñ), the following hold:
Theo.rem 6-15. Every EucIidean domain is a principal ideal domain. 1) N(ex) = Oif and only if ex = O;
Proof Let R be a EucIidean dornain with valuation Ó and 1 be an ideal of 2) N(ex{J) = N(ex)N({J);
1 =1= {O}, Consider the set
R; ignoring trivial cases, we may suppose that 3) N(l) = 1;
Sdefined by
Proof Given ex = a + b.Jñ in Q(Jñ), N(ex) ~ a 2 - b 2 n = O if and only
s= {ó(a)laE1; a =1= O}, if both a = b = O (that is, ex = O); otherwise, we would contradict the
choice of n as a square-free integer.
Since S ii; a nonempty subset of nonnegative integers, it has a least element
by the Well-Ordering Principal. Pick bE 1, so that ó(b) is mini mal in S. Since the mapping f(ex) = IX is an isomorphism, N is a multiplicative
function in the sense that
Our contention is that 1 = (b).
N(ex{J) = exf3exf3 = exf3IXlJ = exaf3p = N(ex)N({J)
Let a be an arbitrary element of l. By the definition of EucIidean
domain, there exist elements q, rE R for which a = qb + r, where either for all ex, f3 E Q(.Jñ). .
r =/ O or ó(r) < ó(b). Now, r = a - qb El, since 1 is an ideal containing " The proof of assertion (3) follows from the fact that
both a and b. The alternative ó(r) < ó(b) would therefore contradict the
minimality of ó(b). Consequently, we must have r = 0, and a = qb E (b);
N(l) = N(1 2 ) = N(l)N(l) = N(W,
this implies that 1 ~ (b). The reverse incIusion cIearIy holds, since bE 1, .~ whence N(l) = L
thereby completing the proof.
AJthough Q(.jn) has been labeled as a field, we actua1Jy have not proved
Corollary. Every EucIidean domáin is a unique factorization domain. this to be the case; it is high time to remedy this situation.
106 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS DIVISIBILITY THEOR y IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 1'07

Theorem 6-16. For each square-free integer n, the system Q(.jñ) forms
a field; in fact, Q(.jñ) is a subfield of C. , Rence, the only choice for invertible elernents in Z(i) are ±1 and ± i.
I
Proo! The reader may easíly verify that Q(.jñ) is a cornmutative ring with
identity. It remains only to establish that each nonzero element of Q(Jñ)
has a multiplicative inverse in Q(Jñ). Now, if O =1= a E Q(Jñ), then the
I
element fJ = a/N(a) evidently líes in Q(.jñ); furthermore, the product
afJ = a (fi./N(a) ) = N(a)/N(a) = 1,
so that fJ serves as the inverse of a.
Contained in each quadratic field Q(.jñ) is the integral domain
Z(.fñ) = {a + b.fñla, b E Z}.
Since Z(Jñ) is closed under conjugation, the norm function enables us to
get a: clear view of the sets of invertible and irreducible elements in these
domains. The multiplicative property of the norm, for instan ce, transfers
any factorization a = fJ'Y of an element a E Z(.jñ) into a factorization
N(a) = N(fJ)N(y) of the integer N(a). This is particularly helpful in proving
equation is possible only if a = ± 1 and b = O, or a O and b = ± 1.
Perhaps the most obvious approach to the question of unique factoriza-
tion in the quadratic dornains zCJñ) is to try to show that they are Euclidean
domains (a natural candidate for the Euclidean valuation is c5(a) = IN~).
In the coming theorern, we shall do precisely this for the dornains Z(~ -1),
Z(F'2), Z(J'i), and Z(J3). Although there are other Euclidean quadratic
domains, our attention is restricted to these few for which the division
algorithrn is easi1y established.
Theorem 6-17. Each ofthe domains Z(Jñ), where n = -1, -2,2,3, is
Euclidean; hence, is a unique factorization dornain.
Proo! The strategy ernployed in the proof is to show that the function c5
defined on Z(.fñ) by c5(a) = IN(a)1 is a Euclidean valuation for n = 1,
2, 3. We c1early ha ve c5(a) = Oif and only ir a = O, so tbat c5(a) ;;::: 1 ror all
a =1= O. Since both the norm and its absolute value are multiplicative,
condition (2) of Definition 6-8 is always satisfied:

Lemma. For any IX E Z(.jñ), the following hold: c5(afJ) = c5(a)c5(fJ) ~ c5(a)'l = c5(a)
1) N(a) = ±1 if and only if IX is invertible in Z(.jñ); whenever IX, fJ =1= O are in Z(Jñ).
2) ir N(a) = ±p, where p is a prime number, then a is an irreducible Since fJ =1= O, the product ap-l E Q(Jñ) and so rnay be written in the
element of Z(.jñ). form ap-l = a + b.jñ, with a, b E Q. Select integers x and y (the nearest
Proo! As regards (1), observe that if N(a) = ±1, then aa = ±1; thus alI, integers to a and b) such that
which is to say that a is in vertible. To prove the converse, let a be an' la xl S; 1/2, jb - yl S; 1/2
in vertible ele~ent of Z(~ñ), so that afJ = 1 for sorne fJ in Z(~ñ). Then,
Now, set O' = x + y~ñ. Then O' E Z(~ñ) and norm formula (valilalso in
N(a)N(fJ) = N(afJ) = N(l) = 1. Q(Jñ») shows that
...
Since N(a) an,d'N(fJ) are both integers, this implies that N(a) =' ± 1. IN(ap-l - 0')1 = jN(a - 2X ) + (b ,- y1Jñ) I
Next, suppóse that a has the property that N(a) = ±p, where p is a = (a - x) - n(b- y)!I·
prime num~~r, As N(a) =1= O, 1, the element a is ileither Onor invertible in
Z(~ñ). If a '? fJy is a factorization of a in Z(Jñ), then But the manner in wbich x and y were chosen irnply that
N(fJ)N(y) = N(a) = ±p, -n/4 S; (a - X)2 - n(b - y)2 S; 1/4, if n > O,
O S; (a - X)2 - n(b - y? S; 1/4 + (-n)1/4, ifn < O.
from which it follows that' one of N(fJ) or N(y) must have the value ± 1.
From the first part of the lemma, we may thus conclude that either fJ or y In terrns of the function c5 tbis means
is invertible in Z(Jñ), whlle the other is an associate of IX. Accordingly, a c5(ap-l - 0') = I(a x)2 - n(b - y)21 < 1
is an irreducible element of Z(Jñ).
for n = -1, - 2, 2, 3. Putting p = fJ(ap-l 0'), we ha ve a = O'fJ + p.
Example 6-3. Let us find all invertible elements in Z(Z) = Z(R), the
Since a and O'fJ are in Z(~ñ), this equation irnplies that p is in Z(Jñ) also.
domain of Gausian integers, by finding those members a of Z(i) for which
Moreover, for the previously indicated values of n,
N(a) = 1 (in this setting, the norm assumes nonnegative values). If
a = a + bi E Z(i) and N(a) = 1, then a2 + b2 = 1, with a, bE Z. This c5(P) c5(fJ(ap-l - q)) = c5(fJ)c5(ap-l - 0') < c5(fJ).

)
,
.1
106 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS DIVISIBILITY THEOR y IN INTEGRAL DOMAINS 1'07

Theorem 6-16. For each square-free integer n, the system Q(.jñ) forms
a field; in fact, Q(.jñ) is a subfield of C. , Rence, the only choice for invertible elernents in Z(i) are ±1 and ± i.
I
Proo! The reader may easíly verify that Q(.jñ) is a cornmutative ring with
identity. It remains only to establish that each nonzero element of Q(Jñ)
has a multiplicative inverse in Q(Jñ). Now, if O =1= a E Q(Jñ), then the
I
element fJ = a/N(a) evidently líes in Q(.jñ); furthermore, the product
afJ = a (fi./N(a) ) = N(a)/N(a) = 1,
so that fJ serves as the inverse of a.
Contained in each quadratic field Q(.jñ) is the integral domain
Z(.fñ) = {a + b.fñla, b E Z}.
Since Z(Jñ) is closed under conjugation, the norm function enables us to
get a: clear view of the sets of invertible and irreducible elements in these
domains. The multiplicative property of the norm, for instan ce, transfers
any factorization a = fJ'Y of an element a E Z(.jñ) into a factorization
N(a) = N(fJ)N(y) of the integer N(a). This is particularly helpful in proving
equation is possible only if a = ± 1 and b = O, or a O and b = ± 1.
Perhaps the most obvious approach to the question of unique factoriza-
tion in the quadratic dornains zCJñ) is to try to show that they are Euclidean
domains (a natural candidate for the Euclidean valuation is c5(a) = IN~).
In the coming theorern, we shall do precisely this for the dornains Z(~ -1),
Z(F'2), Z(J'i), and Z(J3). Although there are other Euclidean quadratic
domains, our attention is restricted to these few for which the division
algorithrn is easi1y established.
Theorem 6-17. Each ofthe domains Z(Jñ), where n = -1, -2,2,3, is
Euclidean; hence, is a unique factorization dornain.
Proo! The strategy ernployed in the proof is to show that the function c5
defined on Z(.fñ) by c5(a) = IN(a)1 is a Euclidean valuation for n = 1,
2, 3. We c1early ha ve c5(a) = Oif and only ir a = O, so tbat c5(a) ;;::: 1 ror all
a =1= O. Since both the norm and its absolute value are multiplicative,
condition (2) of Definition 6-8 is always satisfied:

Lemma. For any IX E Z(.jñ), the following hold: c5(afJ) = c5(a)c5(fJ) ~ c5(a)'l = c5(a)
1) N(a) = ±1 if and only if IX is invertible in Z(.jñ); whenever IX, fJ =1= O are in Z(Jñ).
2) ir N(a) = ±p, where p is a prime number, then a is an irreducible Since fJ =1= O, the product ap-l E Q(Jñ) and so rnay be written in the
element of Z(.jñ). form ap-l = a + b.jñ, with a, b E Q. Select integers x and y (the nearest
Proo! As regards (1), observe that if N(a) = ±1, then aa = ±1; thus alI, integers to a and b) such that
which is to say that a is in vertible. To prove the converse, let a be an' la xl S; 1/2, jb - yl S; 1/2
in vertible ele~ent of Z(~ñ), so that afJ = 1 for sorne fJ in Z(~ñ). Then,
Now, set O' = x + y~ñ. Then O' E Z(~ñ) and norm formula (valilalso in
N(a)N(fJ) = N(afJ) = N(l) = 1. Q(Jñ») shows that
...
Since N(a) an,d'N(fJ) are both integers, this implies that N(a) =' ± 1. IN(ap-l - 0')1 = jN(a - 2X ) + (b ,- y1Jñ) I
Next, suppóse that a has the property that N(a) = ±p, where p is a = (a - x) - n(b- y)!I·
prime num~~r, As N(a) =1= O, 1, the element a is ileither Onor invertible in
Z(~ñ). If a '? fJy is a factorization of a in Z(Jñ), then But the manner in wbich x and y were chosen irnply that
N(fJ)N(y) = N(a) = ±p, -n/4 S; (a - X)2 - n(b - y)2 S; 1/4, if n > O,
O S; (a - X)2 - n(b - y? S; 1/4 + (-n)1/4, ifn < O.
from which it follows that' one of N(fJ) or N(y) must have the value ± 1.
From the first part of the lemma, we may thus conclude that either fJ or y In terrns of the function c5 tbis means
is invertible in Z(Jñ), whlle the other is an associate of IX. Accordingly, a c5(ap-l - 0') = I(a x)2 - n(b - y)21 < 1
is an irreducible element of Z(Jñ).
for n = -1, - 2, 2, 3. Putting p = fJ(ap-l 0'), we ha ve a = O'fJ + p.
Example 6-3. Let us find all invertible elements in Z(Z) = Z(R), the
Since a and O'fJ are in Z(~ñ), this equation irnplies that p is in Z(Jñ) also.
domain of Gausian integers, by finding those members a of Z(i) for which
Moreover, for the previously indicated values of n,
N(a) = 1 (in this setting, the norm assumes nonnegative values). If
a = a + bi E Z(i) and N(a) = 1, then a2 + b2 = 1, with a, bE Z. This c5(P) c5(fJ(ap-l - q)) = c5(fJ)c5(ap-l - 0') < c5(fJ).

)
,
.1
 l
108 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND lDEALS PROBLEMS 109

Definition 6-8 is therefore satisfied in its entirety when n = - t,' - 2, 2, 3 and of

. an
irreducible
. . elem¡;nt and of a nonzero .prime do not al ways COInCl " de
the corresponding quadratic domains Z(.J'ñ) are Euc1idean. In an arbItrary Integral domain .. Specifically, we have (2' + .J -5)1 3 ' 3, but
(2 + F)t 3, so that 2 + F5 cannot be a prime element of Z(~.
Corollary. The domain Z(i) óf Gaussian Íntegers is a unique factoriza-
tion domain.
PROBLEMS
Remark. By investigating further the divisibility properties of Z(i), one ca!1
prove the c1assic "two squares theorem" of Fermat: every prime number 1. Let R be a commutative ring with identity and the ele~~nts a e E R with Z =
ofthe form 4n + 1 is the sum oftwo squares; the interested reader is advis~d Prove that ,:, ' , e e.
;.. ,: to consult [13J for the details. . a) If (a) = (e), then.a arid e are ~ssociates. [Hint: a J, (I - e + a)e.]
b) If for. sorner n EllZ+ the elements a" and e are ass6ciates
. , then am an d e are
Example 6-'4. The various integral domains studied in this chapter might aSSOCIates lor a m;?; n. .t;r
suggest that unique factorization of elements always holds. To round o~t
the picture with an example of the failure of unique factorization, let:us 2. Give~ that 1, J, and K are ideals of a principal ideal doá1in
relatIons: .' .!,
R, derive the fOllowing
consider the quadratic domain Z(.'¡=5); Observe that the element 9 'has
a) If 1 = (a) and J = (b), then jJ-= (ab); in particuí~r1" = (a").
two factorizations in Z(F"S), namely,' . . b) l(J n K) = IJ n lK. .' .1 .. ;

9 = 3·3 = (2 + .J -5)(2 -:- R). c) 1 + (J n K) = (1+ J) n (l +

K).:" .
d) 1 n (J t K) = (l n J) + (l n K).
ClearIy, no two ofthe factors 3, 2 + ~, and 2 - F
are assodates of e) lJ = 1 n J if and only if 1 + J = R for all nonzero' 1; J ..
eachother (the only invertible elements in Z(.J - 5) are ± 1), and it can
3. Sup?ose, that ~ = Rl EB Rz EB ... EB R", where each R¡ is a principal ideal ringo
easily be shown that they are all irreducible. Indeed, were any one of Venfy tnat R IS also a principal ideal ringo .
al = 3, a2 = 2 + .J - 5, a3 = 2- F5 4. Let R be ~n .integral. domain having the gcd-property. Assuming that equality
. holds to wlthln assoclates, prove that, for nonzero a, b, e' E R,
reducible, we could write a¡ = Pr, where neither ofthe elements p, a) gcd (a, gcd (b, e)) = gcd (gcd (a, b), e) ..
yE Z(rs)is invertible. Taking norms, it follows that b) gcd (a, 1) =:: 1.
c) gcd (ea, eb) = e gcd (a, b); in particular, gcd (e, eb) = 1.
9 = N(a¡} = N(fJ)N(y), N(fJ), N(y) E Z+, d) ~f gcd (a, b) ;= 1 and gcd (a, e) = 1, then gcd (a, be) = 1.
e) If gcd (a, b) = 1, ale and b/e, then ab/e. '
which in turn yields N(fJ) = N(y) = 3. Bence, if p = a + we find brs; f) gcd (a, b) 1cm (a, b) =;' abo [Hint: Theorem 6"':6.J
that we must solve the equation a2 + 5b 2 = 3 for integers and b; but a
°
this equation obviously has no solutions in Z (b i= impliesthat a2 + 5b 2 ;;::: 5,
and if b = 0, then a2 = 3). Tp.us, we have exhibited two genuinely different
5. If R i.s an.inte~ral domain having ~he gcd~property, show that a nonzero element
of R IS pnme If and only if it is irreducible.
factorizations of the e1ement 9 into irreducibles, so that unique factorization 6. !n a princi~al ideal dornain R, establish that the primary ideals are the two trivial
does not hold in Z(R). . Ideals and Ideals of the forrn (p"), where p is a prime element of R d Z
[H'Int : If JIS'pnrnary,
. n an n E +.
Notice f~rther that the common. divisors of 9 and 3(2 + F) are .
h
t en -VI = (ji) for sorne prime elernent p. Choose 11 E Z
1,3, and 2. + R. None ofthese latter elements is divisible by the others, such thatI ~ '(pO), but 1 $ (p"+l), and show that 1 = (p").] . +
so that gcd (9, 3(2 + .J - 5)) fails '10 exist (in particular, Z(R) does not 7. If R is a pr~nci?a.l idea! doman, we define the Length A(a) for each nonzero a E R
have the gcd-property). On the other hand, the greatest common divisor
. (as follows: If.
a IS.Invertlble,
, . then A(a) = O·" otherwise A(a) is the numb er of pnmes .
of 3 and 2 + .¡=s does exist and, in fact, gcd (3, 2 + -J=s) = 1. It follows not necessanly dls.tlnct) 1ll any factorization of a. Prove the following assertions'
that only the right-hand side of the formula a) the length of a IS well-defined' ' .
b) if alb, then A(a) 5: A(b); , .
gcd (3'3, 3(2 + .J-:::S)) ".; 3 gcd (3, 2 + A) c) ~fa/b al1d,A(a) = A(b), then bla; '.
d) If a { b and b { a, then there exist nonzero p, q E R such that
is defined in Z(.J - 5), thereby illustrating the remark 011 page 95.
This example has the additional feature of showing that the concepts A(pa + qb) 5: rnin {A(a), A(b)}.

I
!

.. __. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------------_._----~-.- ~---_.------
 l
108 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND lDEALS PROBLEMS 109

Definition 6-8 is therefore satisfied in its entirety when n = - t,' - 2, 2, 3 and of

. an
irreducible
. . elem¡;nt and of a nonzero .prime do not al ways COInCl " de
the corresponding quadratic domains Z(.J'ñ) are Euc1idean. In an arbItrary Integral domain .. Specifically, we have (2' + .J -5)1 3 ' 3, but
(2 + F)t 3, so that 2 + F5 cannot be a prime element of Z(~.
Corollary. The domain Z(i) óf Gaussian Íntegers is a unique factoriza-
tion domain.
PROBLEMS
Remark. By investigating further the divisibility properties of Z(i), one ca!1
prove the c1assic "two squares theorem" of Fermat: every prime number 1. Let R be a commutative ring with identity and the ele~~nts a e E R with Z =
ofthe form 4n + 1 is the sum oftwo squares; the interested reader is advis~d Prove that ,:, ' , e e.
;.. ,: to consult [13J for the details. . a) If (a) = (e), then.a arid e are ~ssociates. [Hint: a J, (I - e + a)e.]
b) If for. sorner n EllZ+ the elements a" and e are ass6ciates
. , then am an d e are
Example 6-'4. The various integral domains studied in this chapter might aSSOCIates lor a m;?; n. .t;r
suggest that unique factorization of elements always holds. To round o~t
the picture with an example of the failure of unique factorization, let:us 2. Give~ that 1, J, and K are ideals of a principal ideal doá1in
relatIons: .' .!,
R, derive the fOllowing
consider the quadratic domain Z(.'¡=5); Observe that the element 9 'has
a) If 1 = (a) and J = (b), then jJ-= (ab); in particuí~r1" = (a").
two factorizations in Z(F"S), namely,' . . b) l(J n K) = IJ n lK. .' .1 .. ;

9 = 3·3 = (2 + .J -5)(2 -:- R). c) 1 + (J n K) = (1+ J) n (l +

K).:" .
d) 1 n (J t K) = (l n J) + (l n K).
ClearIy, no two ofthe factors 3, 2 + ~, and 2 - F
are assodates of e) lJ = 1 n J if and only if 1 + J = R for all nonzero' 1; J ..
eachother (the only invertible elements in Z(.J - 5) are ± 1), and it can
3. Sup?ose, that ~ = Rl EB Rz EB ... EB R", where each R¡ is a principal ideal ringo
easily be shown that they are all irreducible. Indeed, were any one of Venfy tnat R IS also a principal ideal ringo .
al = 3, a2 = 2 + .J - 5, a3 = 2- F5 4. Let R be ~n .integral. domain having the gcd-property. Assuming that equality
. holds to wlthln assoclates, prove that, for nonzero a, b, e' E R,
reducible, we could write a¡ = Pr, where neither ofthe elements p, a) gcd (a, gcd (b, e)) = gcd (gcd (a, b), e) ..
yE Z(rs)is invertible. Taking norms, it follows that b) gcd (a, 1) =:: 1.
c) gcd (ea, eb) = e gcd (a, b); in particular, gcd (e, eb) = 1.
9 = N(a¡} = N(fJ)N(y), N(fJ), N(y) E Z+, d) ~f gcd (a, b) ;= 1 and gcd (a, e) = 1, then gcd (a, be) = 1.
e) If gcd (a, b) = 1, ale and b/e, then ab/e. '
which in turn yields N(fJ) = N(y) = 3. Bence, if p = a + we find brs; f) gcd (a, b) 1cm (a, b) =;' abo [Hint: Theorem 6"':6.J
that we must solve the equation a2 + 5b 2 = 3 for integers and b; but a
°
this equation obviously has no solutions in Z (b i= impliesthat a2 + 5b 2 ;;::: 5,
and if b = 0, then a2 = 3). Tp.us, we have exhibited two genuinely different
5. If R i.s an.inte~ral domain having ~he gcd~property, show that a nonzero element
of R IS pnme If and only if it is irreducible.
factorizations of the e1ement 9 into irreducibles, so that unique factorization 6. !n a princi~al ideal dornain R, establish that the primary ideals are the two trivial
does not hold in Z(R). . Ideals and Ideals of the forrn (p"), where p is a prime element of R d Z
[H'Int : If JIS'pnrnary,
. n an n E +.
Notice f~rther that the common. divisors of 9 and 3(2 + F) are .
h
t en -VI = (ji) for sorne prime elernent p. Choose 11 E Z
1,3, and 2. + R. None ofthese latter elements is divisible by the others, such thatI ~ '(pO), but 1 $ (p"+l), and show that 1 = (p").] . +
so that gcd (9, 3(2 + .J - 5)) fails '10 exist (in particular, Z(R) does not 7. If R is a pr~nci?a.l idea! doman, we define the Length A(a) for each nonzero a E R
have the gcd-property). On the other hand, the greatest common divisor
. (as follows: If.
a IS.Invertlble,
, . then A(a) = O·" otherwise A(a) is the numb er of pnmes .
of 3 and 2 + .¡=s does exist and, in fact, gcd (3, 2 + -J=s) = 1. It follows not necessanly dls.tlnct) 1ll any factorization of a. Prove the following assertions'
that only the right-hand side of the formula a) the length of a IS well-defined' ' .
b) if alb, then A(a) 5: A(b); , .
gcd (3'3, 3(2 + .J-:::S)) ".; 3 gcd (3, 2 + A) c) ~fa/b al1d,A(a) = A(b), then bla; '.
d) If a { b and b { a, then there exist nonzero p, q E R such that
is defined in Z(.J - 5), thereby illustrating the remark 011 page 95.
This example has the additional feature of showing that the concepts A(pa + qb) 5: rnin {A(a), A(b)}.

I
!

.. __. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------------_._----~-.- ~---_.------
110 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
PROBLEMS 111
8. Let a be a nonzero element of the principal ideal domain R. Ir a has length n,
prove that there are at most 2n ideal s containing a. b) Show that in the quadratic domain Z(.J6), the relation 6 = (.J6)2 = 3·2 does
not violate unique factorization.
9. Verify that any two nonzero elements of a unique factorization domain possess a
greatest cornmon divisor. [Hint: Ir a = P~'P~' ... P~' and b = pl(p~ ... p~ (Pi 18. Prove that the domain Z(R) is not a unique factorization domain by discovering
irreducible), then gcd (a, b) = P{'rl' ... dé, whereji = min (k i , IJ] two distinct factorizatioris of the element 10. Do the same for element 9 in the
domain Z(J7f).
10. Let R be an integral domain. Prove that R is a unique factorization domain if and
only if ,every nontrivial principal ideal óf R is the product of a finite number of 19. Show that the quadratic domain Z(.J - 5) is not a principal ideal domain. [Hint:
maximal principal ideals and these ideals are uniquc up to a permutation of order. Consider the ideal (3,2 + .j=5).]
11. Show that t5(a) = lal is not a Euclidean valuation on the domain Q. 20. Describe the field of quotients of the quadratic domain Z(.Jñ) where n'is a square-
free integer.
12. Assuming that R is a Euclidean domain with valuation 15, prove the statements
below:
. a) For nonzero a, bE R, if alb and t5(a) = t5(b), then a and b are associates. [Hi~t:
Show that bla.]
b) Fór nonzero a, bE R,.t5(ab) > t5(a) if and only if b is not an invertible element.
[Hint: Use the division algorithm to wriÚ: a = q(ab) + r.]
c) Ir n is any integer such that 15(1) + n ~ O, then the function 15': R - {O} -+ Z
defined by t5'(a) = oCa) + n is also a Euclidean valuation on R.
13. For each ideal 1 in Z(i), the domain of Gaussian integers, establish that the quotient
ring Z(i)fI is finite. [Hint: Write 1 = (a) and use the division algorithm on ex and
any PE Z(i).]
14. Let R be a Euclidean domain with valuation o.
a) Determine whether the set 1 = {a E Rlo(a) > o(l)} u {O} is an ideal of R.
b) Assuming that the set F = {a ~ Rlo(a) = 1} u {O} is c10sed under addition,
verify that F forms a field.
15. a) Prove that if ni and n 2 are square-free integers !!-nd ni -1' n 2 , then the quadratic
field Q(.jn;,) is not isomorphic to Q(.jn;).
b) For each square-free integer n, determine all~he subfields of the quadratic
field Q(.Jñ).
16. Establish the following assertions (where n is a squ~ré-free integer):
'a) For n < -1, the only in vertible elements of thequadratic clomam Z(.Jñ) are
±1.
b) For n > 1, Z(.Jñ) has infinitely many invertible' elements. [Hint: Ir al' b l
is a solution of the equation a2 - nb2 = ±1, conc1ude that ak , bk is also a
solution, where ak + bJn = (al + bl.Jñ)k, k r~Z+,]
c) The invertible elements of Z(.J2) are precisely the elements of the form
±(1 + .J2)n, n E Z+. [Hint: Ir u is any positive invertible element of Z(.J2),
then (1 + J2)n ::;; U < (1 + .J2)n+ 1 for sorne n E Z + ; hence,
I
+ .J2)-n < +
1 ::;; u(l 1 .J2.
I
Assuming that u(l + .J2)-n = a + b.J2, show that a = 1, b = O.]
17. a) Factor each of the following into primes: 11 + 7i in Z(i); 4 + 7.J2 in Z(.J2); I
4- RinZ(R). I
110 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
PROBLEMS 111
8. Let a be a nonzero element of the principal ideal domain R. Ir a has length n,
prove that there are at most 2n ideal s containing a. b) Show that in the quadratic domain Z(.J6), the relation 6 = (.J6)2 = 3·2 does
not violate unique factorization.
9. Verify that any two nonzero elements of a unique factorization domain possess a
greatest cornmon divisor. [Hint: Ir a = P~'P~' ... P~' and b = pl(p~ ... p~ (Pi 18. Prove that the domain Z(R) is not a unique factorization domain by discovering
irreducible), then gcd (a, b) = P{'rl' ... dé, whereji = min (k i , IJ] two distinct factorizatioris of the element 10. Do the same for element 9 in the
domain Z(J7f).
10. Let R be an integral domain. Prove that R is a unique factorization domain if and
only if ,every nontrivial principal ideal óf R is the product of a finite number of 19. Show that the quadratic domain Z(.J - 5) is not a principal ideal domain. [Hint:
maximal principal ideals and these ideals are uniquc up to a permutation of order. Consider the ideal (3,2 + .j=5).]
11. Show that t5(a) = lal is not a Euclidean valuation on the domain Q. 20. Describe the field of quotients of the quadratic domain Z(.Jñ) where n'is a square-
free integer.
12. Assuming that R is a Euclidean domain with valuation 15, prove the statements
below:
. a) For nonzero a, bE R, if alb and t5(a) = t5(b), then a and b are associates. [Hi~t:
Show that bla.]
b) Fór nonzero a, bE R,.t5(ab) > t5(a) if and only if b is not an invertible element.
[Hint: Use the division algorithm to wriÚ: a = q(ab) + r.]
c) Ir n is any integer such that 15(1) + n ~ O, then the function 15': R - {O} -+ Z
defined by t5'(a) = oCa) + n is also a Euclidean valuation on R.
13. For each ideal 1 in Z(i), the domain of Gaussian integers, establish that the quotient
ring Z(i)fI is finite. [Hint: Write 1 = (a) and use the division algorithm on ex and
any PE Z(i).]
14. Let R be a Euclidean domain with valuation o.
a) Determine whether the set 1 = {a E Rlo(a) > o(l)} u {O} is an ideal of R.
b) Assuming that the set F = {a ~ Rlo(a) = 1} u {O} is c10sed under addition,
verify that F forms a field.
15. a) Prove that if ni and n 2 are square-free integers !!-nd ni -1' n 2 , then the quadratic
field Q(.jn;,) is not isomorphic to Q(.jn;).
b) For each square-free integer n, determine all~he subfields of the quadratic
field Q(.Jñ).
16. Establish the following assertions (where n is a squ~ré-free integer):
'a) For n < -1, the only in vertible elements of thequadratic clomam Z(.Jñ) are
±1.
b) For n > 1, Z(.Jñ) has infinitely many invertible' elements. [Hint: Ir al' b l
is a solution of the equation a2 - nb2 = ±1, conc1ude that ak , bk is also a
solution, where ak + bJn = (al + bl.Jñ)k, k r~Z+,]
c) The invertible elements of Z(.J2) are precisely the elements of the form
±(1 + .J2)n, n E Z+. [Hint: Ir u is any positive invertible element of Z(.J2),
then (1 + J2)n ::;; U < (1 + .J2)n+ 1 for sorne n E Z + ; hence,
I
+ .J2)-n < +
1 ::;; u(l 1 .J2.
I
Assuming that u(l + .J2)-n = a + b.J2, show that a = 1, b = O.]
17. a) Factor each of the following into primes: 11 + 7i in Z(i); 4 + 7.J2 in Z(.J2); I
4- RinZ(R). I
 POLYNOMIAL RINGS 113

SE VEN where, for each k ~ 0, 0k is given by

C k=
.
I
i+ j=k
aibj = aObk +alb k - l + ... + ak-.lb l + akb o'

(It i.s understood t?a~ the aboye s'ummation runs over alI integers i, j ~
subJect to the restnctlOn that i + j = k.)
°
. A routine ~heck e.sta?lis~es that with these two definitions seq R becomes
a nng. To.venfy a dlstnbutlve law, for instance, take
.,
POLYNOMIAL RINGS f= (a o, al' ... ), g = (b o, b l , .•. ), h = (c o, C l •••• ).
One findsquickly that
"""," ";",i_
f.(g:+ h) = (a o, al' ... )(b o + ca' bl + cl ' ... ) = (do. d l , ... ),
The next step in our program is: to apply some of the previously developed where .1:,' .
theory to a particular dass offings, the so-caBed polynomial rings. For dk = .,4:
.+ J=k
ai(bj + c) = I
i+ j=k
(aibj + aic.)
the moment, we shaIl nierelY'''i"emark that these are rings whose elements . J

consist of "polynomials" with coefficients from a fixed, but otherwise

arbitrary, ringo (The most intbresting results occur when the coefficients
=t
i+ j=k
aibj + I ai c "
i+ j=k J

are specialized to a field.) A similar ca1culation of fg + fh leads to the same general termo so that
As a first ordér of business, we seek to formalize the intuitive idea of f(g -: h) = f~ + fh. The rest ·of the details are left to the reader's careo
what is meant by a poiynomial. This involves an excursion around the We s~m~ly pomt out that the sequence (O, 0, 0, ... ) serves as the zero element
fringes of the more general question of rings of formal power series. Out of thlS rmg, while the additive inverse of an arbitrary member (a a a' .)
of the veritable multitude of results concerning polynomials, we have fR' f 0' l' 2""
o seq IS, o course, (-aO,-a l , -a 2 • ••• ). To summarize what we know
attempted to assemble those facets of the theory w hose discussion reinforces so far:
the concepts and theorems expounded earlier; it is hoped thereby to convey
Theorem 7-1. Th~system seq R forms a ring, known as the ring of
a rough idea of how the c1assical arithmetic of polynomials fits into ideal
theory. Our investigation conc1udes with a brü;f survey of some of the (form~l) p.ower. ser~es over R. Furthermore, the ring seq R is commuta-
rudimentary facts relating roots ofpolynomials to field extensions. tlve wlth ldentlty lf and only if the given ring R has these properties .
. To begin with simpler things, given an arbitrary ring R, Íet seq R denote
the totality of aB infinite sequences
If S represents the subset of all sequences having for every term beyond
the first, that is, the set . .
°
f = (a o' al' a2 , ••• , ak, ... ) S = {(a, 0, 0, ... )Ia E R},
of elements a
k R. Such sequences are called formal power series, or merely
E
then it is .not. p~ticularl~ difficult to show that S constitutes a subring of'
power series,over R. (Our choice of terminology will be justified shortIy.)
seq R WhlCh IS Isomorphlc to R; one need only consider the mapping that
We intend to introduce suitable operations in the set seq R so that the
. sends ~~e seq~ence (a, 0, 0, ... ) to the element a. In this sense, seq R contains
resulting system forms a ring containing R as a subring. At the outset, it
the ongmal rmg R as a subring.
should be made perfectIy c1ear that two power series
Having reached this stage, we shaIl no longer distinguish bet'ween an
f = (a o, al' a 2 , .,.) and g = (b o, b l , b2 , ••• ) element a E R and the special sequence (a, 0, 0, ... ) of seq R: The elements
are considered to be equal if and only if they are equal term by. term: of R, regarded as power series, are hereafter called constant series, or just
constants.
f = g if and onlyif ak . = bk for aIl k ~ O.. . With the aid of some additional notation, it is possible to represen t power
Now, power series may themselves be added and r1mltiplied as follows: senes the way we would like them to look. As a first step in this direction
we let ax designate the sequence '
f + g = (a o + bo, al + b l , ...), (O, a, 0, 0, ... ).
fg = (co, Cl' C2' ••• ),
112
 POLYNOMIAL RINGS 113

SE VEN where, for each k ~ 0, 0k is given by

C k=
.
I
i+ j=k
aibj = aObk +alb k - l + ... + ak-.lb l + akb o'

(It i.s understood t?a~ the aboye s'ummation runs over alI integers i, j ~
subJect to the restnctlOn that i + j = k.)
°
. A routine ~heck e.sta?lis~es that with these two definitions seq R becomes
a nng. To.venfy a dlstnbutlve law, for instance, take
.,
POLYNOMIAL RINGS f= (a o, al' ... ), g = (b o, b l , .•. ), h = (c o, C l •••• ).
One findsquickly that
"""," ";",i_
f.(g:+ h) = (a o, al' ... )(b o + ca' bl + cl ' ... ) = (do. d l , ... ),
The next step in our program is: to apply some of the previously developed where .1:,' .
theory to a particular dass offings, the so-caBed polynomial rings. For dk = .,4:
.+ J=k
ai(bj + c) = I
i+ j=k
(aibj + aic.)
the moment, we shaIl nierelY'''i"emark that these are rings whose elements . J

consist of "polynomials" with coefficients from a fixed, but otherwise

arbitrary, ringo (The most intbresting results occur when the coefficients
=t
i+ j=k
aibj + I ai c "
i+ j=k J

are specialized to a field.) A similar ca1culation of fg + fh leads to the same general termo so that
As a first ordér of business, we seek to formalize the intuitive idea of f(g -: h) = f~ + fh. The rest ·of the details are left to the reader's careo
what is meant by a poiynomial. This involves an excursion around the We s~m~ly pomt out that the sequence (O, 0, 0, ... ) serves as the zero element
fringes of the more general question of rings of formal power series. Out of thlS rmg, while the additive inverse of an arbitrary member (a a a' .)
of the veritable multitude of results concerning polynomials, we have fR' f 0' l' 2""
o seq IS, o course, (-aO,-a l , -a 2 • ••• ). To summarize what we know
attempted to assemble those facets of the theory w hose discussion reinforces so far:
the concepts and theorems expounded earlier; it is hoped thereby to convey
Theorem 7-1. Th~system seq R forms a ring, known as the ring of
a rough idea of how the c1assical arithmetic of polynomials fits into ideal
theory. Our investigation conc1udes with a brü;f survey of some of the (form~l) p.ower. ser~es over R. Furthermore, the ring seq R is commuta-
rudimentary facts relating roots ofpolynomials to field extensions. tlve wlth ldentlty lf and only if the given ring R has these properties .
. To begin with simpler things, given an arbitrary ring R, Íet seq R denote
the totality of aB infinite sequences
If S represents the subset of all sequences having for every term beyond
the first, that is, the set . .
°
f = (a o' al' a2 , ••• , ak, ... ) S = {(a, 0, 0, ... )Ia E R},
of elements a
k R. Such sequences are called formal power series, or merely
E
then it is .not. p~ticularl~ difficult to show that S constitutes a subring of'
power series,over R. (Our choice of terminology will be justified shortIy.)
seq R WhlCh IS Isomorphlc to R; one need only consider the mapping that
We intend to introduce suitable operations in the set seq R so that the
. sends ~~e seq~ence (a, 0, 0, ... ) to the element a. In this sense, seq R contains
resulting system forms a ring containing R as a subring. At the outset, it
the ongmal rmg R as a subring.
should be made perfectIy c1ear that two power series
Having reached this stage, we shaIl no longer distinguish bet'ween an
f = (a o, al' a 2 , .,.) and g = (b o, b l , b2 , ••• ) element a E R and the special sequence (a, 0, 0, ... ) of seq R: The elements
are considered to be equal if and only if they are equal term by. term: of R, regarded as power series, are hereafter called constant series, or just
constants.
f = g if and onlyif ak . = bk for aIl k ~ O.. . With the aid of some additional notation, it is possible to represen t power
Now, power series may themselves be added and r1mltiplied as follows: senes the way we would like them to look. As a first step in this direction
we let ax designate the sequence '
f + g = (a o + bo, al + b l , ...), (O, a, 0, 0, ... ).
fg = (co, Cl' C2' ••• ),
112
 r
114 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDBALS ) POL YNOMIAL RINGS 115

That is, ax is the specific member of seq R which has the element ti for its i
°
second term and for all other terms. More generally, the symbol ax",
n ~ 1, will denote the sequence
x = (0,1,0,0, ...). From this view, ax becomes an actual product of
members oC R[[x]]:
ax (a, 0,.0, ... )(0, 1,0,0, ... ).
(O, ... , 0, a, 0, ... ),
Concerning the notation oC power series, it is customary to omit terms
where the element a appears as the (n + 1)8t term in this sequence; for
with zero coefficients and to replace (-ak)x k by -akx k. Although x is not
example" we have
to be considered as án element oC R[[x]], we shall nonetheless take the
ax 2 (0,0, a, 0, ... ) liberty of writing the term 1xk as Xk (k ~ 1), With these conventions, one
and should view, for example, the power series
ax 3 (0,0,0, a, 0, ...),
1+ X2 + x4 + ... + x 2• + ... E Z[[xJ]
By use of these definitions, each power series
as representing the sequence (1,0,1, O, ... ).
f (ao, al' a2 , ... ,a., ...) An important definition in connection with power series is that of order,
may be uniquely expressed in the form given below. .

f = (a o, 0,0, ... ) + (O, al' 0, ...) + ... + (O, ... ,0, a., 0, ... ) + ... Definition 7-1. If f(x) = L akx is á nonzero power series (that is, if
k
= ao + alx + a2 x 2 + ... + a.x· + ... not all the ak = O) in R[[x]], then the smallest integer n such that
with tbe obvious identification oC a o witb the sequence (ao, O, O, ... ). Thus,
°
a. =1= is called the arder off(x) and denoted by ordf(x).
tbere is no loss in regarding tbe power series ring seq R as consisting of all Suppose f(x), g(x) E R[[x]], with ordf(x) = n and ord g(x) = m, so
formal expressions that
f(x) = q.x" + an + lX'+ 1 + ... (a. =1= O),
f= a o + alx + a2 x 2 + ,.. + a.x· + "', g(x) = bmx"' + bm+ lX m+ 1 + ... (b", =1= O).
where tbe elements ao, al' ... , an , .. , (tbe coefficients of 1) líe in R. As a From the ~efinition ofmultiplication in R[[x]], the reader may easily check
notational device, We sball ofien write tbis asf = L akx k (tbe surnmation that all.coefficients oC f(x)g(x) up to the (n + m)th are zero, whence
symbol is not an actual sum and convergence is not at issue bere).
Using sigma notation, tbe definitions of addition and multiplication of f(x)g(x) = anbmx·+ m + (a + b + a.b + )x"+m+l + ....
1

°
n 1ll m 1
power series assume the form If we assume that one of a. or bm is not a divisor of zero in R, then an bm =1=
and .,
L ak xk + L bkxk = L (ak + bk)Xk, <.,
'ord (¡(x)g(x») n + m = ordf(x) + ord g(:*) •.
" 1 ; ~

wbere This certainly holds if R is taken to be an integral doma in, qt.~gain if R has
an identíty and one of a. or bm is the identity element. <

The foregoing argument serves to establish the first part of the next
We sbould empbasize tbat, according to our definition, x ís simply a theor.em; the prooC oC the second assertion is left as anexercise.
neW symbol, or indeterminant, totalIy unrelated to the ring R and in no
Theorem 7-2. Iff(x) and g(x) are nonzero power series in R[[x]], then
sense represents an element of R. To indicate the indeterminant x, it lS
common practice to write R[[ x]] Cor the set seq R, and f(x) for any member °
1) either f(x)g(x) = or ord (J(x)g(x») ~ ord f(x) + ord g(x),
oC tbe same. From now on, we sball make exclusive use of tbis notation.
Remark. If the ring R bappens to bave a multiplicative ídentity 1, many
2) either ¡(x) + g(x) = or °
with equality if R is an integral domain;

°
autbors will identiCy tbe power series + Ix + OX2 + OX3 + ... with x, ord (¡(x) + g(x») ~ min {ord f(x), ord.g(x)}.
tbereby treating x itself as a special member oC R[[x]] ; namely, the sequence The notation of order can be used to prove the Collowing corollary,
 r
114 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDBALS ) POL YNOMIAL RINGS 115

That is, ax is the specific member of seq R which has the element ti for its i
°
second term and for all other terms. More generally, the symbol ax",
n ~ 1, will denote the sequence
x = (0,1,0,0, ...). From this view, ax becomes an actual product of
members oC R[[x]]:
ax (a, 0,.0, ... )(0, 1,0,0, ... ).
(O, ... , 0, a, 0, ... ),
Concerning the notation oC power series, it is customary to omit terms
where the element a appears as the (n + 1)8t term in this sequence; for
with zero coefficients and to replace (-ak)x k by -akx k. Although x is not
example" we have
to be considered as án element oC R[[x]], we shall nonetheless take the
ax 2 (0,0, a, 0, ... ) liberty of writing the term 1xk as Xk (k ~ 1), With these conventions, one
and should view, for example, the power series
ax 3 (0,0,0, a, 0, ...),
1+ X2 + x4 + ... + x 2• + ... E Z[[xJ]
By use of these definitions, each power series
as representing the sequence (1,0,1, O, ... ).
f (ao, al' a2 , ... ,a., ...) An important definition in connection with power series is that of order,
may be uniquely expressed in the form given below. .

f = (a o, 0,0, ... ) + (O, al' 0, ...) + ... + (O, ... ,0, a., 0, ... ) + ... Definition 7-1. If f(x) = L akx is á nonzero power series (that is, if
k
= ao + alx + a2 x 2 + ... + a.x· + ... not all the ak = O) in R[[x]], then the smallest integer n such that
with tbe obvious identification oC a o witb the sequence (ao, O, O, ... ). Thus,
°
a. =1= is called the arder off(x) and denoted by ordf(x).
tbere is no loss in regarding tbe power series ring seq R as consisting of all Suppose f(x), g(x) E R[[x]], with ordf(x) = n and ord g(x) = m, so
formal expressions that
f(x) = q.x" + an + lX'+ 1 + ... (a. =1= O),
f= a o + alx + a2 x 2 + ,.. + a.x· + "', g(x) = bmx"' + bm+ lX m+ 1 + ... (b", =1= O).
where tbe elements ao, al' ... , an , .. , (tbe coefficients of 1) líe in R. As a From the ~efinition ofmultiplication in R[[x]], the reader may easily check
notational device, We sball ofien write tbis asf = L akx k (tbe surnmation that all.coefficients oC f(x)g(x) up to the (n + m)th are zero, whence
symbol is not an actual sum and convergence is not at issue bere).
Using sigma notation, tbe definitions of addition and multiplication of f(x)g(x) = anbmx·+ m + (a + b + a.b + )x"+m+l + ....
1

°
n 1ll m 1
power series assume the form If we assume that one of a. or bm is not a divisor of zero in R, then an bm =1=
and .,
L ak xk + L bkxk = L (ak + bk)Xk, <.,
'ord (¡(x)g(x») n + m = ordf(x) + ord g(:*) •.
" 1 ; ~

wbere This certainly holds if R is taken to be an integral doma in, qt.~gain if R has
an identíty and one of a. or bm is the identity element. <

The foregoing argument serves to establish the first part of the next
We sbould empbasize tbat, according to our definition, x ís simply a theor.em; the prooC oC the second assertion is left as anexercise.
neW symbol, or indeterminant, totalIy unrelated to the ring R and in no
Theorem 7-2. Iff(x) and g(x) are nonzero power series in R[[x]], then
sense represents an element of R. To indicate the indeterminant x, it lS
common practice to write R[[ x]] Cor the set seq R, and f(x) for any member °
1) either f(x)g(x) = or ord (J(x)g(x») ~ ord f(x) + ord g(x),
oC tbe same. From now on, we sball make exclusive use of tbis notation.
Remark. If the ring R bappens to bave a multiplicative ídentity 1, many
2) either ¡(x) + g(x) = or °
with equality if R is an integral domain;

°
autbors will identiCy tbe power series + Ix + OX2 + OX3 + ... with x, ord (¡(x) + g(x») ~ min {ord f(x), ord.g(x)}.
tbereby treating x itself as a special member oC R[[x]] ; namely, the sequence The notation of order can be used to prove the Collowing corollary,
 POLYNOMIAL RINGS 117
116 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
latter event, choose a nonzero pow~r series f(x) E l of minimal order.
Corollary., If the ring R is an integral domain, then so also is its power Suppose thatf(x) is of order k, so that
series ring R[[ x]].
f(x) = akx k + ak+Ix k+1 + ... = xk(a k + ak+I x + ... ).
Proa! We observed earlier that whenever R is a commutative ring with
identity, these properties carry over to R[[ x]]. To see that R[[ x]] has no .r Sin,ce the coeffieient ak =f= O, ~he p~evious lemma insures that the power
~~ro divisors, selectf(x) =1= O, g(x) =1= O in R[[ x]]. Then, ' .' - senes~k t
ak+ IX + ... IS an mv~rtlble ~lement of F[[xJ]; in other words,
f(x) - x g(x), where g(x) has an mverse m F[[ x]]. But,-then,
ord (f(x)g(x)) = ordf(x) + ord g(x) > O ; "
Xk = f(x)g(X)-1 El,
:p:ence, fue productf(x)g(x) cannot be the z~ro series. J,!; which leads to the inc1usion (x ) ~ l. k

(/'¡: Although arbitrary pow~r series rings are of sorne interest, the most
, important consequences arise on specializing the discussion to power series
'whose coefficients are taken from a field. These wiII be seen to form principal :~.:
,'ideal domains and, in ¡:onsequence, unique factorizati'on domains. The:"
;i1)f()1l0wing intermediate re~ult is directed towards establishing this fact. :'~ir~:
-, Lemma. Let R be a commutative ring with identity. A formal powep,;; "',
series f(x) = I akxk is invertible in R[[x]] if and only if the constant '-"
term ao has an inverse in R.
Proa! If f(x)g(x) = 1, where g(x) = I bkx\ then the definition of multi-
plication in R[[ x]] shows that aob o = 1; hence, a o is invertible as an
element of R.
For the converse, suppose that the element ao has an inverse in R. kWe
proceed inductively to define the coefficients of a power series I bkx in
R[[x]] which is the inverse off(x). To do this, simply take bo = a I and, o Corollary 2. Any nonzero element f(x) E F[[x J] can be written in the
assurning b l , b2, ... , bk- I have already been defined, let
bk = -aOI(aIb k- 1 + a 2bk- 2 + ... -: akbo)'
Then aob o = 1, while, for k :;::: 1,
Ck = I a¡b j = aOb k + aIb k- 1 + ... + akbo =,0..
, ¡+j=k
k k
By our choice of the bk's, we evidently must have (I akx ) (I bkx ) = 1,
and so I akxk possesses aninverse in R[[x]]'
Corollary. A power seriesf(x) = I akx k E F[[xJ], where F is a field,
has an inverse in F[[x]] if and only if its constant term ao =1= O.
Having dealt with these preliminaries, we are now ready to proceed to
describe the ideal structure of F[[ xJ].
On the. other ha.nd, take h(x) to be any nonzero po~gfseries in l, say of
?r?er n. Smcef(x) IS assumed to have least order amon'g: all members of l
lt IS c1ear that k :;:; n; thus, h(x) can pe written in the fQrin '
h(x) ~ xk(bnxn-k + bn+Ixn-k+1 + ... )~.(~k).
This implies that l ~ (xk), and the equality l = (Xk) r611;ws.
~orollary l. The ring F[[ x]] is a local ring with (:i)~s its maximal
Ideal.
Proa! Inasmuch as the ideal s of F[[ x J] form a chain
F[[xJ] ~ (x) ~ (X2) '~ ... ~ {O},
the conc1usion is obvious.
formf(x) = g(x)xk, where g(x) is invertible and k :;::: O. '
To t~is w~add, for future reference, the folIówing as~ertion regarding
~he ~axlmal Ideal s of a power series ring over a commutative ring with
ldentlty.
Theorem 7-4 Let R be a commutative ring with identity. There is a
one-to-one correspondence between the maximal ideals M of the .
R and.the maximal ideal s M' of R[[x]] in such a way that M' corresp;~~g
to M lf and only if M' is generated by M and x; that is, M' = (M, x). s
Proa! Assu~e th.at M is a maximal ideal of R. To see that M' = (M, x)
forms a ~axlmalldeal of t~e ring R[[xJ], we need only show that for any
, pow~r senes f(x) = I akx ~ M', the element 1 + g(x)f(x) E M' for sorne
I g(~).m R[[x]] (Problem 2, Chapter 5). Since the series f(x) does not lie in

Theorem 7-3. For any field F, the power series ring F[[x]] is a principal M, ltS constant term ao ~ M; hence, there exists an element r E R such that
ideal domain; in fact, the nontrivial ideals of F[[x]] are of the form 1 + rao E M. This implies that
(x k ), where k E Z+. 1 + rf(x) = (1 + rao) + r(a l + a2x + ... + anx,,-I + .. ·)x E (M, x),
Proa! ' Let 1 be any proper ideal of F[[x]]. Either l = {O}, in which case and so M' is a maximal ideal, as required.
1 is just the principal ideal (O), or else 1 contains nonzero elements. In the
 POLYNOMIAL RINGS 117
116 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
latter event, choose a nonzero pow~r series f(x) E l of minimal order.
Corollary., If the ring R is an integral domain, then so also is its power Suppose thatf(x) is of order k, so that
series ring R[[ x]].
f(x) = akx k + ak+Ix k+1 + ... = xk(a k + ak+I x + ... ).
Proa! We observed earlier that whenever R is a commutative ring with
identity, these properties carry over to R[[ x]]. To see that R[[ x]] has no .r Sin,ce the coeffieient ak =f= O, ~he p~evious lemma insures that the power
~~ro divisors, selectf(x) =1= O, g(x) =1= O in R[[ x]]. Then, ' .' - senes~k t
ak+ IX + ... IS an mv~rtlble ~lement of F[[xJ]; in other words,
f(x) - x g(x), where g(x) has an mverse m F[[ x]]. But,-then,
ord (f(x)g(x)) = ordf(x) + ord g(x) > O ; "
Xk = f(x)g(X)-1 El,
:p:ence, fue productf(x)g(x) cannot be the z~ro series. J,!; which leads to the inc1usion (x ) ~ l. k

(/'¡: Although arbitrary pow~r series rings are of sorne interest, the most
, important consequences arise on specializing the discussion to power series
'whose coefficients are taken from a field. These wiII be seen to form principal :~.:
,'ideal domains and, in ¡:onsequence, unique factorizati'on domains. The:"
;i1)f()1l0wing intermediate re~ult is directed towards establishing this fact. :'~ir~:
-, Lemma. Let R be a commutative ring with identity. A formal powep,;; "',
series f(x) = I akxk is invertible in R[[x]] if and only if the constant '-"
term ao has an inverse in R.
Proa! If f(x)g(x) = 1, where g(x) = I bkx\ then the definition of multi-
plication in R[[ x]] shows that aob o = 1; hence, a o is invertible as an
element of R.
For the converse, suppose that the element ao has an inverse in R. kWe
proceed inductively to define the coefficients of a power series I bkx in
R[[x]] which is the inverse off(x). To do this, simply take bo = a I and, o Corollary 2. Any nonzero element f(x) E F[[x J] can be written in the
assurning b l , b2, ... , bk- I have already been defined, let
bk = -aOI(aIb k- 1 + a 2bk- 2 + ... -: akbo)'
Then aob o = 1, while, for k :;::: 1,
Ck = I a¡b j = aOb k + aIb k- 1 + ... + akbo =,0..
, ¡+j=k
k k
By our choice of the bk's, we evidently must have (I akx ) (I bkx ) = 1,
and so I akxk possesses aninverse in R[[x]]'
Corollary. A power seriesf(x) = I akx k E F[[xJ], where F is a field,
has an inverse in F[[x]] if and only if its constant term ao =1= O.
Having dealt with these preliminaries, we are now ready to proceed to
describe the ideal structure of F[[ xJ].
On the. other ha.nd, take h(x) to be any nonzero po~gfseries in l, say of
?r?er n. Smcef(x) IS assumed to have least order amon'g: all members of l
lt IS c1ear that k :;:; n; thus, h(x) can pe written in the fQrin '
h(x) ~ xk(bnxn-k + bn+Ixn-k+1 + ... )~.(~k).
This implies that l ~ (xk), and the equality l = (Xk) r611;ws.
~orollary l. The ring F[[ x]] is a local ring with (:i)~s its maximal
Ideal.
Proa! Inasmuch as the ideal s of F[[ x J] form a chain
F[[xJ] ~ (x) ~ (X2) '~ ... ~ {O},
the conc1usion is obvious.
formf(x) = g(x)xk, where g(x) is invertible and k :;::: O. '
To t~is w~add, for future reference, the folIówing as~ertion regarding
~he ~axlmal Ideal s of a power series ring over a commutative ring with
ldentlty.
Theorem 7-4 Let R be a commutative ring with identity. There is a
one-to-one correspondence between the maximal ideals M of the .
R and.the maximal ideal s M' of R[[x]] in such a way that M' corresp;~~g
to M lf and only if M' is generated by M and x; that is, M' = (M, x). s
Proa! Assu~e th.at M is a maximal ideal of R. To see that M' = (M, x)
forms a ~axlmalldeal of t~e ring R[[xJ], we need only show that for any
, pow~r senes f(x) = I akx ~ M', the element 1 + g(x)f(x) E M' for sorne
I g(~).m R[[x]] (Problem 2, Chapter 5). Since the series f(x) does not lie in

Theorem 7-3. For any field F, the power series ring F[[x]] is a principal M, ltS constant term ao ~ M; hence, there exists an element r E R such that
ideal domain; in fact, the nontrivial ideals of F[[x]] are of the form 1 + rao E M. This implies that
(x k ), where k E Z+. 1 + rf(x) = (1 + rao) + r(a l + a2x + ... + anx,,-I + .. ·)x E (M, x),
Proa! ' Let 1 be any proper ideal of F[[x]]. Either l = {O}, in which case and so M' is a maximal ideal, as required.
1 is just the principal ideal (O), or else 1 contains nonzero elements. In the
118 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS POLYNOMIAL RINGS 119

Next, take MI to be any maximal ideal of R[[x]] and define theset M
to consist of the constant terms of power series in MI :
M = {ao E RI ¿akxk eMl
The reader can painlessly supply a proof that M forms a maximal ideal of
the ring R. Notice incidentally that M must be a proper ideal. Were M R,
then the~e would exist a power series ¿ bn:x" in MI with constant term
bo = t By the last lemma, ¿bnxn would then be an invertible element, so
that MI = R[[x]], whichis impossible. Owingto the inc1usion M' ~ (M,x)
and the fact that M' is maximal in R[[x]], it now follows that MI = (M, x).
To verify that the corresponden ce in question is indeed one-to-one,
suppose that (M, x) = (M, x), where M, M are both maximal ideals of the
ring R; what we want to prove is that M = M. Let r E M be arbitrary.
Givenf(x)E R[[x]], the. sum r.+ f(x)x E (M,x) = (M, x), so that
r + f(x)x r + g(x)x
for appropriate r E M and g(x) E R[[x]]' Hence, r -
If g(x) - f(x) =1= 0, then, upon taking orders,
°= ord(r r} = ord (g(x) f(x») + ord x 2: 1,
so that both the'sumf(x) + g(x) and productf(x)g(x) belong to R[xJ.
Running parallel to the idea ofthe order of a power series is that ofthe
degree of a polynomial, which we introduce at this time.
Definition 7-3. Given a nonzero polynomial
f(x) = ao + a1x + ... + a"x" (a" =1= O)
in R[x], we call a" the leading coefficient of f(x); and the integer n, the
degree of the polynomial. .
The degree ofany nonzero polynomial is therefore a nonnegative integer;
no degree is assigned to the zero polynomial. Notice that the polynomials
°
of degree are precisely the nonzero constant polynomials. If R is a ring
with identity, a polynomial whose leading coefficient is 1 is said to be a
monic polynomial.
As a matter of notation, we shall hereafter write degf(x) for the degree
of any nonzero polynomialf(x) E R[xJ.
r (g(x) f(x) )x. The result"below is similar to that given for power series and its proof
i8 left for the reader to províde; the only change of consequence ís that we
now use the notíon of degree rather than order.

an absurdity. In consequence, we must have g(x) - f(x) = which, in its

turn, forces r = rE M. The implication is that M ~ M and, since M is
° Theorem 7-5. If f(x) and g(x) are nonzero poIynomiaIs in R[x], then
°
1) either f(x)g(x) = or deg (J(x)g(x») ~ degf(x) + deg g(x), with
maximaI, we end up with M = M. This completes the proof ofthe theorem. equality whenever R is an integral domain;
2) either f(x) + g(x) = Oor
Power series have so far received all the attention, but our primary
concern is with polynomials. deg(J(x) + g(x») ~ max{degf(x), deg g(x)}.
Definition 7-2. Let R[x] denote, t~e set of all power series in R[[xJ] Knowing this,:cme could proceed along the lines of the corollary to
whose coefficients are zero from s,o,!llF index onward (the particular index Theorem 7-2 to 'estáblish
varies from series to series): ..
Corollary. Ifthe ring R is an integral domain, then so is its polynomial
R[xJ {ao + alx + '::~ + anx"lak E R; n 2: O}. ring R[xJ. .'
An element of R[xJ is called a ~¡¿!ynomial (in x) over the ring R. Example 7-1. Aslan illustration ofwhat might happen if R has zero divisors,
In essence, we are defining a polynbprial to be a finitely nonzero sequence consider Zg, the ring of integers modulo 8. Taking
of elements of R. Thus, the sequence (1, 1, 1,0,0, ... ) would be a polynomial
over Z2' but (1, 0, 1,0, ... , 1,0, ... ) would noto
f(x) = 1 + 2.x, g(x) = 4 + x + 4x 2 ,
It is easily verified that R[x] constitutes a subring of R[[x]], the so- we obtainf(x)g(x) = 4 + x + 6x 2 , so that
called ring of polynomials over R (in an indeterminant x); indeed, if
f(x) =
°¿ akxk, g(x) =
bk = for all k ~ m, then
¿bkxk are in R[xJ, with ak °
for all k 2: n and deg (J(x)g(x») 2 < 1 + 2 = degf(x) + deg g(x).
Although many properties of the ring R carry over to the associated
ak + bk = O fork ~ max{m,n}, polynomial ring R[x], it should be pointed out !hat for no ring R does
¿ a¡b j = O fork ~ m +...n, R[x] form a field. In fact, when R is a field (or, for that matter, an integral
I+J=k . , doma in), no eIement of R[x] which has positive degree can possess a

:1:
118 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS POLYNOMIAL RINGS 119

Next, take MI to be any maximal ideal of R[[x]] and define theset M
to consist of the constant terms of power series in MI :
M = {ao E RI ¿akxk eMl
The reader can painlessly supply a proof that M forms a maximal ideal of
the ring R. Notice incidentally that M must be a proper ideal. Were M R,
then the~e would exist a power series ¿ bn:x" in MI with constant term
bo = t By the last lemma, ¿bnxn would then be an invertible element, so
that MI = R[[x]], whichis impossible. Owingto the inc1usion M' ~ (M,x)
and the fact that M' is maximal in R[[x]], it now follows that MI = (M, x).
To verify that the corresponden ce in question is indeed one-to-one,
suppose that (M, x) = (M, x), where M, M are both maximal ideals of the
ring R; what we want to prove is that M = M. Let r E M be arbitrary.
Givenf(x)E R[[x]], the. sum r.+ f(x)x E (M,x) = (M, x), so that
r + f(x)x r + g(x)x
for appropriate r E M and g(x) E R[[x]]' Hence, r -
If g(x) - f(x) =1= 0, then, upon taking orders,
°= ord(r r} = ord (g(x) f(x») + ord x 2: 1,
so that both the'sumf(x) + g(x) and productf(x)g(x) belong to R[xJ.
Running parallel to the idea ofthe order of a power series is that ofthe
degree of a polynomial, which we introduce at this time.
Definition 7-3. Given a nonzero polynomial
f(x) = ao + a1x + ... + a"x" (a" =1= O)
in R[x], we call a" the leading coefficient of f(x); and the integer n, the
degree of the polynomial. .
The degree ofany nonzero polynomial is therefore a nonnegative integer;
no degree is assigned to the zero polynomial. Notice that the polynomials
°
of degree are precisely the nonzero constant polynomials. If R is a ring
with identity, a polynomial whose leading coefficient is 1 is said to be a
monic polynomial.
As a matter of notation, we shall hereafter write degf(x) for the degree
of any nonzero polynomialf(x) E R[xJ.
r (g(x) f(x) )x. The result"below is similar to that given for power series and its proof
i8 left for the reader to províde; the only change of consequence ís that we
now use the notíon of degree rather than order.

an absurdity. In consequence, we must have g(x) - f(x) = which, in its

turn, forces r = rE M. The implication is that M ~ M and, since M is
° Theorem 7-5. If f(x) and g(x) are nonzero poIynomiaIs in R[x], then
°
1) either f(x)g(x) = or deg (J(x)g(x») ~ degf(x) + deg g(x), with
maximaI, we end up with M = M. This completes the proof ofthe theorem. equality whenever R is an integral domain;
2) either f(x) + g(x) = Oor
Power series have so far received all the attention, but our primary
concern is with polynomials. deg(J(x) + g(x») ~ max{degf(x), deg g(x)}.
Definition 7-2. Let R[x] denote, t~e set of all power series in R[[xJ] Knowing this,:cme could proceed along the lines of the corollary to
whose coefficients are zero from s,o,!llF index onward (the particular index Theorem 7-2 to 'estáblish
varies from series to series): ..
Corollary. Ifthe ring R is an integral domain, then so is its polynomial
R[xJ {ao + alx + '::~ + anx"lak E R; n 2: O}. ring R[xJ. .'
An element of R[xJ is called a ~¡¿!ynomial (in x) over the ring R. Example 7-1. Aslan illustration ofwhat might happen if R has zero divisors,
In essence, we are defining a polynbprial to be a finitely nonzero sequence consider Zg, the ring of integers modulo 8. Taking
of elements of R. Thus, the sequence (1, 1, 1,0,0, ... ) would be a polynomial
over Z2' but (1, 0, 1,0, ... , 1,0, ... ) would noto
f(x) = 1 + 2.x, g(x) = 4 + x + 4x 2 ,
It is easily verified that R[x] constitutes a subring of R[[x]], the so- we obtainf(x)g(x) = 4 + x + 6x 2 , so that
called ring of polynomials over R (in an indeterminant x); indeed, if
f(x) =
°¿ akxk, g(x) =
bk = for all k ~ m, then
¿bkxk are in R[xJ, with ak °
for all k 2: n and deg (J(x)g(x») 2 < 1 + 2 = degf(x) + deg g(x).
Although many properties of the ring R carry over to the associated
ak + bk = O fork ~ max{m,n}, polynomial ring R[x], it should be pointed out !hat for no ring R does
¿ a¡b j = O fork ~ m +...n, R[x] form a field. In fact, when R is a field (or, for that matter, an integral
I+J=k . , doma in), no eIement of R[x] which has positive degree can possess a

:1:
 120 FIRST COVRSE IN. RINGS
",.
AND IDEALS
POLYNOMIAL RINGS
.
121
rnultiplicative in verse. For, suppose that f(x) E R[x J, with degf(x) > O; Theorem 7-6. Let R be a ring with identity, R' an extension ring of R,
ifj(x)g(x) = 1 for sorne g(x) in R[xJ, we could obtain the contradiction ' and the element rE cent R'. ,Then there is a unique homomorphism
rpr: R[x] --+ R' such that rpAx) = r, rpAa) = a for all a E R.
O = deg 1 = deg (J(x)g(x») = degf(x) + deg g(x) =/=. O. '
Proof We need only verify that 4>r is uníque. Suppose, then, thát there is
The degree of a polynomial is used in the factorization theory of R[xJ
another horrtomorphism r: R[xJ --+ R satisfy in the indicated conditions
in much the same way as the absolute value is employed in Z. For, it is
and con~ider any polynornialf(x) = ao..+ alx + '" + a.x·ER[xJ. By
through the degree concept that induction can be utilized in R[ x J to develop ,assu.mptlOn, r(ak) = ak fon each coefficlent ak , while r(x k) = r(x)k = rk.
a polynomial counterpart of the familiar diyision algorithm. One can Takmg stock of the fact that r is a homomorphism,
subsequent1y establish that the ring F[x}with'Coefficients in a field forms a
EucJidean domain in which the degree functio.n}s taken to be the Euc1idean r(J(x») = r(a o) ,f, r(al)r(x) + ... + r(a.)r(x)·
v~luatiort. '
': ~'.
", ' . " . = ao +,~ ~J r + ... n
+ anr = f(r) = rpr (J (x) ).
Before embarking on this program, we Msh to introduce several new
ideas. To this purpose, let R be a ring with)dentity; assume further that This pro ves that r = rp" yi~!PÍIig the uniqueness conc1usion.
::-~' ':?
R' is any ring contain\ng R as a subring (tb,at)s, R' is an extension of R) Without sorne comm~,tativity assumption, the aboye rernarks need not
and let r be an arbitrary element of R'. For;.?,~~h polynornial hold; For, if we let
f(x) = ao + alx + '" .f.' a.x· h(x) =, (x - il)(x - b) = X2 - (a + b)x ;'h ab;
then
in R[xJ, we may define f(r) E R' by taking
h(r) = r2 - (a + b)r + ab.
f(r) = ao + alr + ... + a.r·. Lacking the hypothesis that rE cení R', it cannot be conc1uded that
The elementf(r) is said to be the result of substituting r for x inf(x). Suffice (r - aHr - b) = r2 - ar - rb + ab
it to say, the 'addition and multiplication used in defining f(r) are those of
the ring R', not those of R[xJ. will equal h(r); in other words, h(x) = f(x)g(x) does not always imply
h(r) = f(r)g(r).
Now, suppose that f(x), g(x) are polynornials in R[xJ and rE cent R'.
We lea ve the reader to pro ve that if Wheneverf(r) = O, we call the element r a root or zero ofthe polynomial
f(x). Of cou!se, a given polynomial f(x) E R[x J may not ha ve a root in R;
h(x) = f(x) + g(x), k(x) = f(x)g(x), we shall see later that when R is a field, there alwaysexists an extension
then, field R' of R in whichf(x) possesses a root. It is perhaps appropriate to point
h(r) = f(r) +g(r), k(r) = f(r)g(r). out at t~is time that the problem of obtaining all roots of a polynornial
f(x) E R[ x] is equivalent to that of finding all elements r E R' for which
This being so, it may be conc1uded that the mapping rpr: R[xJ --+ R' which f(x) E ker rpr' '
sendsf(x) tof(r) is a homomorphism of R[ x Jinto R'. Such a homomorphism After this brief digression, let us now state and prove the division algo-
, will be called the substítution homomorphísm determined by r and its range rithm for polynomials.
denoted by the symbol R[r]:
Theorem 7-7. (Division Algorithm). Let R be a c~mmutative ring with
R[r] = {J(r)/f(x) E R[xJ} identity and f(x), g(x) =1= O be polynomials in R[xJ, with the leading
coefficientof g(x) an invertible element. Then there exist unique poly-
= {ao + + ... + a r"la k ER; n 2: O}.
al/' 1l nomials q(x), r(x) E R[xJ such that
It is a simple matter to show that R[rJ constitutes a subring of R'; in fact, f(x) = q(x)g(x) + r(x),
R[rJ is the subring of R' generated by the set R u {r}. (Si~ce R has an
identity element 1, Ix = xER[xJ, and so rER[r].) NotIce also that where either r(x) = O or deg r(x) < deg g(x).
R[r] = R ifancl only ifr ER. ' Proof The proof is by induction on the degree off(x)~ First, notice that if
The foregoing remarks justify part of the next theorem. f(x) = Oorf(x) =1= Oand degf(x) < deg g(x), a representation meeting the
 120 FIRST COVRSE IN. RINGS
",.
AND IDEALS
POLYNOMIAL RINGS
.
121
rnultiplicative in verse. For, suppose that f(x) E R[x J, with degf(x) > O; Theorem 7-6. Let R be a ring with identity, R' an extension ring of R,
ifj(x)g(x) = 1 for sorne g(x) in R[xJ, we could obtain the contradiction ' and the element rE cent R'. ,Then there is a unique homomorphism
rpr: R[x] --+ R' such that rpAx) = r, rpAa) = a for all a E R.
O = deg 1 = deg (J(x)g(x») = degf(x) + deg g(x) =/=. O. '
Proof We need only verify that 4>r is uníque. Suppose, then, thát there is
The degree of a polynomial is used in the factorization theory of R[xJ
another horrtomorphism r: R[xJ --+ R satisfy in the indicated conditions
in much the same way as the absolute value is employed in Z. For, it is
and con~ider any polynornialf(x) = ao..+ alx + '" + a.x·ER[xJ. By
through the degree concept that induction can be utilized in R[ x J to develop ,assu.mptlOn, r(ak) = ak fon each coefficlent ak , while r(x k) = r(x)k = rk.
a polynomial counterpart of the familiar diyision algorithm. One can Takmg stock of the fact that r is a homomorphism,
subsequent1y establish that the ring F[x}with'Coefficients in a field forms a
EucJidean domain in which the degree functio.n}s taken to be the Euc1idean r(J(x») = r(a o) ,f, r(al)r(x) + ... + r(a.)r(x)·
v~luatiort. '
': ~'.
", ' . " . = ao +,~ ~J r + ... n
+ anr = f(r) = rpr (J (x) ).
Before embarking on this program, we Msh to introduce several new
ideas. To this purpose, let R be a ring with)dentity; assume further that This pro ves that r = rp" yi~!PÍIig the uniqueness conc1usion.
::-~' ':?
R' is any ring contain\ng R as a subring (tb,at)s, R' is an extension of R) Without sorne comm~,tativity assumption, the aboye rernarks need not
and let r be an arbitrary element of R'. For;.?,~~h polynornial hold; For, if we let
f(x) = ao + alx + '" .f.' a.x· h(x) =, (x - il)(x - b) = X2 - (a + b)x ;'h ab;
then
in R[xJ, we may define f(r) E R' by taking
h(r) = r2 - (a + b)r + ab.
f(r) = ao + alr + ... + a.r·. Lacking the hypothesis that rE cení R', it cannot be conc1uded that
The elementf(r) is said to be the result of substituting r for x inf(x). Suffice (r - aHr - b) = r2 - ar - rb + ab
it to say, the 'addition and multiplication used in defining f(r) are those of
the ring R', not those of R[xJ. will equal h(r); in other words, h(x) = f(x)g(x) does not always imply
h(r) = f(r)g(r).
Now, suppose that f(x), g(x) are polynornials in R[xJ and rE cent R'.
We lea ve the reader to pro ve that if Wheneverf(r) = O, we call the element r a root or zero ofthe polynomial
f(x). Of cou!se, a given polynomial f(x) E R[x J may not ha ve a root in R;
h(x) = f(x) + g(x), k(x) = f(x)g(x), we shall see later that when R is a field, there alwaysexists an extension
then, field R' of R in whichf(x) possesses a root. It is perhaps appropriate to point
h(r) = f(r) +g(r), k(r) = f(r)g(r). out at t~is time that the problem of obtaining all roots of a polynornial
f(x) E R[ x] is equivalent to that of finding all elements r E R' for which
This being so, it may be conc1uded that the mapping rpr: R[xJ --+ R' which f(x) E ker rpr' '
sendsf(x) tof(r) is a homomorphism of R[ x Jinto R'. Such a homomorphism After this brief digression, let us now state and prove the division algo-
, will be called the substítution homomorphísm determined by r and its range rithm for polynomials.
denoted by the symbol R[r]:
Theorem 7-7. (Division Algorithm). Let R be a c~mmutative ring with
R[r] = {J(r)/f(x) E R[xJ} identity and f(x), g(x) =1= O be polynomials in R[xJ, with the leading
coefficientof g(x) an invertible element. Then there exist unique poly-
= {ao + + ... + a r"la k ER; n 2: O}.
al/' 1l nomials q(x), r(x) E R[xJ such that
It is a simple matter to show that R[rJ constitutes a subring of R'; in fact, f(x) = q(x)g(x) + r(x),
R[rJ is the subring of R' generated by the set R u {r}. (Si~ce R has an
identity element 1, Ix = xER[xJ, and so rER[r].) NotIce also that where either r(x) = O or deg r(x) < deg g(x).
R[r] = R ifancl only ifr ER. ' Proof The proof is by induction on the degree off(x)~ First, notice that if
The foregoing remarks justify part of the next theorem. f(x) = Oorf(x) =1= Oand degf(x) < deg g(x), a representation meeting the
122 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDIlALS POLYNOMIAL RINGS 123

requirements oC the theorem exists on taking q(x) = O, r(x) f(x). Further- We now come to a series of theorems concerning the factonzation
more, iC degf(x) = deg g(x) = O, f(x) and g(x) are both elements oC the properties of R[ xJ.
ring R, and it suffices to let q(x) = f(x)g(x)-l, r(x) = O.
Theorem 7-8. (Remainder Theorem). Let R be a commutative ring
This being so, aS8ume that the theorem i8 true Cor polynomials of degree '
with identity. If f(x) E R[x] and a E R, then there exists a unique
les8 than n (the induction hypothesis) and let degf(x) = n, deg g(x) m,
polynomial q(x) in R[x] such thatf(x) = (x - a)q(x) + fea).
where n ~ m ~ 1; that is,
Proa!. AH this is scarcely more than an application ofthe division algorithm
to the polynomials f(x) and x - ,a. We then obtain
g(x) = bo + blx + ... + bmx
nt
, bm =f= O (n ~ m).
f(x) = (x - a)q(x) + r(x),
Now, the polynomial where r(x) = O or deg r(x) < deg (x - a) = 1. It follows in either case
fl(X) = f(x) - (anb~l):x:,-mg(x) that r(x) is a constant polynomial, say r(x) rE R. Substitution of a for
líes in R[x] and, since the coefficient of x· is a. (anb~ l)b m = O, has degree x leads to
less than n. By supposition, there are polynomials ql(X), r(x) E R[x] such fea) = (a - a)q(a) + real = r,
that as desired.
j¡(x) = ql(X)g(X) + r(x),
CoroUary., The polynomial f(x) E R[x] is divisible by x - a if and
where r(x) Oor deg r(x) < deg g(x). Substituting, we obtain theequation only if a Is a.root ofj(x).
f(x) = (ql(X) + (anb;;;-l)xn-"')g(x) + r(x) Let us next show that a polynomial cannot have more roots in an integral
domain than its degree.
= q(x)g(x) + r(x),
Theorem 7-9. Let R be an integral domain andf(x) E R[x] be a non-
which shows that the desired representation also exists when degf(x) n.
zero polynomial of degree n. Then f(x) can have at most n distinct
As for uniqueness, suppose that
roots in R.
f(x) = q(x)g(x) + r(x) = q'(x)g(x) + r'(x),
Proo!. The argument proceeds by induction on the degree off(x). When
where r(x) and r'(x) satisf)' the requirements of ,the theorem. Subtn:~pting, degf(x) = O, the result is trivial, since f(x) cannot have any roots. Ir
we obtain , , degf(x) = 1, for instance, f(x) = ax + b (a =f= O); 1hen f(x) has at most
r(x) - r'(x) = (q'{x) - q(x»)g(x). one root; indeed, if a is an invertible element, it follows that -a-lb is the
only root off(x). Now, suppose that the theoremi'~ {rue for all polynomials
Sincetheleadingcoefficientofg(x) is in vertible, itfollowsthat q'(x) - q(~J.~ O
of degree n - 1 and let degf(x) = n. Irf(x) h~;'a root a, the preceding
if and only if r(x) - r'(x) = O. With this in mind, letq'(x) - q(x{~f. O.
corollary gives f(x) = (x - a)q(x), where the polynomial q(x) has degree
Knowing that b;,. is not a zero divisor of R, .... ,
n - 1. Any root a' of f(x) distinct from a must",necessarily be a root of
deg (q'(x) - q(x»g(x) = deg (ql(X) - q(x)) + deg g(x) . q(x) for, by substitution,
~ deg g(x) > deg (r(x) - rl(x»)¡
O = fea') = (a - al)q(a)
a contradiction; the last inequality relies on the fact that the degr~es of
and, since R has no zero divisors, q(a') = O. From our induction hypothesis,
r(x) and r'(x) are both less than the degree of g(x). Thus, q'(x) = q(x), .which
q(x) has at most n - 1 distinct roots. As the oniy roots of f(x) are a and
in turn implies that r'(x) = r(x). .
I those of q(x),J(x) cannot possess more than n distinct roots in R.
The polynomials q(x) and r(x)appearing in the division algorithm are
With this step forward we can establish
called, respectively, the quotient and remainder on dividing f(x) by g(x).
In this connection, it is important to observe that if g(x) is a monic poly- . CoroUary 1. Letf(x) and g(x) be two n.onzero polynomials of degree n
nomial, or if R is taken to be a field, one need not assume that the leading over the integral domain R. If there exist n + 1 distínct elements
coefficient of g(x) is invertible. ak e R (k = 1, 2, ... ,n + 1) such that f(a k ) = g(ak ), then f(x) = g(x).
122 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDIlALS POLYNOMIAL RINGS 123

requirements oC the theorem exists on taking q(x) = O, r(x) f(x). Further- We now come to a series of theorems concerning the factonzation
more, iC degf(x) = deg g(x) = O, f(x) and g(x) are both elements oC the properties of R[ xJ.
ring R, and it suffices to let q(x) = f(x)g(x)-l, r(x) = O.
Theorem 7-8. (Remainder Theorem). Let R be a commutative ring
This being so, aS8ume that the theorem i8 true Cor polynomials of degree '
with identity. If f(x) E R[x] and a E R, then there exists a unique
les8 than n (the induction hypothesis) and let degf(x) = n, deg g(x) m,
polynomial q(x) in R[x] such thatf(x) = (x - a)q(x) + fea).
where n ~ m ~ 1; that is,
Proa!. AH this is scarcely more than an application ofthe division algorithm
to the polynomials f(x) and x - ,a. We then obtain
g(x) = bo + blx + ... + bmx
nt
, bm =f= O (n ~ m).
f(x) = (x - a)q(x) + r(x),
Now, the polynomial where r(x) = O or deg r(x) < deg (x - a) = 1. It follows in either case
fl(X) = f(x) - (anb~l):x:,-mg(x) that r(x) is a constant polynomial, say r(x) rE R. Substitution of a for
líes in R[x] and, since the coefficient of x· is a. (anb~ l)b m = O, has degree x leads to
less than n. By supposition, there are polynomials ql(X), r(x) E R[x] such fea) = (a - a)q(a) + real = r,
that as desired.
j¡(x) = ql(X)g(X) + r(x),
CoroUary., The polynomial f(x) E R[x] is divisible by x - a if and
where r(x) Oor deg r(x) < deg g(x). Substituting, we obtain theequation only if a Is a.root ofj(x).
f(x) = (ql(X) + (anb;;;-l)xn-"')g(x) + r(x) Let us next show that a polynomial cannot have more roots in an integral
domain than its degree.
= q(x)g(x) + r(x),
Theorem 7-9. Let R be an integral domain andf(x) E R[x] be a non-
which shows that the desired representation also exists when degf(x) n.
zero polynomial of degree n. Then f(x) can have at most n distinct
As for uniqueness, suppose that
roots in R.
f(x) = q(x)g(x) + r(x) = q'(x)g(x) + r'(x),
Proo!. The argument proceeds by induction on the degree off(x). When
where r(x) and r'(x) satisf)' the requirements of ,the theorem. Subtn:~pting, degf(x) = O, the result is trivial, since f(x) cannot have any roots. Ir
we obtain , , degf(x) = 1, for instance, f(x) = ax + b (a =f= O); 1hen f(x) has at most
r(x) - r'(x) = (q'{x) - q(x»)g(x). one root; indeed, if a is an invertible element, it follows that -a-lb is the
only root off(x). Now, suppose that the theoremi'~ {rue for all polynomials
Sincetheleadingcoefficientofg(x) is in vertible, itfollowsthat q'(x) - q(~J.~ O
of degree n - 1 and let degf(x) = n. Irf(x) h~;'a root a, the preceding
if and only if r(x) - r'(x) = O. With this in mind, letq'(x) - q(x{~f. O.
corollary gives f(x) = (x - a)q(x), where the polynomial q(x) has degree
Knowing that b;,. is not a zero divisor of R, .... ,
n - 1. Any root a' of f(x) distinct from a must",necessarily be a root of
deg (q'(x) - q(x»g(x) = deg (ql(X) - q(x)) + deg g(x) . q(x) for, by substitution,
~ deg g(x) > deg (r(x) - rl(x»)¡
O = fea') = (a - al)q(a)
a contradiction; the last inequality relies on the fact that the degr~es of
and, since R has no zero divisors, q(a') = O. From our induction hypothesis,
r(x) and r'(x) are both less than the degree of g(x). Thus, q'(x) = q(x), .which
q(x) has at most n - 1 distinct roots. As the oniy roots of f(x) are a and
in turn implies that r'(x) = r(x). .
I those of q(x),J(x) cannot possess more than n distinct roots in R.
The polynomials q(x) and r(x)appearing in the division algorithm are
With this step forward we can establish
called, respectively, the quotient and remainder on dividing f(x) by g(x).
In this connection, it is important to observe that if g(x) is a monic poly- . CoroUary 1. Letf(x) and g(x) be two n.onzero polynomials of degree n
nomial, or if R is taken to be a field, one need not assume that the leading over the integral domain R. If there exist n + 1 distínct elements
coefficient of g(x) is invertible. ak e R (k = 1, 2, ... ,n + 1) such that f(a k ) = g(ak ), then f(x) = g(x).
. ~ .,' 124 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
p,roof. The p,olynomial h(x) = f(x) - g(x) is such ,that deg h(x) ::;; n and,
by supposition, has at least n + 1 distinct roots in R., This is ,impossible
unless h(x) = 0, whencef(x) = g(x).
Corollary 2. Let f(x) E R[x], where R is an integral domain, and 'let S
,be any infinite subset of R. Uf(a) = O for al1 a E S, thenf(x) is the zero
poly:ÍJ.omial.
.. ¡. ~
Example.7-2. Consider the polynomial x P - x E Z P [x], where P is a prime
number.',Now, the nonzero elements of Z p form a commutative group under
muItipliéation of order P - 1. Hence, we have aP - 1 = 1, or aP = a for
every a 'lo. This is equal1y true if a = O. Our ex.ample shows that it may
very we'Ifhappen that every element of the underlying ring is a root of a
polynOIi~¡~I, yet the polynomiaJ is noi zero. "
wih;::ihe Division Algorithm at out disposal, we can prove that the
J:
ring Fi}: is rich in' s t r u c t u r e . , ' factored uniquely). Let a, b be the leading coefficients of PI (x),qi:(X), respec-
The~r~m 7-10. The polynomial ring F[x], where F is a field, forms a
Euc1idean dornain. ' g(x) = af(x) -, bpI(X)Xn- mq2(X)'" q.(x). "
Proqf. As has been noted, F[x] is an integral domain. Moreover, the
function Ó defined by ó(!(x») = degf(x) for any nonzero f(x) E F[x] is a
suitable Euclidean valuation. Only condition (2) of Definition 6-6 fails to
be immediate. But if f(x) and g(x) are two' nonzero polynomials in F[x],
Theorem 7-5 implies that
ó(J(x)g(x») = deg (J(x)g(x»)
= degf(x) + deg g(x) ~ degf(x) = ó(!(x») ,
since deg g(x) ~ O. Thus, the function Ó satisfies the requisiteproperties of
a Euc1idean valuation.
The reader is no doubt anticipating the corol1ary below.
Corollary. F[ x] is a principal ideal domain; hence, a unique factoriza-
tion domain.
For a less existential proof of the fact that F[x] is a principal ideal
domain and a considerably more precise descripÍion of its ideals, one can
repeat (with appropriate modifications) the pedestrian argument used in
Theorem 2-3. It will appear that any non trivial ideal l of F[ x] is of the
form l = (!(x»), wheref(x) is a nonzero polynomial ofminimal degree in l.
Sin ce a field is trivial1y a unique factorization domain, part of the last
corolJary couid be regarded as a special case of the coming theorem.
Theorem 7-11. If R is a unique factorization domain,'then so is R[x].
-----_._----
POL YNOMIAL RINGS 125
Proof. Suppose that R[x] is not a unique factorization dornain and let S
be the set of al1 nonconstant polynornials in R[x] which do not have a
unique factorization into irreducible elements. Select f(x) E S to be of
minimal degree. We may assurne that '
f(x) =;= PI(X)P2(X) '" Pr(x) = ql(X)q2(X) '" q.(x),
where the p¡(x) and qj(x) are a11 irreducible and
m = deg PI (x) ~ deg pix) ~ ... ~ deg Pr(x), •...::'
n.= deg ql(X) ~ deg q2(X) ~ ... ~ deg q.(x),
, ,
with n ~, m > O; it is further evident that ~OPi(X) = uq,(~) for any
in vertible element u (otherwise, the polynomial obtained on di~iding f(x)
by qJx) will have unique factorization; tbis implies that f(x) can also be
tively, and d e f i n e : > : , :
~:.
On one hand, wehave
g(x) = aPI(x)P2(x) ... pAx) - bpI(X)Xn- mq2(X) ... q.(x)
. = pI(x)(apix) ... Pr(x) - bxn-mqix) ... q.(x»),
and, on the other hand,
g(x) = aql(x)q2(X) ... q.(x) - bpI(X)Xn- m q2(X) ... q.(x) ,
~ (aql(x) - bpI(X)xn-m)q2(X) ... qs(x):
Now, either g(x) = 0, which forces aql(x) = bPI(X)Xn- m, or else deg g(x) <
degf(x). In the latter event, g(x) must possess a unique factorization into
irreducibles, sorne of which are qix), ... , q.(x) and PI (x). The net resuIt of
this is that PI(X)/g(x), but PI(X) f q¡(x) for i > 1, so that
PI(x)/(aql(x)- bpI(X)Xn- m ),
and therefore p¡(x)/aql(x). In either of the two cases considered we are
able to conc1ude that PI(X) divides the product aql(x); this b~irig so,
aql(x) = PI(x)h(x) for so me polynomial h(x) E R[xJ. Since R is taken to be
a unique factorization domain, a has a unique factoriiation as a product of
irreducible elements of R - hence, of R[ x] - say, a = C C '" C ,w here each
. . d 'b' [] I 2 k
C¡ 1S me UC1 le m R x. (The only factorizations of a as an element of
R[x] are those it had as an element of R.) Argtiing from the representatlon
C I C 2 ... ckql(X) = PI (x)h(x),
. ~ .,' 124 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
p,roof. The p,olynomial h(x) = f(x) - g(x) is such ,that deg h(x) ::;; n and,
by supposition, has at least n + 1 distinct roots in R., This is ,impossible
unless h(x) = 0, whencef(x) = g(x).
Corollary 2. Let f(x) E R[x], where R is an integral domain, and 'let S
,be any infinite subset of R. Uf(a) = O for al1 a E S, thenf(x) is the zero
poly:ÍJ.omial.
.. ¡. ~
Example.7-2. Consider the polynomial x P - x E Z P [x], where P is a prime
number.',Now, the nonzero elements of Z p form a commutative group under
muItipliéation of order P - 1. Hence, we have aP - 1 = 1, or aP = a for
every a 'lo. This is equal1y true if a = O. Our ex.ample shows that it may
very we'Ifhappen that every element of the underlying ring is a root of a
polynOIi~¡~I, yet the polynomiaJ is noi zero. "
wih;::ihe Division Algorithm at out disposal, we can prove that the
J:
ring Fi}: is rich in' s t r u c t u r e . , ' factored uniquely). Let a, b be the leading coefficients of PI (x),qi:(X), respec-
The~r~m 7-10. The polynomial ring F[x], where F is a field, forms a
Euc1idean dornain. ' g(x) = af(x) -, bpI(X)Xn- mq2(X)'" q.(x). "
Proqf. As has been noted, F[x] is an integral domain. Moreover, the
function Ó defined by ó(!(x») = degf(x) for any nonzero f(x) E F[x] is a
suitable Euclidean valuation. Only condition (2) of Definition 6-6 fails to
be immediate. But if f(x) and g(x) are two' nonzero polynomials in F[x],
Theorem 7-5 implies that
ó(J(x)g(x») = deg (J(x)g(x»)
= degf(x) + deg g(x) ~ degf(x) = ó(!(x») ,
since deg g(x) ~ O. Thus, the function Ó satisfies the requisiteproperties of
a Euc1idean valuation.
The reader is no doubt anticipating the corol1ary below.
Corollary. F[ x] is a principal ideal domain; hence, a unique factoriza-
tion domain.
For a less existential proof of the fact that F[x] is a principal ideal
domain and a considerably more precise descripÍion of its ideals, one can
repeat (with appropriate modifications) the pedestrian argument used in
Theorem 2-3. It will appear that any non trivial ideal l of F[ x] is of the
form l = (!(x»), wheref(x) is a nonzero polynomial ofminimal degree in l.
Sin ce a field is trivial1y a unique factorization domain, part of the last
corolJary couid be regarded as a special case of the coming theorem.
Theorem 7-11. If R is a unique factorization domain,'then so is R[x].
-----_._----
POL YNOMIAL RINGS 125
Proof. Suppose that R[x] is not a unique factorization dornain and let S
be the set of al1 nonconstant polynornials in R[x] which do not have a
unique factorization into irreducible elements. Select f(x) E S to be of
minimal degree. We may assurne that '
f(x) =;= PI(X)P2(X) '" Pr(x) = ql(X)q2(X) '" q.(x),
where the p¡(x) and qj(x) are a11 irreducible and
m = deg PI (x) ~ deg pix) ~ ... ~ deg Pr(x), •...::'
n.= deg ql(X) ~ deg q2(X) ~ ... ~ deg q.(x),
, ,
with n ~, m > O; it is further evident that ~OPi(X) = uq,(~) for any
in vertible element u (otherwise, the polynomial obtained on di~iding f(x)
by qJx) will have unique factorization; tbis implies that f(x) can also be
tively, and d e f i n e : > : , :
~:.
On one hand, wehave
g(x) = aPI(x)P2(x) ... pAx) - bpI(X)Xn- mq2(X) ... q.(x)
. = pI(x)(apix) ... Pr(x) - bxn-mqix) ... q.(x»),
and, on the other hand,
g(x) = aql(x)q2(X) ... q.(x) - bpI(X)Xn- m q2(X) ... q.(x) ,
~ (aql(x) - bpI(X)xn-m)q2(X) ... qs(x):
Now, either g(x) = 0, which forces aql(x) = bPI(X)Xn- m, or else deg g(x) <
degf(x). In the latter event, g(x) must possess a unique factorization into
irreducibles, sorne of which are qix), ... , q.(x) and PI (x). The net resuIt of
this is that PI(X)/g(x), but PI(X) f q¡(x) for i > 1, so that
PI(x)/(aql(x)- bpI(X)Xn- m ),
and therefore p¡(x)/aql(x). In either of the two cases considered we are
able to conc1ude that PI(X) divides the product aql(x); this b~irig so,
aql(x) = PI(x)h(x) for so me polynomial h(x) E R[xJ. Since R is taken to be
a unique factorization domain, a has a unique factoriiation as a product of
irreducible elements of R - hence, of R[ x] - say, a = C C '" C ,w here each
. . d 'b' [] I 2 k
C¡ 1S me UC1 le m R x. (The only factorizations of a as an element of
R[x] are those it had as an element of R.) Argtiing from the representatlon
C I C 2 ... ckql(X) = PI (x)h(x),
 126 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
with p¡(X) an irreducible, it fo11ows that each C¡ and, in consequence, the
element a divides h(x). But, then,
aq¡(x) = p¡(x)ah¡(x)
for sorne h¡(x) in R[x] or, upon canceling, q¡(x) = p¡(x)h¡(x); in other
words, p¡(x)lq¡(x). Using the irreducibility of q¡(x) as a member of R[x], '
p¡(x) must be an associate of q¡(x). However, this conflicts with our original
assumptions. Thus, we see that R[x] is indeed a unique factorization
domain.
Remark. For many years, it was an open question as to whether a power
series ring over a unique factorization domain is again a unique factorization
domain; a negative answer was established not long ago by Samuel [55].
To this we might add, Qn the positive side, that one can prove that the ring
of formal power series oyer a principal ideal domain does in fact comprise
a unique factorization domain (a not altogether trivial task).
Coming back to the coro11ary to Theorem 7-10, there is an interesting
converse which deserves mention: namely, if R is an integral domain such
that the polynomial ring R[xJ forms a principal ideal domain, then R is
necessarily a freId. In verifying this, the main point to be proved is that any
--fo
nonzero element a E R is invertible in R. By virtue of our hypothesis, the
ideal generated by x and a must be principal; for instance,
(x, a) = (j(x)), o =1= f(x) E R[x].
Since both x, a E (j(x)), it fo11ows that
a = g(x)f(x), and x = h(x)f(x)
for suitable g(x), h(x) in R[~J The first of these relations signifies that
degf(x) = O, say f(x) = ao;'ilrid as a result deg h(x) = 1, say h(x) = bo +
b¡x (b¡ =1= O). We thus obt~in' x = ao(b o + b¡x). But this means that the
product aob¡ = 1, therebY,making ao (or, equivalently, f(x») an invertible
element of R. The implicatión is that the ideal (x, a) is the entire ring R[x].
It is therefore possible to write the identity element in the form
1:b: xk¡(x) + ak 2 (x),
with the two polynomials k¡(x), kix) E R[x]. This can only happen if
ac o = 1, where Co =1= O is thé constant term of kix). In consequence, the
element a has a multiplicative inverse in R, which settles the whole affair.
At the heart of a11 the interesting questions on factorization in R[x]
lies the idea of an irreducible polynomial, which we formulate in a rather
general way as fo11ows:
Definition 7-4. Let R be an integral domain. A nonconstant poly-
nomialf(x) E R[x] is said to be irreducible over R, or is an irreducible
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 127
polynomial in R[ x], if f(x) cannot be expressed as the product of two
polynomials (in R[x]) of positive degree. Otherwise, f(x) is termed
reducible in R[x].
In the case of the principal ideal domain F[x], where F is a freId, the
irreducible polynomials are precisely the irreducible elements of F[ x] (reca11
that the in vertible elements of the polynomial ring F[x] are just the non-
zero constant polynomials); by Theorem 5-9, these coincide with the prime
elements of F[x]. Of the equivalent notions, irreducible polynomial,
irreducible element, and prime element, the term "irreducible polynomial"
is the one customarily preferred for F[x]'
Perhaps we should emphasize that Definition 7--4 applies only to poly-
nomials of positive degree; the constant polynomials are neither reducible
nor irreducible. Thus, the factorization theory of F[x] concerns only
polynomials of degree ~ 1.
The dependence of Definition 7-4 upon the polynomial domain R[x]
is essential. It may very we11 happen that a given polynomial is irreducible
when viewedas an element of one domain, yet reducible in another. One
such example is the polynomial X2 + 1; it is irreducible in R #[x], but
¡'~ducible in both C[x], where X2 + 1 = (x + i)(x - n,
and Z2[X], where
x + 1 = (x + l)(x + 1). Thus, to ask merely whether a polynomial is
irreducible, without specifying the coefficient ring involved, is incomplete
and meaningless.
More often than not, it is a formidable task to decide when a given
polynomial is irreducible over a specific ringo If F is a finite field, say one
of the fields of integers modulo a prime, we may actually examine a11 of the
possible roots. To cite a simple illustration, the polynomial f(x) = x 3 +
X + 1 is'irreducible in Z2[X]. Ifthere are any factors ofthis polynomial,
at least:one must be linear. But the only possible roots for f(x) are O and 1, , .; :~:
yetf(O) .~ f(l) = 1 =1= O, showing that no roots exist in Z2'
Exampl~ 7-3. Any linear polynomial ax + b, a =1= O, is irreducible in R[x],
where R ís an integral domain. Indeed, since the degree of a product of two
polynomials is the sum of the degree of the factors, it fo11ows that a
representation
ax + b = g(x)h(x), g(x), h(x) E R[x],
with 1 s deg g(x), 1 s deg h(x) (S impbssible. This signifies that every
reducible polynomial has degree at least 2.
Example 7-4. The polynomial X2 - 2 is irreducible in Q[x], where Q as
usual is the field of rational numbers. Otherwise, we would have
X2 - 2 = (ax + b) (cx + d)
= (ac)x 2 + (ad + bc)x + bd,
 126 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
with p¡(X) an irreducible, it fo11ows that each C¡ and, in consequence, the
element a divides h(x). But, then,
aq¡(x) = p¡(x)ah¡(x)
for sorne h¡(x) in R[x] or, upon canceling, q¡(x) = p¡(x)h¡(x); in other
words, p¡(x)lq¡(x). Using the irreducibility of q¡(x) as a member of R[x], '
p¡(x) must be an associate of q¡(x). However, this conflicts with our original
assumptions. Thus, we see that R[x] is indeed a unique factorization
domain.
Remark. For many years, it was an open question as to whether a power
series ring over a unique factorization domain is again a unique factorization
domain; a negative answer was established not long ago by Samuel [55].
To this we might add, Qn the positive side, that one can prove that the ring
of formal power series oyer a principal ideal domain does in fact comprise
a unique factorization domain (a not altogether trivial task).
Coming back to the coro11ary to Theorem 7-10, there is an interesting
converse which deserves mention: namely, if R is an integral domain such
that the polynomial ring R[xJ forms a principal ideal domain, then R is
necessarily a freId. In verifying this, the main point to be proved is that any
--fo
nonzero element a E R is invertible in R. By virtue of our hypothesis, the
ideal generated by x and a must be principal; for instance,
(x, a) = (j(x)), o =1= f(x) E R[x].
Since both x, a E (j(x)), it fo11ows that
a = g(x)f(x), and x = h(x)f(x)
for suitable g(x), h(x) in R[~J The first of these relations signifies that
degf(x) = O, say f(x) = ao;'ilrid as a result deg h(x) = 1, say h(x) = bo +
b¡x (b¡ =1= O). We thus obt~in' x = ao(b o + b¡x). But this means that the
product aob¡ = 1, therebY,making ao (or, equivalently, f(x») an invertible
element of R. The implicatión is that the ideal (x, a) is the entire ring R[x].
It is therefore possible to write the identity element in the form
1:b: xk¡(x) + ak 2 (x),
with the two polynomials k¡(x), kix) E R[x]. This can only happen if
ac o = 1, where Co =1= O is thé constant term of kix). In consequence, the
element a has a multiplicative inverse in R, which settles the whole affair.
At the heart of a11 the interesting questions on factorization in R[x]
lies the idea of an irreducible polynomial, which we formulate in a rather
general way as fo11ows:
Definition 7-4. Let R be an integral domain. A nonconstant poly-
nomialf(x) E R[x] is said to be irreducible over R, or is an irreducible
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 127
polynomial in R[ x], if f(x) cannot be expressed as the product of two
polynomials (in R[x]) of positive degree. Otherwise, f(x) is termed
reducible in R[x].
In the case of the principal ideal domain F[x], where F is a freId, the
irreducible polynomials are precisely the irreducible elements of F[ x] (reca11
that the in vertible elements of the polynomial ring F[x] are just the non-
zero constant polynomials); by Theorem 5-9, these coincide with the prime
elements of F[x]. Of the equivalent notions, irreducible polynomial,
irreducible element, and prime element, the term "irreducible polynomial"
is the one customarily preferred for F[x]'
Perhaps we should emphasize that Definition 7--4 applies only to poly-
nomials of positive degree; the constant polynomials are neither reducible
nor irreducible. Thus, the factorization theory of F[x] concerns only
polynomials of degree ~ 1.
The dependence of Definition 7-4 upon the polynomial domain R[x]
is essential. It may very we11 happen that a given polynomial is irreducible
when viewedas an element of one domain, yet reducible in another. One
such example is the polynomial X2 + 1; it is irreducible in R #[x], but
¡'~ducible in both C[x], where X2 + 1 = (x + i)(x - n,
and Z2[X], where
x + 1 = (x + l)(x + 1). Thus, to ask merely whether a polynomial is
irreducible, without specifying the coefficient ring involved, is incomplete
and meaningless.
More often than not, it is a formidable task to decide when a given
polynomial is irreducible over a specific ringo If F is a finite field, say one
of the fields of integers modulo a prime, we may actually examine a11 of the
possible roots. To cite a simple illustration, the polynomial f(x) = x 3 +
X + 1 is'irreducible in Z2[X]. Ifthere are any factors ofthis polynomial,
at least:one must be linear. But the only possible roots for f(x) are O and 1, , .; :~:
yetf(O) .~ f(l) = 1 =1= O, showing that no roots exist in Z2'
Exampl~ 7-3. Any linear polynomial ax + b, a =1= O, is irreducible in R[x],
where R ís an integral domain. Indeed, since the degree of a product of two
polynomials is the sum of the degree of the factors, it fo11ows that a
representation
ax + b = g(x)h(x), g(x), h(x) E R[x],
with 1 s deg g(x), 1 s deg h(x) (S impbssible. This signifies that every
reducible polynomial has degree at least 2.
Example 7-4. The polynomial X2 - 2 is irreducible in Q[x], where Q as
usual is the field of rational numbers. Otherwise, we would have
X2 - 2 = (ax + b) (cx + d)
= (ac)x 2 + (ad + bc)x + bd,
 128 FIRST COURSE IN RINOS AND IDEALS
with the coefflcients a, b, c,d E Q. Accordingly,
ac 1, ad + bc 0, bd - 2,
whence c = l/a, d =- 2/b. Substituting in the relation ad + bc
obtain
o= 2a/b + b/a ( - 2a
2
+ bt)/ab.
- =
Thus -2.a + b = 0, or (b/a)2 = 2, which is im,~ossible beca use ')2 is
2 2
not a'rational number. Although irreducible in Q[xlthe polynomial X2
isnonethelessreducibleinR#[x];inthiscase,x2 -2.,.= (x - JfJ(x +
2
and both fáctors are in R#[x]' , ck = a - bi is also a root offCx). Thus,
For ease of reference more than to present rie!y concepts, let us sum-
marize in the next theorem some of the results of prévious chapters (specifi-
cally, Theorems 5-5 and ~7) as applied to the pr~P,9pal ideal domain F[x]'
Theorem 7-12. If F is a fiéld, the Collowing s~~tements are equiva~ent:
1) f(x) is ari irreducible polynomial in F[x];J
2) the principal ideal (f(x») is a maximal (prime) ideal oC F[ x];
3) the quotient ring F[ ~]/(f(x») forms a field.
The theorem on prime Cactorization of polynomials is stated now.
Theorem 7-13. (Unique Factorization in F[x]). Each polynomial
f(x) E F[x] ,oC positive degree is the product of a nonzero element of
F and irreducible monic polynomials oC F[x]. Apart from the order
of the factors, this factorization is unique.
Sufflce it to say, Theorem 7-13 can be marle more explicit for particular
polynomialdomains. When we deal with polynomials over the complex
numbers, the crucial tool is the Fundamental
. ' " . Theorem of Algebra.
Theorem 7-14. (The Fundamental Theorem of AIgebra). Let C be. the
fieId of complex numbers. If f(x) E C[x] ls a polynomial oC positive
degree, thenf(x) has at least one root in C.
Although many proofs ofthe result are available, none is strictly algebraic
in nature' thus we shall assume the vatidity ofTheorem 7-14 withoui prooC.
The reader win experience tittle difficulty, however, in establishing the
following corollary.
Corollary 1. If f(x) E C[xJ is a polynomial of degree n: > O, then f(x)
can be expressed in C[x] as a product of n (not necessarily distinct)
linear factors.
Another way of stating the corollary aboye is that the only irreducible
polynomials in C[x] are the linear polynomials. Directing our attention
POL'¡NOMIA~ RINGS 129
now to the real field, we can obtain the form of the prime factorization in
R#[x] (bear in mind that polynomials with coeflicients from R# are poly-
'1 nomials in C[x] and therefore have..rootsin C).
= 0, we I
,1 Corollary 2. If f(x) E R#[x] is of positive degree, then f(x) can be
factored into linearand irreducible quadratic factors.
I
Proo! Sincef(x) also belongÚo C[x],f(x) factors in C[x] into a product
of linear polynomiaIs x - c~, CkE C. If CkER#, then x Ck ER#[x].
J'2) Otherwise, Ck = a a; +:
+ bi, whe~~ bE R# and b O. But the.complex roots
of real polynomials Occur in conjugate pairs (Problem 7-11), so that
(x -ck ) (x - Ck)";~ X2 - 2ax + (a 2 + b 2 )ER!I![x]
is a factor of f(x). The qg:~ratic polynomi(!.l X2 - 2ax + (a 2 + b2) i8
irreducible in R#[x], since 'Ji¡Y'factorization in R#[x] is al so valid in C[x]
anrl (x - ck ) (x - ck ) Is its"itnlque factorization in C[xJ.
·',.r
An interesting remark, tobe recorded without prooÚis that if F is a
finite field, the ·polynomial ririg F[x] contains irreducible polynomials of
every degree (see Theorem 9-10).
This may be a convenient place to introduce the notion of a primitive
polynomial.
Definition 7-5. Let R be a unique factorization domain. The content·
of a nonconstant polynomial f(x) a o + a1x + ... + a" X" E R[x],
denoted by the syinbol contf(x), is defined too be the greatest common
divisor of Its :coefficients:
contf(x) = gcd (ao, al' '" , an ).
We cal1.f(x;) ª primitive polynomial jC contf(x) = 1.
Viewed otherwise, Definition 7-5 asserts that a polynomialf(x) E R[x]
is primitive if and only ir there is no irreducible element of R which divides
all oC its coeflicients. In this connection, it may be noted that in the domain
F[x] of polynomials with coefficients from a field F, every nonconstant
polynomial ls primitive (indéed, there are no primes in F). The reader should
also take care to' remember that the notion of greatest common divisor and,
in consequence, the .content of a polynomial is not determined uniquely,
I but determined only to within associates. ,
Given a polynomialf(x) E R[x] ofpositive degree, it is possible to wríte
f(x) = Cfl(X), where c E R and fl(X) is primitive; simply letc = contf(x).
To a certain extent this reduces the question,of factorization in R[x] (at
least, when R is a unique factorization domain) to that of primitive poly-
nomials. By way of specific iIIustrations, we observe that f(x) = 3x 3 _
 128 FIRST COURSE IN RINOS AND IDEALS
with the coefflcients a, b, c,d E Q. Accordingly,
ac 1, ad + bc 0, bd - 2,
whence c = l/a, d =- 2/b. Substituting in the relation ad + bc
obtain
o= 2a/b + b/a ( - 2a
2
+ bt)/ab.
- =
Thus -2.a + b = 0, or (b/a)2 = 2, which is im,~ossible beca use ')2 is
2 2
not a'rational number. Although irreducible in Q[xlthe polynomial X2
isnonethelessreducibleinR#[x];inthiscase,x2 -2.,.= (x - JfJ(x +
2
and both fáctors are in R#[x]' , ck = a - bi is also a root offCx). Thus,
For ease of reference more than to present rie!y concepts, let us sum-
marize in the next theorem some of the results of prévious chapters (specifi-
cally, Theorems 5-5 and ~7) as applied to the pr~P,9pal ideal domain F[x]'
Theorem 7-12. If F is a fiéld, the Collowing s~~tements are equiva~ent:
1) f(x) is ari irreducible polynomial in F[x];J
2) the principal ideal (f(x») is a maximal (prime) ideal oC F[ x];
3) the quotient ring F[ ~]/(f(x») forms a field.
The theorem on prime Cactorization of polynomials is stated now.
Theorem 7-13. (Unique Factorization in F[x]). Each polynomial
f(x) E F[x] ,oC positive degree is the product of a nonzero element of
F and irreducible monic polynomials oC F[x]. Apart from the order
of the factors, this factorization is unique.
Sufflce it to say, Theorem 7-13 can be marle more explicit for particular
polynomialdomains. When we deal with polynomials over the complex
numbers, the crucial tool is the Fundamental
. ' " . Theorem of Algebra.
Theorem 7-14. (The Fundamental Theorem of AIgebra). Let C be. the
fieId of complex numbers. If f(x) E C[x] ls a polynomial oC positive
degree, thenf(x) has at least one root in C.
Although many proofs ofthe result are available, none is strictly algebraic
in nature' thus we shall assume the vatidity ofTheorem 7-14 withoui prooC.
The reader win experience tittle difficulty, however, in establishing the
following corollary.
Corollary 1. If f(x) E C[xJ is a polynomial of degree n: > O, then f(x)
can be expressed in C[x] as a product of n (not necessarily distinct)
linear factors.
Another way of stating the corollary aboye is that the only irreducible
polynomials in C[x] are the linear polynomials. Directing our attention
POL'¡NOMIA~ RINGS 129
now to the real field, we can obtain the form of the prime factorization in
R#[x] (bear in mind that polynomials with coeflicients from R# are poly-
'1 nomials in C[x] and therefore have..rootsin C).
= 0, we I
,1 Corollary 2. If f(x) E R#[x] is of positive degree, then f(x) can be
factored into linearand irreducible quadratic factors.
I
Proo! Sincef(x) also belongÚo C[x],f(x) factors in C[x] into a product
of linear polynomiaIs x - c~, CkE C. If CkER#, then x Ck ER#[x].
J'2) Otherwise, Ck = a a; +:
+ bi, whe~~ bE R# and b O. But the.complex roots
of real polynomials Occur in conjugate pairs (Problem 7-11), so that
(x -ck ) (x - Ck)";~ X2 - 2ax + (a 2 + b 2 )ER!I![x]
is a factor of f(x). The qg:~ratic polynomi(!.l X2 - 2ax + (a 2 + b2) i8
irreducible in R#[x], since 'Ji¡Y'factorization in R#[x] is al so valid in C[x]
anrl (x - ck ) (x - ck ) Is its"itnlque factorization in C[xJ.
·',.r
An interesting remark, tobe recorded without prooÚis that if F is a
finite field, the ·polynomial ririg F[x] contains irreducible polynomials of
every degree (see Theorem 9-10).
This may be a convenient place to introduce the notion of a primitive
polynomial.
Definition 7-5. Let R be a unique factorization domain. The content·
of a nonconstant polynomial f(x) a o + a1x + ... + a" X" E R[x],
denoted by the syinbol contf(x), is defined too be the greatest common
divisor of Its :coefficients:
contf(x) = gcd (ao, al' '" , an ).
We cal1.f(x;) ª primitive polynomial jC contf(x) = 1.
Viewed otherwise, Definition 7-5 asserts that a polynomialf(x) E R[x]
is primitive if and only ir there is no irreducible element of R which divides
all oC its coeflicients. In this connection, it may be noted that in the domain
F[x] of polynomials with coefficients from a field F, every nonconstant
polynomial ls primitive (indéed, there are no primes in F). The reader should
also take care to' remember that the notion of greatest common divisor and,
in consequence, the .content of a polynomial is not determined uniquely,
I but determined only to within associates. ,
Given a polynomialf(x) E R[x] ofpositive degree, it is possible to wríte
f(x) = Cfl(X), where c E R and fl(X) is primitive; simply letc = contf(x).
To a certain extent this reduces the question,of factorization in R[x] (at
least, when R is a unique factorization domain) to that of primitive poly-
nomials. By way of specific iIIustrations, we observe that f(x) = 3x 3 _
 130 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
4x + 35 is a primitivepolynomial in Z[x], while g(x) = 12x2 + 6x - 3 =
3(4x 2 + 2x :.... 1) is not a primitive element of the same, since g(x) has
content 3.
Here is another new concept: Suppose that l is a (proper) ideal of R, a
commutative ring with identity. There is an obvious mapping v: R[x] ~
(RIlJ[x]; for any polynomialf(x) E R[x] simply apply nat¡ to the coefficients
off(x), s,o that
v(J(x)) = (a o + l) + (al + l)x + ... + (a n + l)xn,
or, more briefiy, v(J(x)) = ~::<nat¡ak)xk. The reader will encounter no
difficulty in verifying that v, defined in this way, is a homomorphism of
R[x] onto (Rjl)[x], the so-called reduction homomorphism modulo l. The
polynomial v(J(x)) is ~aid to be the reduction of f(x) modulo 1.
Although it might s~m to be rather special, the reduction homomorpl:lÍsm
will serve us in good stead on several occasions. We make immediate use
of it to characterize prirnitive polynomials.
Theorem 7-15. Let R be a unique factorization domain and let f(x) =
ao + alx + :.. + a.x n E R[x], with degf(x) > O. Then f(x) is a
primitive polynomial in R[x] if and only if, for each prime element
pE R, the reduction of f(x) modulo the principal ideal(p) is nonzero.
Proof. By definition, the reduction ofj(x) modulo (p) is
v(J(x)) = (a o + (p)) + (al + (p))x + ... + (a n + (p))xn.
Thus, to say that v(J(x)) = Ofor sorne prime p E R is equivalent't9 asserting
that ak E (p), or rather, plak for all k. But the latter condition' signifies that
contf(x) =1= 1; hence,f(x) is not primitive. " ¡:
One of the most crucial facts conceming primitive p~jynomials is
Gauss's Lemma, which we prove n e x t . ' iY
_ Theorem 7-16. (Gauss's Lemma). Let R be a unique,' factorization
!- domain. Iff(x), g(x) are both primitive polynomials in R[~], then their
productf(x)g(x) is also primitive in R[xJ. . emphasize thatfl(x) is of the same degreé as f(x), so cannot be invertible
Proof. Given a prime element pE R, (p) is a prime ideal of R, whence the
quotient ring R' = Rj(p) forms an integral domain. We next consider the
reduction homomorphism v modulo the principal ideal (p). Since R'[x] is
an integral domain, it follows that the reduction of f(x)g(x) cannot be the
zero polynomial :
v(J(x)g(x)) = v(J(x))v(g(x)) =1= O.
. The assertion of the theorem is now a direct consequence of our last resulto
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 131
Corollary. If R is aunique factorization domain andf(x), g(x) E R[x],
then
cont (J(x)g(x)) = contf(x) cont g(x).
Proof. As noted earlier, we can write f(x) = afl(x), g(x) = bgl(x), where
a = contf(x), b = cont g(x) and where fl(X), gl(X) are primitive in R[xJ.
Therefore,f(x)g(x) = abfl (x)g 1(x). According to the theorem, the product
fl(X)gl(X) is a primitive polynomial of R[x]. This entails that the content
off(x)g(x) is simply ab, or, what amounts to the samething, contf(x) cont g(x).
Any unique factorization domain R, being an integral domain, possesses
a field of quotients K = Qcl(R) and we may consider the ring of polynomials
R[ x] as imbedded in the polynomial ring K[ x]. The next theorem deals
with the relation between the irreducibility of a polynomial in R[x] as
compared to its irreducibility when considered as an element of the larger
ring K[ x]. ([he c1assic example of this situation is, of course, the poly-
nomial domain Z[x] S; Q[xJ.) Before concentrating our efforts on this
relationship, we require a preliminary lemma.
Lemma. Let R be a unique factorization domain, with field of quotients
K. Given a nonconstant polynomialf(x) E K[x], there exist (nonzero)
elements a, bE R and a primitive polynomial fl(X) in R[x] such that
f(x) = ab-Ifl(X).
Furthermore,fl(x) is unique up to invertible elements of Ras factors.
Proof. Inasmuch.as K is the field of quotients of R,J(x) can be written in the
form
o
f(x) = (aob l ) + (alb11)x + ... + (anbn-l)x n,
where a¡, b¡ E R and b¡ =1= O. Take b to b;ni~y common multiple of the b,'
for instance, b = bob l ... bn. Then b f"O and, since the coefficients ~f
bf(x) alllie in R, we have bf(x) = g(x) E ~tx]. Accordingly,
f(x) = b-lg(x) = ab-Ifl(X),
where fl(X) E R[x] is a primitive polyn,bmial and a = cont g(x). We
in R[x].
As for uniqueness, suppose thatf(x) = ab-Ifl(X) = ca- If2(X) are two
representations that satisfy the conditions of the theorem. Then,
adfl(x) = bcfz{x).
Since fl(X) and f2(X) are both primitive, the corollary to Gauss's L~mma
implies that we must have ad = ubc for sorne invertible element u E R.
In consequence, fl(X) = Uf2(X), showing that fl(X) is unique to within
invertible factors in R.
 130 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
4x + 35 is a primitivepolynomial in Z[x], while g(x) = 12x2 + 6x - 3 =
3(4x 2 + 2x :.... 1) is not a primitive element of the same, since g(x) has
content 3.
Here is another new concept: Suppose that l is a (proper) ideal of R, a
commutative ring with identity. There is an obvious mapping v: R[x] ~
(RIlJ[x]; for any polynomialf(x) E R[x] simply apply nat¡ to the coefficients
off(x), s,o that
v(J(x)) = (a o + l) + (al + l)x + ... + (a n + l)xn,
or, more briefiy, v(J(x)) = ~::<nat¡ak)xk. The reader will encounter no
difficulty in verifying that v, defined in this way, is a homomorphism of
R[x] onto (Rjl)[x], the so-called reduction homomorphism modulo l. The
polynomial v(J(x)) is ~aid to be the reduction of f(x) modulo 1.
Although it might s~m to be rather special, the reduction homomorpl:lÍsm
will serve us in good stead on several occasions. We make immediate use
of it to characterize prirnitive polynomials.
Theorem 7-15. Let R be a unique factorization domain and let f(x) =
ao + alx + :.. + a.x n E R[x], with degf(x) > O. Then f(x) is a
primitive polynomial in R[x] if and only if, for each prime element
pE R, the reduction of f(x) modulo the principal ideal(p) is nonzero.
Proof. By definition, the reduction ofj(x) modulo (p) is
v(J(x)) = (a o + (p)) + (al + (p))x + ... + (a n + (p))xn.
Thus, to say that v(J(x)) = Ofor sorne prime p E R is equivalent't9 asserting
that ak E (p), or rather, plak for all k. But the latter condition' signifies that
contf(x) =1= 1; hence,f(x) is not primitive. " ¡:
One of the most crucial facts conceming primitive p~jynomials is
Gauss's Lemma, which we prove n e x t . ' iY
_ Theorem 7-16. (Gauss's Lemma). Let R be a unique,' factorization
!- domain. Iff(x), g(x) are both primitive polynomials in R[~], then their
productf(x)g(x) is also primitive in R[xJ. . emphasize thatfl(x) is of the same degreé as f(x), so cannot be invertible
Proof. Given a prime element pE R, (p) is a prime ideal of R, whence the
quotient ring R' = Rj(p) forms an integral domain. We next consider the
reduction homomorphism v modulo the principal ideal (p). Since R'[x] is
an integral domain, it follows that the reduction of f(x)g(x) cannot be the
zero polynomial :
v(J(x)g(x)) = v(J(x))v(g(x)) =1= O.
. The assertion of the theorem is now a direct consequence of our last resulto
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 131
Corollary. If R is aunique factorization domain andf(x), g(x) E R[x],
then
cont (J(x)g(x)) = contf(x) cont g(x).
Proof. As noted earlier, we can write f(x) = afl(x), g(x) = bgl(x), where
a = contf(x), b = cont g(x) and where fl(X), gl(X) are primitive in R[xJ.
Therefore,f(x)g(x) = abfl (x)g 1(x). According to the theorem, the product
fl(X)gl(X) is a primitive polynomial of R[x]. This entails that the content
off(x)g(x) is simply ab, or, what amounts to the samething, contf(x) cont g(x).
Any unique factorization domain R, being an integral domain, possesses
a field of quotients K = Qcl(R) and we may consider the ring of polynomials
R[ x] as imbedded in the polynomial ring K[ x]. The next theorem deals
with the relation between the irreducibility of a polynomial in R[x] as
compared to its irreducibility when considered as an element of the larger
ring K[ x]. ([he c1assic example of this situation is, of course, the poly-
nomial domain Z[x] S; Q[xJ.) Before concentrating our efforts on this
relationship, we require a preliminary lemma.
Lemma. Let R be a unique factorization domain, with field of quotients
K. Given a nonconstant polynomialf(x) E K[x], there exist (nonzero)
elements a, bE R and a primitive polynomial fl(X) in R[x] such that
f(x) = ab-Ifl(X).
Furthermore,fl(x) is unique up to invertible elements of Ras factors.
Proof. Inasmuch.as K is the field of quotients of R,J(x) can be written in the
form
o
f(x) = (aob l ) + (alb11)x + ... + (anbn-l)x n,
where a¡, b¡ E R and b¡ =1= O. Take b to b;ni~y common multiple of the b,'
for instance, b = bob l ... bn. Then b f"O and, since the coefficients ~f
bf(x) alllie in R, we have bf(x) = g(x) E ~tx]. Accordingly,
f(x) = b-lg(x) = ab-Ifl(X),
where fl(X) E R[x] is a primitive polyn,bmial and a = cont g(x). We
in R[x].
As for uniqueness, suppose thatf(x) = ab-Ifl(X) = ca- If2(X) are two
representations that satisfy the conditions of the theorem. Then,
adfl(x) = bcfz{x).
Since fl(X) and f2(X) are both primitive, the corollary to Gauss's L~mma
implies that we must have ad = ubc for sorne invertible element u E R.
In consequence, fl(X) = Uf2(X), showing that fl(X) is unique to within
invertible factors in R.
 FIRST COURSE IN RIN6S A:ND f·DEALS
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 133
132 .
Theorern 7-17. Let R be a unique factorization domain, with field of Now consider the reduction off(x) modulo the ideal P. Invoking hypothesis
quotients K. Iff(x) E R[x] is an irreducible primitive polynomial, then (2), it can be inferred that
it is also irreducible as an elernent of K[x]. . v(g(x»)v(h(x») = v(J(x») = (a n + P)x".
Proa! Assume to the contrary that f(x) is reducible over K. Then, Since tlfe polynomial ring (R/P)[.ic] comprises an integral domain, the only
f(x) g(x)h(x), where the polynomials g(x), h(x) are in K[x] and are of possible factorizations of (a n + P)x" are into linear factors. This being so,
positive degree. By virtue of the lemma just pro ven, a moment's refiection shows that
g(x) ~ ab-1g1(X), h(x) ea- 1h 1(x), v(g(x») = (br ,+ P)x',

with a, b, e, d E R anQ.~l(x), h1(x) primitivé in R[x]. Thus, v(h(x)) = (e. + f)x·.

',:':; bdf(x) = aeg1(x)h1(x). TIÍis mearts that the constant terms of these reductions are zero; that is,
. '-~, I +P = +P
Now, Gauss's Letnnl~~~sserts that the product gl(x)h1(x) is a primitlve
bo eo = P.
polynomialinR[x], Whbncef(x)andg1(x)h1(x) differ by aninvertibleelement l.\lt9gether we have proved that both bo, eo E P, reveaHng at the s.ame time ,.¡j:;:
ofR: .:,!. ' iháf ao = boco E p2, which is untenable by (3). Accordingly, no such
y;.. / . f(x) = ug1(x)h1(x). f;].9t~rization oC f(x) can occur, and f(x) is indeed irreduci,ple in R[ x J.

Since deg gl(X) = deg g(x) > O, deg h}{x) deg h(x) > O, the o¡¡tcome is
a nontrivial factorizatíon off(x) in R[x], contrary to hypothesis.
There is an obvious converse to Theorem 7-17, viz.: if the primitive
polynomiaI f(x) E R[x] is irreducible as an eIement oC K[x]: it is als.o
irreducible in R[xJ. This isjustmed by the fact that R[x] (or an lsomorphlc .
copy thereof) appears naturally as a subring oC' K [x] ; thus, if f(x) were
reducible in R[x], it would obviously be reducible in tbe larger ring K[x].
Our remarks lead to the following conclusion: Given a primitive poly-
nomial f(x) E R[x], R a unique factorization domain, f(x) is irredúcible in
R[x] if and only iff(x) is irreducible in K[xJ. '.,
Our next concern is a generalízation oC a famous theorem of Elsenstem
dealíng with the problem oC irreducibility (this result is oL fundamental
importance in the c1assical theory of polynomials with integral coefficients).
The generalization which wehave in mind is formulated below.
Theorem 7-18. Let R be an integral domain and the nonconstant
Theorem '7-18 leads almost immediately to the Eisenstein test for
. irredtÍcibility.
CoroUary. (The Eisenstein Criterion).. Let R be a unique factorization
domain and K be its field .of quotients. Letf(x) = ao + a1 x + '" +
anx" be a nonconstant polynomial in R[xJ. Suppose further ,that for
tan'
sorne prime ¡j E R, p t
plak Cor O :;;; k < n, and p2 ari. Then,j(x) is
irreducible in K[xJ.
Proa! We already know tbat (p) is a prime ideal of R. Taking stock of
the theorem,J(x) is an irreducible polynomiaI of R[x]; hence, of K[x] (at
tbis point a direct appeal is made to Theorem 7-17).
This is probably a good time at whichto examine sorne examples.
Example 7-5. Consider the monic polynomial
f(x) = xn + aEZ[x] (n >'1),

polynomialf(x) ao + a1x + ... + anx n E R[xJ. Suppose that there where a f ± 1 is a nonzero square-Cree integer. For any prime p díviding
exists a prime ideal P of R such that a, p is certainly a factor of a11 the coefficients except the leading one, and
our hypothesis ensures that p" f a. Thus, f(x) fulfils Eisensteín 's criterion,
1) an f/: P" 2) ak E P for O :;;; k < n, 3) ao f/: p2.
and so lS irreducible over Q. Incidental1y, this example shows that there
Thenf(x) Ís irreducible in R[xJ. are irreducible'polynomiaIs in Q[x] of every degree.
Ontheotherhand,noticethatx4 + 4 = (X2 + 2x + 2)(x 2 - 2x + 2);
Proo! Assume that, cQntrary to. assertion, f(x) is reducible in R[x]; say,
one should not expect Theorem 7-18 to lead to a decision in this case since
f(x) = g(x)h(x) ror polynomials g(x), h(x) E R[x], where of course, 4 fails to be a square-free integer. ' ,
g(x) = bo + b1x + ... + brxr, Example7-6. Eisenstein's test is not directly applicable to the cyclotonic
h(x) = eo + e1x + ... + csx' (r +s = n; r, s > O). polynomial
 FIRST COURSE IN RIN6S A:ND f·DEALS
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 133
132 .
Theorern 7-17. Let R be a unique factorization domain, with field of Now consider the reduction off(x) modulo the ideal P. Invoking hypothesis
quotients K. Iff(x) E R[x] is an irreducible primitive polynomial, then (2), it can be inferred that
it is also irreducible as an elernent of K[x]. . v(g(x»)v(h(x») = v(J(x») = (a n + P)x".
Proa! Assume to the contrary that f(x) is reducible over K. Then, Since tlfe polynomial ring (R/P)[.ic] comprises an integral domain, the only
f(x) g(x)h(x), where the polynomials g(x), h(x) are in K[x] and are of possible factorizations of (a n + P)x" are into linear factors. This being so,
positive degree. By virtue of the lemma just pro ven, a moment's refiection shows that
g(x) ~ ab-1g1(X), h(x) ea- 1h 1(x), v(g(x») = (br ,+ P)x',

with a, b, e, d E R anQ.~l(x), h1(x) primitivé in R[x]. Thus, v(h(x)) = (e. + f)x·.

',:':; bdf(x) = aeg1(x)h1(x). TIÍis mearts that the constant terms of these reductions are zero; that is,
. '-~, I +P = +P
Now, Gauss's Letnnl~~~sserts that the product gl(x)h1(x) is a primitlve
bo eo = P.
polynomialinR[x], Whbncef(x)andg1(x)h1(x) differ by aninvertibleelement l.\lt9gether we have proved that both bo, eo E P, reveaHng at the s.ame time ,.¡j:;:
ofR: .:,!. ' iháf ao = boco E p2, which is untenable by (3). Accordingly, no such
y;.. / . f(x) = ug1(x)h1(x). f;].9t~rization oC f(x) can occur, and f(x) is indeed irreduci,ple in R[ x J.

Since deg gl(X) = deg g(x) > O, deg h}{x) deg h(x) > O, the o¡¡tcome is
a nontrivial factorizatíon off(x) in R[x], contrary to hypothesis.
There is an obvious converse to Theorem 7-17, viz.: if the primitive
polynomiaI f(x) E R[x] is irreducible as an eIement oC K[x]: it is als.o
irreducible in R[xJ. This isjustmed by the fact that R[x] (or an lsomorphlc .
copy thereof) appears naturally as a subring oC' K [x] ; thus, if f(x) were
reducible in R[x], it would obviously be reducible in tbe larger ring K[x].
Our remarks lead to the following conclusion: Given a primitive poly-
nomial f(x) E R[x], R a unique factorization domain, f(x) is irredúcible in
R[x] if and only iff(x) is irreducible in K[xJ. '.,
Our next concern is a generalízation oC a famous theorem of Elsenstem
dealíng with the problem oC irreducibility (this result is oL fundamental
importance in the c1assical theory of polynomials with integral coefficients).
The generalization which wehave in mind is formulated below.
Theorem 7-18. Let R be an integral domain and the nonconstant
Theorem '7-18 leads almost immediately to the Eisenstein test for
. irredtÍcibility.
CoroUary. (The Eisenstein Criterion).. Let R be a unique factorization
domain and K be its field .of quotients. Letf(x) = ao + a1 x + '" +
anx" be a nonconstant polynomial in R[xJ. Suppose further ,that for
tan'
sorne prime ¡j E R, p t
plak Cor O :;;; k < n, and p2 ari. Then,j(x) is
irreducible in K[xJ.
Proa! We already know tbat (p) is a prime ideal of R. Taking stock of
the theorem,J(x) is an irreducible polynomiaI of R[x]; hence, of K[x] (at
tbis point a direct appeal is made to Theorem 7-17).
This is probably a good time at whichto examine sorne examples.
Example 7-5. Consider the monic polynomial
f(x) = xn + aEZ[x] (n >'1),

polynomialf(x) ao + a1x + ... + anx n E R[xJ. Suppose that there where a f ± 1 is a nonzero square-Cree integer. For any prime p díviding
exists a prime ideal P of R such that a, p is certainly a factor of a11 the coefficients except the leading one, and
our hypothesis ensures that p" f a. Thus, f(x) fulfils Eisensteín 's criterion,
1) an f/: P" 2) ak E P for O :;;; k < n, 3) ao f/: p2.
and so lS irreducible over Q. Incidental1y, this example shows that there
Thenf(x) Ís irreducible in R[xJ. are irreducible'polynomiaIs in Q[x] of every degree.
Ontheotherhand,noticethatx4 + 4 = (X2 + 2x + 2)(x 2 - 2x + 2);
Proo! Assume that, cQntrary to. assertion, f(x) is reducible in R[x]; say,
one should not expect Theorem 7-18 to lead to a decision in this case since
f(x) = g(x)h(x) ror polynomials g(x), h(x) E R[x], where of course, 4 fails to be a square-free integer. ' ,
g(x) = bo + b1x + ... + brxr, Example7-6. Eisenstein's test is not directly applicable to the cyclotonic
h(x) = eo + e1x + ... + csx' (r +s = n; r, s > O). polynomial
134 FIRST COURSE IN RINOS AND IDEALS POLYNOMIAL RINOS 135
xl' -J
<lJ(X) =- - = p
X - 1 + XP-~ + ... + X + 1 EZ[X] (p prime), With these operations, the set R [x, y] beco mes a ríng contaíning R (or rather
X - 1 an isomorphic copy of R) as a subring.
beca use no suitable prime is available. Trus problem is resolved by the The {total) degree of a nonzero polynomial
observation that <lJ(x) is irreducible in Z[x] if and only if <lJ(x + 1) is m n
irreducible. A simple computation ylelds f(x, y) = ¿ ¿
;=0 j=O
aljxiyi

<lJ(x, + 1) = (x
(x
+ IV - 1 = (xl' + (f)x p - 1 + ... + px)/x
+ 1) - 1
is the largest of the integers i + j for which the coefficient aij :f= and is
depoted, as before, by degf(x, y). Without going into details here, let us
°
x p - 1 + (Dx P- z + ... + pE Z[xJ. simply state that it is possible to obtain inequalities involying degrees
analogous to those ofTheorem 7-5; in particular, if R is an integral domaín,
If the Eisenstein criterion is now applied, it ls easy to see that all the require- we still have .
ments for the irreducibility of <lJ(x + 1) in Z[x] are satis:fied (in the binomial
coefficient (fJ = p!/k!(P - k)!, the numerator is divisible by p for k < p, deg (j(x, y)g(x, y)) = degftx, y) + deg g(x, y).
but not the denominator). dne finds in tbis way that the original cyclotonic
polynomíal <lJ(x) must Be irreducible in Z[x]; hence, al so a~ a polynomial From this rule, one can subsequentJy establish that whenever R forms an
in Q[x]. . integral domain, then so does the polynomial ring R[x, y].
Rather than get involved in an elaborate discussion of these matters,
Starting with a ring R we can first form the polynomíal ring R[x], with we content ourselveswith looking at two examples.
indeterminant x,and then the polynomial nng (R[x])[y] in another in-
determinant y. As the notation indicates, the elements of (R[x ])[Y] are Example7-7. To illustrate that the ideal structure of the ring F[x, y]
simply polynomials (F a field) is more complicated than that of F[x], let us show that F[x, y]
is not a principal ideal domain. This is accomplished by establishing that
g = fo(x) + fl(X)y + ... + fn(x)y", the ideal] = (x, y) is not principal, where '
where each coefficient.fk(x) E R[x], so that
] = {f(x, y)x + g(x, y)ylf(x, y), g(x, y) E F[x, y]} .
.fk(x) ,= a Ok + aux + ... + amk~mk (aij E R).
• Notice tbat the elements of this ideal are just the polynomials in F[x, y]
Consequent1y, g c~n~1;le rewritten as a polynomial in x and y, having zero constant t e r m . ,
Suppose tbat ] was actually principai, say ] = (h(x, y»), where"
g g(x, y) = ¿m ¿" aijxiyi, deg h{x, y) ~ 1. Since both x, y E ], there would exist polynomials f(x, y);,
i=O j=O
g(x, y) i11 F[x, y] satisfying
with m, n nonnegati;~ integers and aij elements of R (one makes the obvíous
conventions that aooxOyO = a oo , a;oxiyO = aiox i and aOjx°yi = aOjyi). In x = f{x, y)h{x, y), y = g(x, y)h(x, y).
accordance with ttadition, we shall hereafter denote (R[x])[y] by R[x, y] Now, degx = degy = 1, which impliesthatdegh(x, y) = 1, anddegf(x,y) =,
and refer to the members oí thís set as polynomials over R in two indeter- deg g{x, y) = O; what amounts to the same thing,
minants x and y. ,,'
Two such polynomials with coefficients ai¡ and bij are by de:finition x = ah{x, y), y = bh(x, y) (a, bE F).
equal if al} = bij for all i and j. Addit'ion of polynomials is performed
Moreover, h{x, y) musí be a linear polynomíal; for instance,
termwise, while multiplication is given by the rule:
h(x, y) = Co + C1X + CzY (C¡ E F).

But if the coefficient C2 :f= 0, then x cannot be a multiple of h(x, y),and if

where C I :f= 0, Y is not a multiple of h(x, y). This being the case, we conclude
that C l = C2 = 0, a contradiction to the linearity of h(x, y), and so ] does
not form a principal ideal.
134 FIRST COURSE IN RINOS AND IDEALS POLYNOMIAL RINOS 135
xl' -J
<lJ(X) =- - = p
X - 1 + XP-~ + ... + X + 1 EZ[X] (p prime), With these operations, the set R [x, y] beco mes a ríng contaíning R (or rather
X - 1 an isomorphic copy of R) as a subring.
beca use no suitable prime is available. Trus problem is resolved by the The {total) degree of a nonzero polynomial
observation that <lJ(x) is irreducible in Z[x] if and only if <lJ(x + 1) is m n
irreducible. A simple computation ylelds f(x, y) = ¿ ¿
;=0 j=O
aljxiyi

<lJ(x, + 1) = (x
(x
+ IV - 1 = (xl' + (f)x p - 1 + ... + px)/x
+ 1) - 1
is the largest of the integers i + j for which the coefficient aij :f= and is
depoted, as before, by degf(x, y). Without going into details here, let us
°
x p - 1 + (Dx P- z + ... + pE Z[xJ. simply state that it is possible to obtain inequalities involying degrees
analogous to those ofTheorem 7-5; in particular, if R is an integral domaín,
If the Eisenstein criterion is now applied, it ls easy to see that all the require- we still have .
ments for the irreducibility of <lJ(x + 1) in Z[x] are satis:fied (in the binomial
coefficient (fJ = p!/k!(P - k)!, the numerator is divisible by p for k < p, deg (j(x, y)g(x, y)) = degftx, y) + deg g(x, y).
but not the denominator). dne finds in tbis way that the original cyclotonic
polynomíal <lJ(x) must Be irreducible in Z[x]; hence, al so a~ a polynomial From this rule, one can subsequentJy establish that whenever R forms an
in Q[x]. . integral domain, then so does the polynomial ring R[x, y].
Rather than get involved in an elaborate discussion of these matters,
Starting with a ring R we can first form the polynomíal ring R[x], with we content ourselveswith looking at two examples.
indeterminant x,and then the polynomial nng (R[x])[y] in another in-
determinant y. As the notation indicates, the elements of (R[x ])[Y] are Example7-7. To illustrate that the ideal structure of the ring F[x, y]
simply polynomials (F a field) is more complicated than that of F[x], let us show that F[x, y]
is not a principal ideal domain. This is accomplished by establishing that
g = fo(x) + fl(X)y + ... + fn(x)y", the ideal] = (x, y) is not principal, where '
where each coefficient.fk(x) E R[x], so that
] = {f(x, y)x + g(x, y)ylf(x, y), g(x, y) E F[x, y]} .
.fk(x) ,= a Ok + aux + ... + amk~mk (aij E R).
• Notice tbat the elements of this ideal are just the polynomials in F[x, y]
Consequent1y, g c~n~1;le rewritten as a polynomial in x and y, having zero constant t e r m . ,
Suppose tbat ] was actually principai, say ] = (h(x, y»), where"
g g(x, y) = ¿m ¿" aijxiyi, deg h{x, y) ~ 1. Since both x, y E ], there would exist polynomials f(x, y);,
i=O j=O
g(x, y) i11 F[x, y] satisfying
with m, n nonnegati;~ integers and aij elements of R (one makes the obvíous
conventions that aooxOyO = a oo , a;oxiyO = aiox i and aOjx°yi = aOjyi). In x = f{x, y)h{x, y), y = g(x, y)h(x, y).
accordance with ttadition, we shall hereafter denote (R[x])[y] by R[x, y] Now, degx = degy = 1, which impliesthatdegh(x, y) = 1, anddegf(x,y) =,
and refer to the members oí thís set as polynomials over R in two indeter- deg g{x, y) = O; what amounts to the same thing,
minants x and y. ,,'
Two such polynomials with coefficients ai¡ and bij are by de:finition x = ah{x, y), y = bh(x, y) (a, bE F).
equal if al} = bij for all i and j. Addit'ion of polynomials is performed
Moreover, h{x, y) musí be a linear polynomíal; for instance,
termwise, while multiplication is given by the rule:
h(x, y) = Co + C1X + CzY (C¡ E F).

But if the coefficient C2 :f= 0, then x cannot be a multiple of h(x, y),and if

where C I :f= 0, Y is not a multiple of h(x, y). This being the case, we conclude
that C l = C2 = 0, a contradiction to the linearity of h(x, y), and so ] does
not form a principal ideal.
136 FIRST COURSE IN RI-NGS AND IDEALS
Anotber point worth mentioning i~ that since F[ x] constitutes a unique
factorization domain, so does (F[x])[y] = F[x, y] (Theorem 7-11). The
present situation thus furnishes us with an illustration of a unique factoriza-
tion domain which is not a principal ideal domain.
Example 7-8. This example is given to substantiate a cIaim made earlier
that a primary ideal need not be a power of a prime ideal. Once again,
consider the ideal 1 = (x, y) of. the ring F[ x, y],. where F is a field,. If the
polynoinial f(x, y) ~ 1, f(x, y) necessarily ~as a nonzen'> constant, term .a o·
o
But ci o lies in the ideal (l,j(x, yJ) and so 1 = a 1a o E (l,j(~, Y»),for~mg
this ideal to be the entire ringo In consequence, 1 = (x, y) IS a,'I?axlmal
(hence, prime) ideal of the ring F[x, yJ. (The maximality of 1 CQúld other-
wise be deduced from the fact that it is the kernel of the substitutibri homo-
morphismf(x, y) ~ j(O, O).) ),',,: . Now, for each element rE F ' , we havi{!J.f.our disposal the substitution
. Next, let us look at the ideal (X Z, y) of F[x, y]' As the readet;~ay venfy
IZ = (X Z, xy, yZ) S (X Z, y) S l.
Z
Inasmuch as -J(X Z, y) = 1, Problem 25, Chapter 5, g~ara~tees tbitt (X , y)
is primary. A straightforward argument shows that (x , y) IS not the power
bf any prime ideal ofF[x, yJ. For, in the contrary case, (X Z, y) = pn, where
Pis a prime ideal and n ~ 1. Since pn S l,with J prime, we may appeal
to Problem 30, Chapter 5, to concIúde that P S; l. By the same token, the
incIusions IZ S pn S P, coupled with the fact that Pis a prime ideal, yield .
1 S P. Hence, J = P, so that 1" = (x 2 , y). Now, the element x E 1, while
x ~ (x 2 , y), implying that n ~ 1. On the other hand~ y E (~Z, y), bu! y ~ ¡z = '
(x 2 , xy, l), which mean s ¡z e (x 2 , y) e l. These mcIuslOn relatIons show
that it is impossible to have In == (x 2 , y) for any n ~ L
Let us cIose this phase of our investigation by saying that there is no .
difficulty in extending the aboye remarks to polynomials in a finite set of
indeterminants. For any ring R,just define recursively
R[x 1, X2' ... ,x~] = (R[x l' XZ' ... , Xn -l])[Xn J.
It would not be out of place to devote the remainder of this chapter to
the matter of field extensions (most notably, algebraic extensions) and
splitting fields. The concepts are presen ted he re partly for their own interest
and partly to laya foundation. for a proof of the celebrated Wedder?urn
theorem on finite 'division rings (Theorem 9-11). We shalI have neIther
occasion nor space for more than a passing study, and certain topics are
touched upon lightly. . .
Byan extension F' ofa field F, we simply mean any field WhlCh contams
F as a subfield. For instance, the field of real numbers is an extension of
Q, the rational number field. In view of Theorem 4-12, it may be remarked
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 137
that every field F is an extension of a field isomorphic to Q or to Zp'
according as the characteristic of F is Oor a prime p.
Assume that F is an extension field of a field F and let theelements
r1' rz, ... ,rn all lie in P. The subfield of F' generated by the subset
F v {r 1, rz, ... , rn} is customarily denoted by F(r 1, rz' ... , rn):
F(r 1, rz,,,., rn) = n {KIK Isa subfield of.F'; F S K; ri E K}.
Thus, F(r 1; rz, ... , rn) is an extension field6f F containing the elements ri
(cIearIy it is the smallest such extension) aq.d one speaks of F(r l' r z, ... , r n)
asbeing obtained by adjoining the ri to F, ¿k.by adjunction of the elements
ri to F. The purpose of the coming theoJ~~ is to determine, up to iso-
morphism, thestructure of aH simple exten~i9)iftelds, that is, extension fields
F(r) arising from a field F by the adjunctioH'bf a single element r.
homomorphism I/Jr: F[ x] ~ F' ; the reade'i"will recall that' this is defined
by taking <PJ(x) = f(r). As before, the iinage of F[x] under <Pr is repre-
sented by the symbol F[r] :
F[r] = {f(r)lf(x) E F[x]}.
¡he set F[r] forms an integral domain (being a subring. of the field P)
:'.,. and therefore has a·field of quotients K = Qc¡(F[r]) in P. It is apparent
that F v {r} S F[r] S K. But F(r) is the smallest subfield of F' to contain
both F and r, whence F(r) S K. On the other hand, any subring of F'
which contains F and r will necessarily contain the elements of F[r]; in .
particular, F[r] S F(r). Since F(r) is a subfield of F', it must also contain
alI the quotients of elements in F[r J. Thus, K S F(r) and equality follows.
This leads to the more constructive description of F(r) as F(r) = Qc¡(F[r]).
The key to cIassifying simple extensions is the nature of the kernel of the
substitution homomorphisIIl. .. (b,ear in niind that ker <Pr consists of all
polynomials: in 'F[x] having r as a root).
Theorem 7-19. Let F' be an extension field of the field F and let r E P.
l· Then either
1) F(r) ~ Qc¡(F[ x]), or else
2) F(r). ~ F[x ]/(J(x») for sorne monicirreducible polynomialf(x)EF[x]
such that f(r) ~ O; this polynomial is uniquely determined. .
Proof. By the Fundamental Homomorphism Theorem, we know that
F[r] ~ F[x]jker <Pr'
As F[r] is a subring of a field, it must be an integral domain. Hence, ker cPr
constitutes a prime ideal of the principal ideal domain F[ x]. One o bserva-
tion is quite pertinent: ker <Pr cannot be all of F[x], since the identity element
136 FIRST COURSE IN RI-NGS AND IDEALS
Anotber point worth mentioning i~ that since F[ x] constitutes a unique
factorization domain, so does (F[x])[y] = F[x, y] (Theorem 7-11). The
present situation thus furnishes us with an illustration of a unique factoriza-
tion domain which is not a principal ideal domain.
Example 7-8. This example is given to substantiate a cIaim made earlier
that a primary ideal need not be a power of a prime ideal. Once again,
consider the ideal 1 = (x, y) of. the ring F[ x, y],. where F is a field,. If the
polynoinial f(x, y) ~ 1, f(x, y) necessarily ~as a nonzen'> constant, term .a o·
o
But ci o lies in the ideal (l,j(x, yJ) and so 1 = a 1a o E (l,j(~, Y»),for~mg
this ideal to be the entire ringo In consequence, 1 = (x, y) IS a,'I?axlmal
(hence, prime) ideal of the ring F[x, yJ. (The maximality of 1 CQúld other-
wise be deduced from the fact that it is the kernel of the substitutibri homo-
morphismf(x, y) ~ j(O, O).) ),',,: . Now, for each element rE F ' , we havi{!J.f.our disposal the substitution
. Next, let us look at the ideal (X Z, y) of F[x, y]' As the readet;~ay venfy
IZ = (X Z, xy, yZ) S (X Z, y) S l.
Z
Inasmuch as -J(X Z, y) = 1, Problem 25, Chapter 5, g~ara~tees tbitt (X , y)
is primary. A straightforward argument shows that (x , y) IS not the power
bf any prime ideal ofF[x, yJ. For, in the contrary case, (X Z, y) = pn, where
Pis a prime ideal and n ~ 1. Since pn S l,with J prime, we may appeal
to Problem 30, Chapter 5, to concIúde that P S; l. By the same token, the
incIusions IZ S pn S P, coupled with the fact that Pis a prime ideal, yield .
1 S P. Hence, J = P, so that 1" = (x 2 , y). Now, the element x E 1, while
x ~ (x 2 , y), implying that n ~ 1. On the other hand~ y E (~Z, y), bu! y ~ ¡z = '
(x 2 , xy, l), which mean s ¡z e (x 2 , y) e l. These mcIuslOn relatIons show
that it is impossible to have In == (x 2 , y) for any n ~ L
Let us cIose this phase of our investigation by saying that there is no .
difficulty in extending the aboye remarks to polynomials in a finite set of
indeterminants. For any ring R,just define recursively
R[x 1, X2' ... ,x~] = (R[x l' XZ' ... , Xn -l])[Xn J.
It would not be out of place to devote the remainder of this chapter to
the matter of field extensions (most notably, algebraic extensions) and
splitting fields. The concepts are presen ted he re partly for their own interest
and partly to laya foundation. for a proof of the celebrated Wedder?urn
theorem on finite 'division rings (Theorem 9-11). We shalI have neIther
occasion nor space for more than a passing study, and certain topics are
touched upon lightly. . .
Byan extension F' ofa field F, we simply mean any field WhlCh contams
F as a subfield. For instance, the field of real numbers is an extension of
Q, the rational number field. In view of Theorem 4-12, it may be remarked
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 137
that every field F is an extension of a field isomorphic to Q or to Zp'
according as the characteristic of F is Oor a prime p.
Assume that F is an extension field of a field F and let theelements
r1' rz, ... ,rn all lie in P. The subfield of F' generated by the subset
F v {r 1, rz, ... , rn} is customarily denoted by F(r 1, rz' ... , rn):
F(r 1, rz,,,., rn) = n {KIK Isa subfield of.F'; F S K; ri E K}.
Thus, F(r 1; rz, ... , rn) is an extension field6f F containing the elements ri
(cIearIy it is the smallest such extension) aq.d one speaks of F(r l' r z, ... , r n)
asbeing obtained by adjoining the ri to F, ¿k.by adjunction of the elements
ri to F. The purpose of the coming theoJ~~ is to determine, up to iso-
morphism, thestructure of aH simple exten~i9)iftelds, that is, extension fields
F(r) arising from a field F by the adjunctioH'bf a single element r.
homomorphism I/Jr: F[ x] ~ F' ; the reade'i"will recall that' this is defined
by taking <PJ(x) = f(r). As before, the iinage of F[x] under <Pr is repre-
sented by the symbol F[r] :
F[r] = {f(r)lf(x) E F[x]}.
¡he set F[r] forms an integral domain (being a subring. of the field P)
:'.,. and therefore has a·field of quotients K = Qc¡(F[r]) in P. It is apparent
that F v {r} S F[r] S K. But F(r) is the smallest subfield of F' to contain
both F and r, whence F(r) S K. On the other hand, any subring of F'
which contains F and r will necessarily contain the elements of F[r]; in .
particular, F[r] S F(r). Since F(r) is a subfield of F', it must also contain
alI the quotients of elements in F[r J. Thus, K S F(r) and equality follows.
This leads to the more constructive description of F(r) as F(r) = Qc¡(F[r]).
The key to cIassifying simple extensions is the nature of the kernel of the
substitution homomorphisIIl. .. (b,ear in niind that ker <Pr consists of all
polynomials: in 'F[x] having r as a root).
Theorem 7-19. Let F' be an extension field of the field F and let r E P.
l· Then either
1) F(r) ~ Qc¡(F[ x]), or else
2) F(r). ~ F[x ]/(J(x») for sorne monicirreducible polynomialf(x)EF[x]
such that f(r) ~ O; this polynomial is uniquely determined. .
Proof. By the Fundamental Homomorphism Theorem, we know that
F[r] ~ F[x]jker <Pr'
As F[r] is a subring of a field, it must be an integral domain. Hence, ker cPr
constitutes a prime ideal of the principal ideal domain F[ x]. One o bserva-
tion is quite pertinent: ker <Pr cannot be all of F[x], since the identity element
 138 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
of F[ X] is not mapped onto zero. Now two possibilities arise, eíther
ker 4Jr = {O} or ker 4Jr 1-. {O}.
Suppose first that ker 4Jr = {O}. Then the homomorphism 4Jr is
actualIy an isomorphism and F[r] ~ F[x]. In the situation at hand, F[r]
is not a field, since F[x] fails to be one. However, from Theorem 4-11, we
know that the quotient fields of F[r] and F[x] are isomorphic under a
mapping induced by the substitution homomorphism. Since F(r) is the
quotient 'field of F[r], one thus obtains
F(r) ~ QCI(F[x]).
If the kernel of 4Jr is nonzero, then ker 4Jr = (J(x)) for sorne irreducible
polynomial (prime element) of F[x], where f(x) can be taken to be monic.
Because every nonzero prime ideal of F[x] is maximal, F[x]/(J(x)) forms a
field and the same will b,e true of its isomorphic image F[r]. But F(r) is the
smallest field to contain 60th F and r, from which it folIows that F[r] = F(r);
this leads to the isomorphism
F(r) ~ F[x ]/(J(x)).
As ker 4Jr = (J(x)), a polynomial g(x) E F[ x] has r as a root if and only
if g(x) is divisible by f(x). Accordingly, if g(x) is any monic irreducible
polynomial in F[x] having r as a root, each of f(x) and g(x) divides the
other; since both of these polynomials are monic, this is possible only if
f(x) = g(x). Thus,f(x) is unique, as asserted in the theorem. .
Another virtue of the substitution homomorphism is that it permits us
to put the elements of an extension field into one of two essentialIy different
categories:
-Definition 7-6. Let F' be an exte~sion field of a>ifi~ld F. An element
rE F' is said to be algebraic over F if ker 4Jr +;
{O}; otherwise, r is
termed transcendental over F. 1!-0"
Definition 7-6 in effect asserts that r is algebraic ¿~~r F if there exists a
nonzero polynomialf(x) E F[x] such thatf(r) = O; o~:the other hand, r is
a transcendental element over F in case f(r) 1- O fOfi¿very nonzero poly-
nomial f(x) in F[x]. As iIlustrations of these notions take F' = R# and
F = Q; then, J2 + .J3 is algebraic over Q, being a rqot of the polynomial
.0 - lOx2 + 1 E Q[x], while n and 2../2 are both transcendental over Q.
Every element of the field F is trivialIy algebraic over F, for the element
rE F is a root of the linear polynomial x - rE F[ x].
The proof ofTheorem 7-19 furnishes us with more detailed information
concerning simple extension fields, which we now state as two separate
theorems. First, however, let us remark that the field of quotients of the
polynomial domain F[x] is traditionally called thefield ofrationaljUnctions
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 139
over F. Thus, a rational function (in an indeterminant x) over F can be
written as a quotient f(x)/g(x), where f(x) and g(x) 1- O are both poly-
nomials in F[x].
Theorem 7-20. (Simple Transcendental Field Extensiol1s). If rE F' ¿ F
is transcendental over F, then F(r) is isomorphic to the field of rational
functions over F. In fact, there is an isomorphism ar of F(r) into
x
Qtl(F[x]) such that ar(r) = and ar(a) = a for every a E R.
This theorem completely determines the structure of simple transcen-
dental extensions over F', they are all isomorphic . to the field of rational
../2
functions over F, and, hence, to each other. Thus, for lDstance, Q(n) ~ Q(2 ).
As regards simple algebraic extensions, we have
Theorem 7-21. (Simple Algebraic Field Extensions). If r E F' ¿ F is
algebraic over F, then there exists a unique monic irreducible poly-
nomialf(x) E F[x] such thatf(r) = O. Furthermore, if g(x) is a poly-
nomial in F[x] for which g(r) = O, necessarily f(x) Ig(x).
The unique polynomial f(x) of Theorem 7-21 is referred to as the
minimum polynomial of (or belonging to) r over F; as the name suggests, the
minimum polynomial of r is the monic polynomial in F[ x] of mini mal
degree having r as a root. The degree of an algebraic element r E F' ¿ F
is just the degree of its minimum polynomial (this degree is 1 if and only
if r E F). .
In the course of proving Theorem 7-19, we established the surprising
fact that, whenev~r r is algebraic over F, the integral domain F[r] becomes
a field, so that F(r) = F[rJ. This amounts to saying that every element of
~(r) is ofthe form f(r), where f(x) isa polynomial in F[ x J.
Example 7-9. If n+-1 is any squár~~free integer, the element.Jn E R # ¿ Q
is a root of the quadratic polynomiai X2 - n E Q[x] and, hence, is algebraic
over Q. From the preceding paragúlph we know that Q[~] is a field and
so QJJn] = Q(Jn); in other wor~s, every member of Q(Jn) is of the form
f(J n), where f(x) is a polynomial,}n Q[x] :
Q(Jn.) = {ao + a¡Jn. + ai.Jp)2 + ... + ak(Jn.)kla¡EQ; k ~ O}.
But (Jn.)2
simplyas
= n, (Jn.)3 = nJn., ... , so that Q(Jn.) can be described more
Q(Jn.) = {a + bJn.la, bE Q}.
That is to say, the simple field extension Q(Jn.) is what we referred to as a
quadratic field in Chapter 6.
Notice also that an arbitrary element a + bJn. E Q(Jn.) satisfies the
polynomial .
X2 - 2ax + (a 2 - b 2n) E Q[x]'
 138 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
of F[ X] is not mapped onto zero. Now two possibilities arise, eíther
ker 4Jr = {O} or ker 4Jr 1-. {O}.
Suppose first that ker 4Jr = {O}. Then the homomorphism 4Jr is
actualIy an isomorphism and F[r] ~ F[x]. In the situation at hand, F[r]
is not a field, since F[x] fails to be one. However, from Theorem 4-11, we
know that the quotient fields of F[r] and F[x] are isomorphic under a
mapping induced by the substitution homomorphism. Since F(r) is the
quotient 'field of F[r], one thus obtains
F(r) ~ QCI(F[x]).
If the kernel of 4Jr is nonzero, then ker 4Jr = (J(x)) for sorne irreducible
polynomial (prime element) of F[x], where f(x) can be taken to be monic.
Because every nonzero prime ideal of F[x] is maximal, F[x]/(J(x)) forms a
field and the same will b,e true of its isomorphic image F[r]. But F(r) is the
smallest field to contain 60th F and r, from which it folIows that F[r] = F(r);
this leads to the isomorphism
F(r) ~ F[x ]/(J(x)).
As ker 4Jr = (J(x)), a polynomial g(x) E F[ x] has r as a root if and only
if g(x) is divisible by f(x). Accordingly, if g(x) is any monic irreducible
polynomial in F[x] having r as a root, each of f(x) and g(x) divides the
other; since both of these polynomials are monic, this is possible only if
f(x) = g(x). Thus,f(x) is unique, as asserted in the theorem. .
Another virtue of the substitution homomorphism is that it permits us
to put the elements of an extension field into one of two essentialIy different
categories:
-Definition 7-6. Let F' be an exte~sion field of a>ifi~ld F. An element
rE F' is said to be algebraic over F if ker 4Jr +;
{O}; otherwise, r is
termed transcendental over F. 1!-0"
Definition 7-6 in effect asserts that r is algebraic ¿~~r F if there exists a
nonzero polynomialf(x) E F[x] such thatf(r) = O; o~:the other hand, r is
a transcendental element over F in case f(r) 1- O fOfi¿very nonzero poly-
nomial f(x) in F[x]. As iIlustrations of these notions take F' = R# and
F = Q; then, J2 + .J3 is algebraic over Q, being a rqot of the polynomial
.0 - lOx2 + 1 E Q[x], while n and 2../2 are both transcendental over Q.
Every element of the field F is trivialIy algebraic over F, for the element
rE F is a root of the linear polynomial x - rE F[ x].
The proof ofTheorem 7-19 furnishes us with more detailed information
concerning simple extension fields, which we now state as two separate
theorems. First, however, let us remark that the field of quotients of the
polynomial domain F[x] is traditionally called thefield ofrationaljUnctions
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 139
over F. Thus, a rational function (in an indeterminant x) over F can be
written as a quotient f(x)/g(x), where f(x) and g(x) 1- O are both poly-
nomials in F[x].
Theorem 7-20. (Simple Transcendental Field Extensiol1s). If rE F' ¿ F
is transcendental over F, then F(r) is isomorphic to the field of rational
functions over F. In fact, there is an isomorphism ar of F(r) into
x
Qtl(F[x]) such that ar(r) = and ar(a) = a for every a E R.
This theorem completely determines the structure of simple transcen-
dental extensions over F', they are all isomorphic . to the field of rational
../2
functions over F, and, hence, to each other. Thus, for lDstance, Q(n) ~ Q(2 ).
As regards simple algebraic extensions, we have
Theorem 7-21. (Simple Algebraic Field Extensions). If r E F' ¿ F is
algebraic over F, then there exists a unique monic irreducible poly-
nomialf(x) E F[x] such thatf(r) = O. Furthermore, if g(x) is a poly-
nomial in F[x] for which g(r) = O, necessarily f(x) Ig(x).
The unique polynomial f(x) of Theorem 7-21 is referred to as the
minimum polynomial of (or belonging to) r over F; as the name suggests, the
minimum polynomial of r is the monic polynomial in F[ x] of mini mal
degree having r as a root. The degree of an algebraic element r E F' ¿ F
is just the degree of its minimum polynomial (this degree is 1 if and only
if r E F). .
In the course of proving Theorem 7-19, we established the surprising
fact that, whenev~r r is algebraic over F, the integral domain F[r] becomes
a field, so that F(r) = F[rJ. This amounts to saying that every element of
~(r) is ofthe form f(r), where f(x) isa polynomial in F[ x J.
Example 7-9. If n+-1 is any squár~~free integer, the element.Jn E R # ¿ Q
is a root of the quadratic polynomiai X2 - n E Q[x] and, hence, is algebraic
over Q. From the preceding paragúlph we know that Q[~] is a field and
so QJJn] = Q(Jn); in other wor~s, every member of Q(Jn) is of the form
f(J n), where f(x) is a polynomial,}n Q[x] :
Q(Jn.) = {ao + a¡Jn. + ai.Jp)2 + ... + ak(Jn.)kla¡EQ; k ~ O}.
But (Jn.)2
simplyas
= n, (Jn.)3 = nJn., ... , so that Q(Jn.) can be described more
Q(Jn.) = {a + bJn.la, bE Q}.
That is to say, the simple field extension Q(Jn.) is what we referred to as a
quadratic field in Chapter 6.
Notice also that an arbitrary element a + bJn. E Q(Jn.) satisfies the
polynomial .
X2 - 2ax + (a 2 - b 2n) E Q[x]'
 140 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
I
I
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 141

The implication is that, not only .Jñ, but every member of Q(Jñ) is algebraic Let us establish a simple, but nonetheless effective, result about succes-
over Q; our next-proved theorem demonstrates that tbis is no accident. sive extensions.
Before pressing on, sorne additional terminology is required. If F' is an Tbeorem 7-24. Ir F ' is a finite extension of F and F" is a finite extension
extension field of a field F, F' may be regarded as a vector space over F. of F'; then FU is a finite exteil.sion of F. Furthermore,
We shall call F' a flntte extension of F, if the vector space F' is finite dirnen7
sional over F. For exampIe, the compIex field e is a finite extension of R#, '[F":F] [F":F'][F' :FJ.
with {l, i} serving as a basis for e (over R#), The dímension of F' as a Proof. An 'ibbreviated proof runs as, follows. Suppose that [F' :F] = n
vector space over F is called the degree ofthe extension and written [F' :F]. and [F": F'J;= m. If {al' a 2 , •• :, a n } is a basis ror F' as a vector space over
The reader who is versed in Uhear algebra will have no difficulty with F and {bl,ill~, "', bm } is a basis for F" over FI, then the set of mn elements
the next few theorems. ;".'c ofthe formq¡b j constitutes a basis for F" over F. This implies that
Theorem 7-22. Ir Pis a fi~~~ extension of the fieId.F, then everY
·,.tl
.. [F" :F] = mn = [F":F'][F' :F].
eIement of F' is aIgebraic ovciti'F. )

We stiil' have a few locis~ ends to tie together, inc1uding a more precise
, ,
,~

Proof. Let r E: F and co~ider th<::.,~!@ll1ents 1, r, r'-, '" , 1"', where n = [F' :Fl
I

descriptióí1.~8f F(r), when r is algebraic over F.

These n + 1 powers of r are all in!.F"and, hence, must be linearIy dependent i .F~ .

OVer F (silice F' is a space of diÍrtension n). Thus, there exist eIements
bo,b 1, .. : ,bnEF, which arenotallzéro,suchthat bol + b1r + ... + bnr" = O.
But then,f(x) = bo + b1x + ;.. + bnxn is a nonzero polynomíaI in F[x]
and J(r) 0, implying that r is algebraic over F.
This leads us to the following concept: An extension field F ' of F is,
said to be algebraic if every elementof F ' is algebraic over F. The content
of Theorem 7-22 i8 that a finite extension is an algebraic extension.
Theorem 7-23. Let F ' be an extensionof the field F. Then F' 1S an
algebraic extension of F if and only if every subríng of F' containing F
is a field.
Proof. To begin with, suppose that F' i8 an algebraic extension and let R
be a subring of F ' wruch contains F; F s;:; R s;:; F I • For any nonzero element
rE R, the inclusion F[r] S R certainly holds; Sin ce r is algeb'raic over F,
. we know from what has been estabIished earlier that F[r] coincides with
Theor~mij-25. Let F' be an extension field of F and,r.E F' be aIgébraic
over F óf degree n. Then the elements 1, r, ... , rn-l. lorm a basis for
. F(r) (considered as a vector space over F).
Proof. Let a be any element of F(r) = F[r]' Then there exists a polynomial
g(x) E F[x] such that a = g(r). Applying the division algorithm to g(x) and
the mínimum polynomial J(x) of r, we can find q(x) and s(x) in F[x]·
satisfying .
g(x) = q(x)J(x) + s(x),
where either s(x). = °
or deg s(x) < n.· Since J(r) = 0, it follows that
ser) ~ g(r) = a. Ir s(x) = 0, necessari1y a = 0, while ir s(x) = bo + b1x +
... + bmx rn is a nonzero polynomial of degree m < n, then a = b a + b1r +
... + brnr"'. Therefore, the eIements 1, r, ... , 1"'-1 generate F(r) as a vector
space over F.
It remains to show that the set {1, r, rn-l} is linearly independent. .'
oo. ,

thefieId F(r), But then, r- 1 E F[rJ s;:; R, making thering R a field. Pursuing this aim, let us assume that Col + c1r + ... + cn_1r n - 1 = 0,
As regards the converse, assume that every subring of F' which contains where the Ck E F. Then the polynomial
F forms a field. Given an eIement O f rE F', F[r] is a subríng of F' con- "h(x) = Co + clx +oo. + Cn_1Xn-1EF[x]
taining F and so must be a field ; in particular, r - 1 E F[r]. K.nowing this,
we may inferthe existence ofa polynomialJ(x) in F[x]such thatJ(r) = r- 1. and clearly h(r) = O, so that h(x) E ker rPr = (J(x»). This being the case,
The element r thus becomes a root of thepolynomial g(x) = xJ(x) - 1 h(x) = J(x)k(x)- for sorne polynomial k(x) in F[x]. But if h(x) f Ó, we
and, hence, is algebraic over F. obtain
n > deg h(x) = degJ(x) + deg k(x) ;;::: degJ(x) n,
We take this opportunity to mention an interesting theorem due to
Steinitz which gives a necessary and sufficient condítion for a finite extension a manifestly false conclllsion. Thus, the 'polynomial h(x) = 0, which forces
to be simple: Ir F I is a finite extension of the field F, then F' 1S á. simple the coefficients Ca = C1 = ... = Cn -1 = O. The proof that the n elements
extension if and only if there are only a finite number of subfields of F' 1, r, ... , rn- 1 constitute a basis for F(,.) over F is now complete.
containíng F. The statement of Theorem 7-25 can be rephrased in severa1 ways.
 140 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
I
I
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 141

The implication is that, not only .Jñ, but every member of Q(Jñ) is algebraic Let us establish a simple, but nonetheless effective, result about succes-
over Q; our next-proved theorem demonstrates that tbis is no accident. sive extensions.
Before pressing on, sorne additional terminology is required. If F' is an Tbeorem 7-24. Ir F ' is a finite extension of F and F" is a finite extension
extension field of a field F, F' may be regarded as a vector space over F. of F'; then FU is a finite exteil.sion of F. Furthermore,
We shall call F' a flntte extension of F, if the vector space F' is finite dirnen7
sional over F. For exampIe, the compIex field e is a finite extension of R#, '[F":F] [F":F'][F' :FJ.
with {l, i} serving as a basis for e (over R#), The dímension of F' as a Proof. An 'ibbreviated proof runs as, follows. Suppose that [F' :F] = n
vector space over F is called the degree ofthe extension and written [F' :F]. and [F": F'J;= m. If {al' a 2 , •• :, a n } is a basis ror F' as a vector space over
The reader who is versed in Uhear algebra will have no difficulty with F and {bl,ill~, "', bm } is a basis for F" over FI, then the set of mn elements
the next few theorems. ;".'c ofthe formq¡b j constitutes a basis for F" over F. This implies that
Theorem 7-22. Ir Pis a fi~~~ extension of the fieId.F, then everY
·,.tl
.. [F" :F] = mn = [F":F'][F' :F].
eIement of F' is aIgebraic ovciti'F. )

We stiil' have a few locis~ ends to tie together, inc1uding a more precise
, ,
,~

Proof. Let r E: F and co~ider th<::.,~!@ll1ents 1, r, r'-, '" , 1"', where n = [F' :Fl
I

descriptióí1.~8f F(r), when r is algebraic over F.

These n + 1 powers of r are all in!.F"and, hence, must be linearIy dependent i .F~ .

OVer F (silice F' is a space of diÍrtension n). Thus, there exist eIements
bo,b 1, .. : ,bnEF, which arenotallzéro,suchthat bol + b1r + ... + bnr" = O.
But then,f(x) = bo + b1x + ;.. + bnxn is a nonzero polynomíaI in F[x]
and J(r) 0, implying that r is algebraic over F.
This leads us to the following concept: An extension field F ' of F is,
said to be algebraic if every elementof F ' is algebraic over F. The content
of Theorem 7-22 i8 that a finite extension is an algebraic extension.
Theorem 7-23. Let F ' be an extensionof the field F. Then F' 1S an
algebraic extension of F if and only if every subríng of F' containing F
is a field.
Proof. To begin with, suppose that F' i8 an algebraic extension and let R
be a subring of F ' wruch contains F; F s;:; R s;:; F I • For any nonzero element
rE R, the inclusion F[r] S R certainly holds; Sin ce r is algeb'raic over F,
. we know from what has been estabIished earlier that F[r] coincides with
Theor~mij-25. Let F' be an extension field of F and,r.E F' be aIgébraic
over F óf degree n. Then the elements 1, r, ... , rn-l. lorm a basis for
. F(r) (considered as a vector space over F).
Proof. Let a be any element of F(r) = F[r]' Then there exists a polynomial
g(x) E F[x] such that a = g(r). Applying the division algorithm to g(x) and
the mínimum polynomial J(x) of r, we can find q(x) and s(x) in F[x]·
satisfying .
g(x) = q(x)J(x) + s(x),
where either s(x). = °
or deg s(x) < n.· Since J(r) = 0, it follows that
ser) ~ g(r) = a. Ir s(x) = 0, necessari1y a = 0, while ir s(x) = bo + b1x +
... + bmx rn is a nonzero polynomial of degree m < n, then a = b a + b1r +
... + brnr"'. Therefore, the eIements 1, r, ... , 1"'-1 generate F(r) as a vector
space over F.
It remains to show that the set {1, r, rn-l} is linearly independent. .'
oo. ,

thefieId F(r), But then, r- 1 E F[rJ s;:; R, making thering R a field. Pursuing this aim, let us assume that Col + c1r + ... + cn_1r n - 1 = 0,
As regards the converse, assume that every subring of F' which contains where the Ck E F. Then the polynomial
F forms a field. Given an eIement O f rE F', F[r] is a subríng of F' con- "h(x) = Co + clx +oo. + Cn_1Xn-1EF[x]
taining F and so must be a field ; in particular, r - 1 E F[r]. K.nowing this,
we may inferthe existence ofa polynomialJ(x) in F[x]such thatJ(r) = r- 1. and clearly h(r) = O, so that h(x) E ker rPr = (J(x»). This being the case,
The element r thus becomes a root of thepolynomial g(x) = xJ(x) - 1 h(x) = J(x)k(x)- for sorne polynomial k(x) in F[x]. But if h(x) f Ó, we
and, hence, is algebraic over F. obtain
n > deg h(x) = degJ(x) + deg k(x) ;;::: degJ(x) n,
We take this opportunity to mention an interesting theorem due to
Steinitz which gives a necessary and sufficient condítion for a finite extension a manifestly false conclllsion. Thus, the 'polynomial h(x) = 0, which forces
to be simple: Ir F I is a finite extension of the field F, then F' 1S á. simple the coefficients Ca = C1 = ... = Cn -1 = O. The proof that the n elements
extension if and only if there are only a finite number of subfields of F' 1, r, ... , rn- 1 constitute a basis for F(,.) over F is now complete.
containíng F. The statement of Theorem 7-25 can be rephrased in severa1 ways.
 142 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS POL YNOMIAL RINGS 143

Corollary 1. If r e F' ;2 F is algebraic of degree n, then every element that the field Q(J2, A) is actually a simple algebraic extension of Q; in
of the simple extension F(r) is of the forro f(r), where f(x) e F[ x J is a fact, Q(J2, J3) Q(..fi + J3)!..with.Ji + J3 algebraic over Q..
polynomial of degree less than n: Since the element J2:.
+ .J3 belongs to Q(.j2, 13), we certalOly bave
Q(J2 + 13) S;; Q(.j2, J3). As regards the reverse inc1usion, a simple
F(r) = {ao + alr + ... + ~_lr"-llak e F}. computation shows that
Corollary 2. If r e F ' ;2 F is aIgebraic of degree n, .then F(r) is a finite 2.j2 = (.j2 + .J3)3 - 9(.J2 + .J3)
algebraic) extension with [F(r): FJ = n.
(hefi(:~,
is a rnember of Q(.j2 + .J3), and therefore so·is .J2. But then,
We- inc1ude the next theorem for completeness; it is an immediate
consequence ofTheorem 7-22 and Corollary 2 above. J3 = (.j2 + J3) - .j2
Theorem 7-26. Let F' be an extension ofthe field F. An element re F' also Hes in Q(.J2 + J3). This leads to the inclusion Q(.j2, J3) S;;;

is algebraic over F if and only if F(r) is a finite extension of F. Q(.J2 + J3) and the asserted equality.
To see that r .j2 + 13
is an algebraic element over Q, notice tbat
From this, it is a short step to r 2 = 5 + i.j6, (r 2 5)2 = 24, and, hence, the polynomial f(x) x4
Corollary. Let re é ;2 F be algebraic and [F': FJ finite. Then 10x + 1 has r as a root. One may verify that f(x) is irreducible in Q[x J,
2

F' = F(r) ifand only if[F(r): FJ [F':F]. making it the mínimum polynomial of r. Perhaps the quickest way to ~
this is as follows. Let F' = Q(.j2); then [F':QJ = 2, with basis {l, .J2},
Proof By the last-written theorem, F(r) has a finite degree [F(r) :F]. Now, and [F'(J3):F'J 2, with basis {l, J3J From Theorem 7-24, it !9l1ows
F(r) is a subspace (over F) ofthe vector space F'. This corollary is equivalent that[F'(.J3); QJ = 4anda basis for F'{.J3)overQ isgiven by {1,.j2,.,j3,.j6}.
to asserting that a subspace is the entire space ir and only if the dimensions But .
of the two are equal. F'(J3) = Q(.j2)(13) J3) = Q(.j2 + J3),
= Q(.j2,
Example 7-10. Consider the eIement r = .Ji + i E e ;;2 Q, e as usual and we know that the dimension of Q(.j2 + J3) is equal to the degree of
being the complex number fieId. Then r 2 = 1 + 2J2i,
so that (r 2 - 1)2 = the mínimum polynomial of r = .Ji + J3. .
- 8 or r - 2r + 9 = O. Thus, r is a root of the polynomiaI
4 2
Incidentally, there are five fields between Q and Q(.j2, 13), namt:ly,
Q, Q(.j2), Q(J3), Q(.j6), and Q(.Ji, J3). Taking stock of Steinitz's theorem
f(x) = x 4 2:x;2 + 9 e Q[xJ
(page 140), it should come as no surprise that Q(J2, J3) can be generated
and, hence, l~ an algebraic eIement over Q. Now, f(x) has the irreducible by a single eIernent. " -' '),
factorizatión, ;over e, ',' 4

:;"
~
Until now, we have always begun by assuming the existence ófan exten-
f(x) = ,e; - .Ji + i)(x - J2 - i)(x + .Ji + i)(x + .Ji - i), sion field F' of F and then studied the structure of sii:nple exten~!E>ns F(r)
within F'. The subject can be approached from a somewhat diffe~eIlt stand-
which indi~~tes that f(x) has no linear or quadratic factors in QIx]. There- point. Given a field F and an irreducible polynomialf{x) e F[xJ~ pne may
fore,J(x) i$)rreducible asa member of Q[ x J and serves as the minimum ask whether it is possible to construct a simple extension F ' of F;:in which
polynomialJof r over Q; in particular, the element r has degree 4. By f(x), thought of as a member of F'[xJ, has a root. (If degf(x) = j~; then, in
Theorem 7:""25, the simple extension Q(r) is a four-dimensional vector space a trivial sense, F is itself the required extension).
over Q, with basis To answerthis question, we take our cue from Theorem 7-19. For if
1, r = J2 + i, r2 = 1 + 2.Ji¡, r3 = - J2 + 5i. such an extension of F can be found at aH, it must be of the form F(r), with
r algebraic over F. As pointed out in our earlier discussion, r will possess
At the same time r is"a root of the polynomiaI Xl - z.Jix + 3 e R"' [xJ, a minimum polynomial g(x) which is irreducible in F[xJ and such that
with X2 2J2x + 3 irreducible over R#; thus, r is of degree 2 over R#. F(r) ~ F[xJ/(g(x»). This suggests that, when starting with a prescribed
Example 7-11. For a second illustration, we turo to the extension field irreducible polynomial f(x) e F[ x J, the natural object of interest should be
Q(J2, 13)· The eIements .Ji and 13
are c1earIy aIgebraic over Q, being roots the associated quotient ring F[ x J/(J(x»).
ofthe polynomials xl - 2, X2 ~ 3 E Q[xJ, respectively. Our contention is . After this preamble, let us proceed to some pertinent details.
 142 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS POL YNOMIAL RINGS 143

Corollary 1. If r e F' ;2 F is algebraic of degree n, then every element that the field Q(J2, A) is actually a simple algebraic extension of Q; in
of the simple extension F(r) is of the forro f(r), where f(x) e F[ x J is a fact, Q(J2, J3) Q(..fi + J3)!..with.Ji + J3 algebraic over Q..
polynomial of degree less than n: Since the element J2:.
+ .J3 belongs to Q(.j2, 13), we certalOly bave
Q(J2 + 13) S;; Q(.j2, J3). As regards the reverse inc1usion, a simple
F(r) = {ao + alr + ... + ~_lr"-llak e F}. computation shows that
Corollary 2. If r e F ' ;2 F is aIgebraic of degree n, .then F(r) is a finite 2.j2 = (.j2 + .J3)3 - 9(.J2 + .J3)
algebraic) extension with [F(r): FJ = n.
(hefi(:~,
is a rnember of Q(.j2 + .J3), and therefore so·is .J2. But then,
We- inc1ude the next theorem for completeness; it is an immediate
consequence ofTheorem 7-22 and Corollary 2 above. J3 = (.j2 + J3) - .j2
Theorem 7-26. Let F' be an extension ofthe field F. An element re F' also Hes in Q(.J2 + J3). This leads to the inclusion Q(.j2, J3) S;;;

is algebraic over F if and only if F(r) is a finite extension of F. Q(.J2 + J3) and the asserted equality.
To see that r .j2 + 13
is an algebraic element over Q, notice tbat
From this, it is a short step to r 2 = 5 + i.j6, (r 2 5)2 = 24, and, hence, the polynomial f(x) x4
Corollary. Let re é ;2 F be algebraic and [F': FJ finite. Then 10x + 1 has r as a root. One may verify that f(x) is irreducible in Q[x J,
2

F' = F(r) ifand only if[F(r): FJ [F':F]. making it the mínimum polynomial of r. Perhaps the quickest way to ~
this is as follows. Let F' = Q(.j2); then [F':QJ = 2, with basis {l, .J2},
Proof By the last-written theorem, F(r) has a finite degree [F(r) :F]. Now, and [F'(J3):F'J 2, with basis {l, J3J From Theorem 7-24, it !9l1ows
F(r) is a subspace (over F) ofthe vector space F'. This corollary is equivalent that[F'(.J3); QJ = 4anda basis for F'{.J3)overQ isgiven by {1,.j2,.,j3,.j6}.
to asserting that a subspace is the entire space ir and only if the dimensions But .
of the two are equal. F'(J3) = Q(.j2)(13) J3) = Q(.j2 + J3),
= Q(.j2,
Example 7-10. Consider the eIement r = .Ji + i E e ;;2 Q, e as usual and we know that the dimension of Q(.j2 + J3) is equal to the degree of
being the complex number fieId. Then r 2 = 1 + 2J2i,
so that (r 2 - 1)2 = the mínimum polynomial of r = .Ji + J3. .
- 8 or r - 2r + 9 = O. Thus, r is a root of the polynomiaI
4 2
Incidentally, there are five fields between Q and Q(.j2, 13), namt:ly,
Q, Q(.j2), Q(J3), Q(.j6), and Q(.Ji, J3). Taking stock of Steinitz's theorem
f(x) = x 4 2:x;2 + 9 e Q[xJ
(page 140), it should come as no surprise that Q(J2, J3) can be generated
and, hence, l~ an algebraic eIement over Q. Now, f(x) has the irreducible by a single eIernent. " -' '),
factorizatión, ;over e, ',' 4

:;"
~
Until now, we have always begun by assuming the existence ófan exten-
f(x) = ,e; - .Ji + i)(x - J2 - i)(x + .Ji + i)(x + .Ji - i), sion field F' of F and then studied the structure of sii:nple exten~!E>ns F(r)
within F'. The subject can be approached from a somewhat diffe~eIlt stand-
which indi~~tes that f(x) has no linear or quadratic factors in QIx]. There- point. Given a field F and an irreducible polynomialf{x) e F[xJ~ pne may
fore,J(x) i$)rreducible asa member of Q[ x J and serves as the minimum ask whether it is possible to construct a simple extension F ' of F;:in which
polynomialJof r over Q; in particular, the element r has degree 4. By f(x), thought of as a member of F'[xJ, has a root. (If degf(x) = j~; then, in
Theorem 7:""25, the simple extension Q(r) is a four-dimensional vector space a trivial sense, F is itself the required extension).
over Q, with basis To answerthis question, we take our cue from Theorem 7-19. For if
1, r = J2 + i, r2 = 1 + 2.Ji¡, r3 = - J2 + 5i. such an extension of F can be found at aH, it must be of the form F(r), with
r algebraic over F. As pointed out in our earlier discussion, r will possess
At the same time r is"a root of the polynomiaI Xl - z.Jix + 3 e R"' [xJ, a minimum polynomial g(x) which is irreducible in F[xJ and such that
with X2 2J2x + 3 irreducible over R#; thus, r is of degree 2 over R#. F(r) ~ F[xJ/(g(x»). This suggests that, when starting with a prescribed
Example 7-11. For a second illustration, we turo to the extension field irreducible polynomial f(x) e F[ x J, the natural object of interest should be
Q(J2, 13)· The eIements .Ji and 13
are c1earIy aIgebraic over Q, being roots the associated quotient ring F[ x J/(J(x»).
ofthe polynomials xl - 2, X2 ~ 3 E Q[xJ, respectively. Our contention is . After this preamble, let us proceed to some pertinent details.
144 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 145
Theorem 7-27. (Kronecker). If f(x) is an irreducible polynomial in has degree less than that off(x) or el se is the zero polynomiaL In ract, the
F[x], then there is an extension field of Fin whichf(x) has a,root. cosets of l are uniquely determined by remainders on division by f(x) in
Proof. For brevity, we shall write l in place of theprincipal ideal of F[x] the sense that g(x) + 1 = h(x)+ l if and only if g(x) and h(x) leave the
generated by polynomial f(x); that i8 to say, 1 (J(x»). Since f(x) is same remainder when divided by f(x).
assumed to be irreducible, the associated quotient ring F' F[x]/1 i8 a Thus, ir degf(x) n > 1 (for instance,f(x) = ao + aí.x + '" + anxn),
field. To see that P constitutes an exten8ion of F, consider the natural then the extension field F' may be described by
mapping nat¡: F[x] - t P. According to Theorem 4-7, either the restri~tion F' = {b o + b1x + '" + bn-1X'-~ + llb k E F}.
nat¡IF is the trivial homomorpbism or else natf (F) forms a field isomqrphic
to F, where as usual '~:
Identifying bk + l with the element bk , we see
can be uniquely represented in the form
ás before that a typícal coset
nat¡(F) = {a + lla EF}.
The .first possibility is immediately excluded by the fact that
bo + b 1(x +
+ ... + bn - . + 1)'-1;
l)
As a final simplification, let us replace x + 1 by:some new symbol A, so that
, nat¡(l) = 1 + 1 1= 1, the elements of F' become polynomials in A: ,j' ~
which is the zero e1ement,of Fr. Therefore, F is imbeddable in the (qucltíent) , F' = {b o -i:' b 1A + ... + bn_'.~1~~1IbkEF}:.
field F' and, in this sen se, F' becomes an extension of F. " .'.. Observe that since A = x + lis a root off(x)l,Q,P, calculations are carried
It remains to be established that the polynomialf(x) actually ha:(~'root out with the aid ofthe relation a o + alA + :.. '::p. a.A" '70.
in P. Assuming that f(x) = ao +a 1 x + ... + a.x", then, from' the . The last paragraph serves to bring out the point' tba! F' 18 a finite
definitions of cosetaddition and multiplication, extension of F with basis {1, A, .1. 2 , ... , A·- 1 }; in particular, we infer that
(a o + 1)+ (al + 1)(x + l) + ... + (a n + l)(x + l)" . [F':F] = n = degf(x) .
= ao + a 1 x + ... + a.xn + 1= f(x) + l O + l. . To recapitulate: iff(x) E F[x] is an irreducible polynomial over F, then
there exists a finite extension P of F, such that [P: F] = degf(x), in which
Ifwe now identify an element ak E F with the coset ak + 1 which it determines
in F' (the fact that F is isomorphic to nat¡(F) permits this), we obtain f(x) has a root. Moreover, F' is a simple algebraic extenSÍon generated by
a root of f(x). (Admittedly, sorne work could be .saved by an appeal to
ao + a 1(x + 1) + ... + an(x + 1)" = O, Theorems 7-21 and 7;-25, bjlt our object here is to present an alternative
approach to the slibject.)
whichis equivalent to asserting that f(x + l) = O. In other words, the
coset x + l = 1x + lis the rootoff(x) sought in P. ' We pause now to examine two concrete examples of the ideas just
presented.
Sine¡:; each polynomial of positíve degree hasan· irreducible factor
. Example 7-12. Consider Z2: the fiéld of integers modulo 2, and the poly-
(Theorem 7-13), we may drop the restriction thatf(x) be irreducible.
nomial ¡(x) = x 3 + X + 1 E Z2[ x]. Since neither of the elements O and 1
Corollary. Ifthe polynomialf(x) E F[x] ls ofpositive degree, then there is a root of x 3 + x + l,f(x) must be irreducible in Z2[XJ.
exists an extension field of F containing a root off(x), Theorem 7-27 thus guarantees the existence of an extension of Z2'
. specifical1y, the field Z2[X ]/(J(x»), in which the given polynomial has a root.
To go back to Theorem 7-27 for a moment, let us take a cIoser look at '
Denoting this root by A, the discussion aboye tells us that
the nature of tb,e cosets of l = (¡(x») in F[x], with the aim of expressing
the extension field F' = F[x]/l in a Illore convenieht way. As usual, these Z2[X]/(J(x») {a + bA + c,.l2/a,b, e E Z2}
cosets are of the form g(x) + 1, with g(x) E F[x]. Invoking the division
algorithm, for 'each such g{x) there is a unique polynomial r(x) in F[x]
= {O, 1, A, 1 + A, ll, 1 +' .1.2 , A + .1.2 , 1 + A + A2 },
satisfying g(x) q(x)f(x) + r(x1 where r(x) = O or deg r(x) < degf(x). 'where, of course, .1. 3 + A + 1 = O.
Now g(x) r(x) = q(x)f(x) E l, so that g(x) and ¡,(x) determine the same As an example of operating in this' field, let us calculate the inverse of
coset; g(x) + l r(x) + 1. From tbis, it is possible to draw the following 1 + A + .1.2 • Before starting, observe that by using the relations
conc1usion: each coset of l in F[ x] contains exactly one polynomial which .1. 3 = -(A + 1) = A + 1, ..14 ..1 2 + A
144 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 145
Theorem 7-27. (Kronecker). If f(x) is an irreducible polynomial in has degree less than that off(x) or el se is the zero polynomiaL In ract, the
F[x], then there is an extension field of Fin whichf(x) has a,root. cosets of l are uniquely determined by remainders on division by f(x) in
Proof. For brevity, we shall write l in place of theprincipal ideal of F[x] the sense that g(x) + 1 = h(x)+ l if and only if g(x) and h(x) leave the
generated by polynomial f(x); that i8 to say, 1 (J(x»). Since f(x) is same remainder when divided by f(x).
assumed to be irreducible, the associated quotient ring F' F[x]/1 i8 a Thus, ir degf(x) n > 1 (for instance,f(x) = ao + aí.x + '" + anxn),
field. To see that P constitutes an exten8ion of F, consider the natural then the extension field F' may be described by
mapping nat¡: F[x] - t P. According to Theorem 4-7, either the restri~tion F' = {b o + b1x + '" + bn-1X'-~ + llb k E F}.
nat¡IF is the trivial homomorpbism or else natf (F) forms a field isomqrphic
to F, where as usual '~:
Identifying bk + l with the element bk , we see
can be uniquely represented in the form
ás before that a typícal coset
nat¡(F) = {a + lla EF}.
The .first possibility is immediately excluded by the fact that
bo + b 1(x +
+ ... + bn - . + 1)'-1;
l)
As a final simplification, let us replace x + 1 by:some new symbol A, so that
, nat¡(l) = 1 + 1 1= 1, the elements of F' become polynomials in A: ,j' ~
which is the zero e1ement,of Fr. Therefore, F is imbeddable in the (qucltíent) , F' = {b o -i:' b 1A + ... + bn_'.~1~~1IbkEF}:.
field F' and, in this sen se, F' becomes an extension of F. " .'.. Observe that since A = x + lis a root off(x)l,Q,P, calculations are carried
It remains to be established that the polynomialf(x) actually ha:(~'root out with the aid ofthe relation a o + alA + :.. '::p. a.A" '70.
in P. Assuming that f(x) = ao +a 1 x + ... + a.x", then, from' the . The last paragraph serves to bring out the point' tba! F' 18 a finite
definitions of cosetaddition and multiplication, extension of F with basis {1, A, .1. 2 , ... , A·- 1 }; in particular, we infer that
(a o + 1)+ (al + 1)(x + l) + ... + (a n + l)(x + l)" . [F':F] = n = degf(x) .
= ao + a 1 x + ... + a.xn + 1= f(x) + l O + l. . To recapitulate: iff(x) E F[x] is an irreducible polynomial over F, then
there exists a finite extension P of F, such that [P: F] = degf(x), in which
Ifwe now identify an element ak E F with the coset ak + 1 which it determines
in F' (the fact that F is isomorphic to nat¡(F) permits this), we obtain f(x) has a root. Moreover, F' is a simple algebraic extenSÍon generated by
a root of f(x). (Admittedly, sorne work could be .saved by an appeal to
ao + a 1(x + 1) + ... + an(x + 1)" = O, Theorems 7-21 and 7;-25, bjlt our object here is to present an alternative
approach to the slibject.)
whichis equivalent to asserting that f(x + l) = O. In other words, the
coset x + l = 1x + lis the rootoff(x) sought in P. ' We pause now to examine two concrete examples of the ideas just
presented.
Sine¡:; each polynomial of positíve degree hasan· irreducible factor
. Example 7-12. Consider Z2: the fiéld of integers modulo 2, and the poly-
(Theorem 7-13), we may drop the restriction thatf(x) be irreducible.
nomial ¡(x) = x 3 + X + 1 E Z2[ x]. Since neither of the elements O and 1
Corollary. Ifthe polynomialf(x) E F[x] ls ofpositive degree, then there is a root of x 3 + x + l,f(x) must be irreducible in Z2[XJ.
exists an extension field of F containing a root off(x), Theorem 7-27 thus guarantees the existence of an extension of Z2'
. specifical1y, the field Z2[X ]/(J(x»), in which the given polynomial has a root.
To go back to Theorem 7-27 for a moment, let us take a cIoser look at '
Denoting this root by A, the discussion aboye tells us that
the nature of tb,e cosets of l = (¡(x») in F[x], with the aim of expressing
the extension field F' = F[x]/l in a Illore convenieht way. As usual, these Z2[X]/(J(x») {a + bA + c,.l2/a,b, e E Z2}
cosets are of the form g(x) + 1, with g(x) E F[x]. Invoking the division
algorithm, for 'each such g{x) there is a unique polynomial r(x) in F[x]
= {O, 1, A, 1 + A, ll, 1 +' .1.2 , A + .1.2 , 1 + A + A2 },
satisfying g(x) q(x)f(x) + r(x1 where r(x) = O or deg r(x) < degf(x). 'where, of course, .1. 3 + A + 1 = O.
Now g(x) r(x) = q(x)f(x) E l, so that g(x) and ¡,(x) determine the same As an example of operating in this' field, let us calculate the inverse of
coset; g(x) + l r(x) + 1. From tbis, it is possible to draw the following 1 + A + .1.2 • Before starting, observe that by using the relations
conc1usion: each coset of l in F[ x] contains exactly one polynomial which .1. 3 = -(A + 1) = A + 1, ..14 ..1 2 + A
 146 FIRST COURSE IN RrNGS AND IDEALS
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 147
(our coefficients come from Z2' where -1 1), the degree of any product Before proceeding further, two comments are in order. First, Example
can be kept less than 3. Now, the problemis to determine elements a, b, 7-12 shows that there exist finite fields other than the fields Zp of integers
e E Z2 for which modulo a prime p. The fact that the field of this. example has 2 3 8 ele-
ments is typical ofthe general situation : if F is a finite field, then F contains
pn elements, where the prime p is the characteristic of F (Theorem 9-7).
Carrying out the multiplication and substituting for A3 , A4 in terms of 1, In the second place, the construction of Theorem 7-27 yields an exten-
A, and A7, we obtain sion of the field F in which a given(nonconstant) polynomial f(x) E F[x]
splits off one linear factor. By:r;epeated application of tbis procedure, we
(a +b+ e) + aA + (a + b)A 2 = 1.
can build up an extension F' of F in whichf(x), thought of as a member of
This yields the system oflinear equations F'[x], factors into a product of linear factors; that is, the field F' is large
eoough to contain all the roots off(x) (technically speaking, the polynomial
a+b +e= 1, a = 0, a + b = 0, splits eompletely in F'[x]). We present this result in the form of an existence
withsolutiona b. O,e = l;therefore,{l = A2 • + A + A2)-1 theorem.
It is worth noting that x + x + 1 factors completely into linear
3
Tbeorem 7-28. If f(x) E F[x] is a polynomíal of positive degree, then
factors in Z2[X]/(J(x») and has the three roots A., A2, and A + A2:
there exists an extension field F' of Fin whichf(x) factors completely
x 3 + x + 1 = (x - A)(X - A2)(X - (A + A2»). into linear polynomials.

Example 7-13. The quadratic polynomial X2 + 1 is irreducible in R"'[x]. Proa! The proof is by induction on n = degf{x). If n = 1, then f(x) lS
F or, if X2 + 1 were reducible, it would be of the form already linear and F itself is the required extension. Therefore, assume
that n > 1 and that the theorem is true for all fields and for all polynomials
X2 + 1 = (ax + b)(ex + d) of degree less than n. Now, the polynomial f(x) must have some irreducible
2
= aex + (ad + be)x + bd, factor g(x). By Theorem 7-27, there is an extension field K of Fin which
g(x) and, hence, f(x), has a root r1 ; specifically, the field K = F[x]/{g(x»).
where a, b, e, d E R "'. It follows at once tbat ac = bd = 1 and ad + be = O. Thus,f(x) can be written in K[x] asf(x) = (x - r1)h(x), where deg h(x) =
Therefore, be = - (ad), and n 1. By our induction assumpti9n, there is an extension F' of K in which
1= (ae)(bd) = (ad)(b4;2{;. -(ad)2, h(x) splits completely; say h(x) = a(x - r2)(x - r3) .. , {x - r n ), with r¡ E F',
a ::fo O. From this, we s~é that f(x) can be factored ioto linear factors in
or rather, (ad)2 = '-1, which is impossible';Í;';" F'[x]'
In tbis instance, the extension field R"'[xJ7(x 2 + 1) is described by
:1 ·~t'" Corollary•. Let f(x} E;i,F{x],degf(x) = n > '0. Theo there exists an
R"'[x]/(x2 + 1) = {a + bAla. b$R#; A2 + 1 = O}. extension of Fin whlchf(x) has n (not necessarily distinct) roots.
(.

Performing the usual operations for polynóíÍ;Úals, we see that Example 7-14. To il1~strate tbis situation, let us look at the polynomial
f(x) (x 2 - 2)(x 2 - -~~ over the field Q of rational numbers. From
(a + bA) + (e + dA) = (a ~t~) + (b + d)A Example 7-4, X2 - 2 (a:f¡.d by similar reasoning, X2 - 3) is already known
and to be irreducible in Q[xJ So we begin by extending Q to the field F 1. where
(a + bA)(e + dA) = (ae bd) + (ad + be)A + bd(A 2 + 1)
F1 = Q[x]/(x 2 - 2) = {a + bAla, b E Q; A2 - 2 ;;:: O};
= (ae - bd) + (ad + bd)A.
and obtain the factorization
The similarity of these formulas to the usual rules for addition and multi-
plication of complex numbers should be apparent. As a matter of fact, f(x) = (x - A)(X + A)(X 2 3)
R#[x]/(x2 + 1) is isomorphic to the field e of complex numbers under the
mapping 11>: R#[x]/(x2 + 1) ~ e given by q)(a + bA) a + bi. Tbis
= (x - .[2) (x + .[2)(x 2
- 3).
provides an elegant way of construoting e from R#. (As A2 = 2, one customari1y identifies A with .[2.)
 146 FIRST COURSE IN RrNGS AND IDEALS
POLYNOMIAL RINGS 147
(our coefficients come from Z2' where -1 1), the degree of any product Before proceeding further, two comments are in order. First, Example
can be kept less than 3. Now, the problemis to determine elements a, b, 7-12 shows that there exist finite fields other than the fields Zp of integers
e E Z2 for which modulo a prime p. The fact that the field of this. example has 2 3 8 ele-
ments is typical ofthe general situation : if F is a finite field, then F contains
pn elements, where the prime p is the characteristic of F (Theorem 9-7).
Carrying out the multiplication and substituting for A3 , A4 in terms of 1, In the second place, the construction of Theorem 7-27 yields an exten-
A, and A7, we obtain sion of the field F in which a given(nonconstant) polynomial f(x) E F[x]
splits off one linear factor. By:r;epeated application of tbis procedure, we
(a +b+ e) + aA + (a + b)A 2 = 1.
can build up an extension F' of F in whichf(x), thought of as a member of
This yields the system oflinear equations F'[x], factors into a product of linear factors; that is, the field F' is large
eoough to contain all the roots off(x) (technically speaking, the polynomial
a+b +e= 1, a = 0, a + b = 0, splits eompletely in F'[x]). We present this result in the form of an existence
withsolutiona b. O,e = l;therefore,{l = A2 • + A + A2)-1 theorem.
It is worth noting that x + x + 1 factors completely into linear
3
Tbeorem 7-28. If f(x) E F[x] is a polynomíal of positive degree, then
factors in Z2[X]/(J(x») and has the three roots A., A2, and A + A2:
there exists an extension field F' of Fin whichf(x) factors completely
x 3 + x + 1 = (x - A)(X - A2)(X - (A + A2»). into linear polynomials.

Example 7-13. The quadratic polynomial X2 + 1 is irreducible in R"'[x]. Proa! The proof is by induction on n = degf{x). If n = 1, then f(x) lS
F or, if X2 + 1 were reducible, it would be of the form already linear and F itself is the required extension. Therefore, assume
that n > 1 and that the theorem is true for all fields and for all polynomials
X2 + 1 = (ax + b)(ex + d) of degree less than n. Now, the polynomial f(x) must have some irreducible
2
= aex + (ad + be)x + bd, factor g(x). By Theorem 7-27, there is an extension field K of Fin which
g(x) and, hence, f(x), has a root r1 ; specifically, the field K = F[x]/{g(x»).
where a, b, e, d E R "'. It follows at once tbat ac = bd = 1 and ad + be = O. Thus,f(x) can be written in K[x] asf(x) = (x - r1)h(x), where deg h(x) =
Therefore, be = - (ad), and n 1. By our induction assumpti9n, there is an extension F' of K in which
1= (ae)(bd) = (ad)(b4;2{;. -(ad)2, h(x) splits completely; say h(x) = a(x - r2)(x - r3) .. , {x - r n ), with r¡ E F',
a ::fo O. From this, we s~é that f(x) can be factored ioto linear factors in
or rather, (ad)2 = '-1, which is impossible';Í;';" F'[x]'
In tbis instance, the extension field R"'[xJ7(x 2 + 1) is described by
:1 ·~t'" Corollary•. Let f(x} E;i,F{x],degf(x) = n > '0. Theo there exists an
R"'[x]/(x2 + 1) = {a + bAla. b$R#; A2 + 1 = O}. extension of Fin whlchf(x) has n (not necessarily distinct) roots.
(.

Performing the usual operations for polynóíÍ;Úals, we see that Example 7-14. To il1~strate tbis situation, let us look at the polynomial
f(x) (x 2 - 2)(x 2 - -~~ over the field Q of rational numbers. From
(a + bA) + (e + dA) = (a ~t~) + (b + d)A Example 7-4, X2 - 2 (a:f¡.d by similar reasoning, X2 - 3) is already known
and to be irreducible in Q[xJ So we begin by extending Q to the field F 1. where
(a + bA)(e + dA) = (ae bd) + (ad + be)A + bd(A 2 + 1)
F1 = Q[x]/(x 2 - 2) = {a + bAla, b E Q; A2 - 2 ;;:: O};
= (ae - bd) + (ad + bd)A.
and obtain the factorization
The similarity of these formulas to the usual rules for addition and multi-
plication of complex numbers should be apparent. As a matter of fact, f(x) = (x - A)(X + A)(X 2 3)
R#[x]/(x2 + 1) is isomorphic to the field e of complex numbers under the
mapping 11>: R#[x]/(x2 + 1) ~ e given by q)(a + bA) a + bi. Tbis
= (x - .[2) (x + .[2)(x 2
- 3).
provides an elegant way of construoting e from R#. (As A2 = 2, one customari1y identifies A with .[2.)
 148 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS POLYNOMIAL RINGS 149
!-~..

However, f(x) does not split completely, since the polynomial X2 - 3 BeCore presenting the main theorem, two preparatory results of a some-
. remains irreducible in F 1 !!:]. For, suppose to the contrary that X2 - 3 has what techniéal nature are needed:
a root in F 1; say e + d.J2, with e, d E Q. Substituting, we find that
Lemma. Letf(x) be an irreducible poIynomiaI in F[x] and r be a root
(c 2 + 2d2 3) + 2cdJ2 = O, oC f(x) in sorne extension field K oC F. Then F(r) ~ F[x]/(f(x») under
or, what amounts 'to
" the same thing, an isomorphism whereby the element r corresponds to the coset
x'+ (f(x»).
c2 + 2d2 3 == Oí::
.' cd = O.
Proof. Since the eIement r is algebraic over F, it folIows directly. from
The lalter equation implies that either c¿k. O or d = O. But neither c nor d Theorem 7-19 tha~; F(r) ~ F[xJ/(f(x)) via an isomorphism B with the
can be zero, since thi~ would mean that #?" = 3/2 or c2 = 3, which is clearIy property that </Ir ';;(ll o nat(f(x))' (As usual, </Ir: F[x] ~ K is the substitu-
impossiblé. According1y, X2 - 3 does;~'t;t split in F 1 [x]. tion homomorphi~m induced by r.) Regarding the las! statement oC the
In order to factorf(x) into linear fagtQrs, it becomes necessary to extend Iemma, we necesslij:Íly have
the coefficient field further. We therefqr~' construct a second extension F 2'
where ;,. '.' . r .i:!:~r(X) = (B o nat(f(x)})(x) = B(x + (f(x))).
F2 ;2P~la,PEF1;fl2 - 3 =
F 1[x]/(X 2' - 3) =:= {a O}. The chief valúe:~~í this lemma ls that it leads almost immediately to the
Collowing theorem~: .'~ .
The elementsof F 2 can be expressed ~it~tnatively in the form - ~ •.;>:¡ .
Theorem7-29. -r(Isomoiphism Extension Theorem): Let (J be an iso-
(a + bJ2) +(e + d.J2).J3 = a + b.J2 + cJ3 + d.j6, morphismfrom thefieldF onto thefieldF'. Afilo,letf(x) a o + al x +
where, of course, the coefficients a, b, c, d all lie in Q. It follows without ... + a"xn be an irreducible polynomial in F[x] and f'(y) = (J(a o) +
difficuIty that the original polynomial n9W factors in F 2 [x] as (J(aJy + ... + (J(anly" he the corresponding polynomial in F'EyJ.
Then, f'(y) is likewise irreducible. Furthermore, if r is a root of f(x}
f(x) (x - A)(X + 'A)(X fl)(X + fl) r
in sorne extension ·field oC F and ís a rootof f'(y) in some extensíon
= (x - .J2)(x + .J2)(x .J3)(x + .J3). field of F', then (J can be extended to an isomorphism (J> of F(r) onto
F'(r') with <D(r) r '.
Let a field F be given and consider a nonconstant polynomialf(x) E F[x].
An extension field F' of Fis said to be a splitting field for f(x) over F provided Proof Let us first extend (J to a mapping ii between the polynomial rings
thatf(x) can be factored completely into linear factors in F'[x], but not so F[x] and F'[y] by setting
factored over any proper subfield of F' containing F (this minimum nature iig(x) = ii(b o + + ... + bnx~) = (J(b o) + (J(b1)y + ... + (J(b,,)y"
b1x
of the splitting field is n.ot required by all authors). LooseIy speaking, a
splitting fieId is the smaIlest extension fieId F ' in which the prescribed for any polynomial g(x) = b o + b 1 x + ... + bnr E F[x]' We bequeath
poIynomial factors linearIy: to the reader the task of supplying the necessary details that ii is an iso-
morphism of F[ x ] onto F,[yJ. 1t is important to notice that for any poly-
f(x) = a(x - 'l)(X - r2 ) ••. (x - rn) (r i EF' ).
nomial g(x) in F[x], an element a E F is a root of g(x) iC and only if (J(a) is a
To obtain a splitting field for f(x), we need onIy consíder the family {Fi} rootoC iig(x). Indeed, if, as before, g(x) = bo + b 1 x + ... + bnx", then,
of all extension fields Fi in whichf(x) can be decomposed as a product of upon evaluating iig(x) at (J(a),
linear factors (Theorem7-27 guarantees the existence of such extensions);
then ( l Fi serves as a splitting field for f(x) over F. (¡¡g(x))((J(a)) oí.b o)+ (J(b1)c¡(a) + ... + (J(bn)(J(a)n
. Having thus indicated the existence of a spIítting field for an arbitrary = (J(b o + b1a + ... + bna")
polynomial in F[ x], it is natural to Collow this up with a query as to unique-
ness. For a final topic, we shall prove that any two splitting fields oC the = (J(g(a)),
same (nonconstant) polynomial are isomorphic; this being so, one is justified . from which our assertion foIlows. In particular, we infer that the poIy-
in using the definite article and speaking oC the splitting field of a given nomiaIs g(x) and iig(x) are simultaneously reducible or irreducible in F[ x]
polynomíal. and F'[y], respectiveIy. ,This being SO,J'(y) = ¡¡f(x) is irreducible in F'[y J.
 148 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS POLYNOMIAL RINGS 149
!-~..

However, f(x) does not split completely, since the polynomial X2 - 3 BeCore presenting the main theorem, two preparatory results of a some-
. remains irreducible in F 1 !!:]. For, suppose to the contrary that X2 - 3 has what techniéal nature are needed:
a root in F 1; say e + d.J2, with e, d E Q. Substituting, we find that
Lemma. Letf(x) be an irreducible poIynomiaI in F[x] and r be a root
(c 2 + 2d2 3) + 2cdJ2 = O, oC f(x) in sorne extension field K oC F. Then F(r) ~ F[x]/(f(x») under
or, what amounts 'to
" the same thing, an isomorphism whereby the element r corresponds to the coset
x'+ (f(x»).
c2 + 2d2 3 == Oí::
.' cd = O.
Proof. Since the eIement r is algebraic over F, it folIows directly. from
The lalter equation implies that either c¿k. O or d = O. But neither c nor d Theorem 7-19 tha~; F(r) ~ F[xJ/(f(x)) via an isomorphism B with the
can be zero, since thi~ would mean that #?" = 3/2 or c2 = 3, which is clearIy property that </Ir ';;(ll o nat(f(x))' (As usual, </Ir: F[x] ~ K is the substitu-
impossiblé. According1y, X2 - 3 does;~'t;t split in F 1 [x]. tion homomorphi~m induced by r.) Regarding the las! statement oC the
In order to factorf(x) into linear fagtQrs, it becomes necessary to extend Iemma, we necesslij:Íly have
the coefficient field further. We therefqr~' construct a second extension F 2'
where ;,. '.' . r .i:!:~r(X) = (B o nat(f(x)})(x) = B(x + (f(x))).
F2 ;2P~la,PEF1;fl2 - 3 =
F 1[x]/(X 2' - 3) =:= {a O}. The chief valúe:~~í this lemma ls that it leads almost immediately to the
Collowing theorem~: .'~ .
The elementsof F 2 can be expressed ~it~tnatively in the form - ~ •.;>:¡ .
Theorem7-29. -r(Isomoiphism Extension Theorem): Let (J be an iso-
(a + bJ2) +(e + d.J2).J3 = a + b.J2 + cJ3 + d.j6, morphismfrom thefieldF onto thefieldF'. Afilo,letf(x) a o + al x +
where, of course, the coefficients a, b, c, d all lie in Q. It follows without ... + a"xn be an irreducible polynomial in F[x] and f'(y) = (J(a o) +
difficuIty that the original polynomial n9W factors in F 2 [x] as (J(aJy + ... + (J(anly" he the corresponding polynomial in F'EyJ.
Then, f'(y) is likewise irreducible. Furthermore, if r is a root of f(x}
f(x) (x - A)(X + 'A)(X fl)(X + fl) r
in sorne extension ·field oC F and ís a rootof f'(y) in some extensíon
= (x - .J2)(x + .J2)(x .J3)(x + .J3). field of F', then (J can be extended to an isomorphism (J> of F(r) onto
F'(r') with <D(r) r '.
Let a field F be given and consider a nonconstant polynomialf(x) E F[x].
An extension field F' of Fis said to be a splitting field for f(x) over F provided Proof Let us first extend (J to a mapping ii between the polynomial rings
thatf(x) can be factored completely into linear factors in F'[x], but not so F[x] and F'[y] by setting
factored over any proper subfield of F' containing F (this minimum nature iig(x) = ii(b o + + ... + bnx~) = (J(b o) + (J(b1)y + ... + (J(b,,)y"
b1x
of the splitting field is n.ot required by all authors). LooseIy speaking, a
splitting fieId is the smaIlest extension fieId F ' in which the prescribed for any polynomial g(x) = b o + b 1 x + ... + bnr E F[x]' We bequeath
poIynomial factors linearIy: to the reader the task of supplying the necessary details that ii is an iso-
morphism of F[ x ] onto F,[yJ. 1t is important to notice that for any poly-
f(x) = a(x - 'l)(X - r2 ) ••. (x - rn) (r i EF' ).
nomial g(x) in F[x], an element a E F is a root of g(x) iC and only if (J(a) is a
To obtain a splitting field for f(x), we need onIy consíder the family {Fi} rootoC iig(x). Indeed, if, as before, g(x) = bo + b 1 x + ... + bnx", then,
of all extension fields Fi in whichf(x) can be decomposed as a product of upon evaluating iig(x) at (J(a),
linear factors (Theorem7-27 guarantees the existence of such extensions);
then ( l Fi serves as a splitting field for f(x) over F. (¡¡g(x))((J(a)) oí.b o)+ (J(b1)c¡(a) + ... + (J(bn)(J(a)n
. Having thus indicated the existence of a spIítting field for an arbitrary = (J(b o + b1a + ... + bna")
polynomial in F[ x], it is natural to Collow this up with a query as to unique-
ness. For a final topic, we shall prove that any two splitting fields oC the = (J(g(a)),
same (nonconstant) polynomial are isomorphic; this being so, one is justified . from which our assertion foIlows. In particular, we infer that the poIy-
in using the definite article and speaking oC the splitting field of a given nomiaIs g(x) and iig(x) are simultaneously reducible or irreducible in F[ x]
polynomíal. and F'[y], respectiveIy. ,This being SO,J'(y) = ¡¡f(x) is irreducible in F'[y J.
 150 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 151

By the foregoing lemma, we know that there exist isomorphisms a(a1)y + ... + a(anJY" be the corresponding polynomial in F'ey]' If
a: F(r) --+ F[x]j{J(x)) and p: F'(r') --+ F'ey]/{J'(Y)), with K is a splitting field of f(x) and K' a splitting fieId of f'(y), then a can
a(r) = x + (J(x)), (J(r') = y + (J'(y)). be ex~ended to an isomorphisrp. <IJ of K onto K'.
Moreover, it is an easy matter to show that there is also an i,somorphism r of Proof. Our argument will be by induction on the number n of roots ofj(x)
F[x]/{J(x)) onto F'[y]j{J'(y)) defined by , that lie outside F, but (needless to say) in K. When n = 0, all the roots of
f(x) belong to F and F is itself the splitting field of f(x); that is, K = F.
r(g(x) + (f(x))) = ag(x) + (J'(y)) (g(x) E F[x]). This in turn induces a splitting of the polynomial f'(y) into a product of
Observe particular1y that r carries the coset x + (J(x)) onto y + (f'(y)). linear factors in F'[y], so that K', = F'. Thus, when it happens that n = 0,
We contend that F(r) ~ F'(r') under the composition of maps the isomorphism a is, in a trivial sense, the desired extension to the splitting
«l> = P- 1 o r o a, fields.
Let us next assume, inductively, that the theorem holds true for any
where <IJ: F(r) --+ F'(r'); this situation is portrayed in the diagram below:

:I
pair of corresponding polynomials f(x) and f'(y) over isomorphíc fields E
<IJ
and E', provided that the number of roots of roots of f(x) outside of E is

~~,F(l less than n (n ~ 1).

If f(x) E F[x] is a polynomial having n roots outside of F, then not all
of the irreducible factors of f(x) can be linear in F[x] ; for, otherwise,f(x)
F[x ]/(J(x)) -----? F'ey]/{J'(y)) would split cbmpletely in F, contrary to assumption. Accordingly, f(x)
must have sorne factor g(x) of degree m > 1 which is irreducible in F[x].
Certainly, <IJ is an isomorphism of F(r) onto P(r'), for the individual mappings Let g'(y) denote the corresponding irreducible factor of f'(y). Since K is
a, r, p- 1 are themselves isomorphisms. If a is an arbitrary element of F, then a splitting field of f(x) over F, g(x) in particular must have a root in K;
<lJ(a) = (fJ-l o r)(a(a)) = (P-l or)(a + (f(x))) call it r. Similar1y, one of the roots of the polynomialf'(y), say 1", is a root
of g'(y) in K'. By Theorem 7-29, a can be extended to an isomorphism a'
= p-l(a(a) + (f'(y))) = a(a),
between the fields F(r) and F'(r'). Now, K is a splitting field off(x), viewed
whence <IJ is actually an extension of a to all of F(r). Finally, we point out as a polynomial with coefficients from F(r); in a like manner, K' can be
that regan;led as a splitting field off'(y) over the field F'(r'). Because the number
<IJ(r) = (P-l o r)(a(r)) = (fJ-l o r)(x + (f(x))
'"
P-l(y + '(f'(y))) = 1",
=
.
-..""
of roots off(x) lying outside of F(r) is les s than n,the induction hypothesis
permits us to extend a' (itse1f an extension of a) to an is'Ó'fuorphism <IJ of
asrequired, and the theorem is pro ved in its entirety. K' onto K. This completes the induction step and the probfofthe theorem
as well, for a has been suitably extended.
,For a simple, but nonetheless satisfYing, illustration of this last result,
take both F and P to be the real number field R # ; let f(x) E R # [x] be the . ;. With the corollary below, we achieve our objective.'
irreducible polynomial f(x) = X2 + 1, so that f'(y) = y2 + 1 (recall that CoroUary. Any two splitting fields of a nonconstant polynomial
th~ identity map is the only isomorphism of R# ontoitself). Finally, choose .;; f(x) E F[x] are isomorphic via an isomorphism «l> such that the restric-
l' '= i and 1" = - i. Theorem 7-29 then asserts that R # (i) ~ R # ( - i) under tion <lJIF is the identity mapping.
ao.isomorphismwhichcarriesionto-i, InasmuchasR#(i) = R#(-i) = e,
the isomorphism in question is jus~ the correspondence between a complex Proof. This is ah immediate consequence of the theorem on taking F = P
number and its conjugate. and a to be the identity isomorphism iF •
We now have the mathematical machinery to show the uniqueness (to
within isomorphism) of splitting fields. Actua1ly, we shall prove a some- PROBLEMS
what more general result. '
1. If R is a commutative ring with identity, prove that
Theorem 7-30. Let a be an isomorphism of the field F onto the field a) The set 1 = {¡(x) e R[[x]]lordf(x) > O} u {O} forros an ideal of the ring
P. Let f(x) = ao + a1x + ...
+ anxn EF[x] and f'(y) = a(ao) + R[[x]]; in fact, 1 = (x).
 150 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 151

By the foregoing lemma, we know that there exist isomorphisms a(a1)y + ... + a(anJY" be the corresponding polynomial in F'ey]' If
a: F(r) --+ F[x]j{J(x)) and p: F'(r') --+ F'ey]/{J'(Y)), with K is a splitting field of f(x) and K' a splitting fieId of f'(y), then a can
a(r) = x + (J(x)), (J(r') = y + (J'(y)). be ex~ended to an isomorphisrp. <IJ of K onto K'.
Moreover, it is an easy matter to show that there is also an i,somorphism r of Proof. Our argument will be by induction on the number n of roots ofj(x)
F[x]/{J(x)) onto F'[y]j{J'(y)) defined by , that lie outside F, but (needless to say) in K. When n = 0, all the roots of
f(x) belong to F and F is itself the splitting field of f(x); that is, K = F.
r(g(x) + (f(x))) = ag(x) + (J'(y)) (g(x) E F[x]). This in turn induces a splitting of the polynomial f'(y) into a product of
Observe particular1y that r carries the coset x + (J(x)) onto y + (f'(y)). linear factors in F'[y], so that K', = F'. Thus, when it happens that n = 0,
We contend that F(r) ~ F'(r') under the composition of maps the isomorphism a is, in a trivial sense, the desired extension to the splitting
«l> = P- 1 o r o a, fields.
Let us next assume, inductively, that the theorem holds true for any
where <IJ: F(r) --+ F'(r'); this situation is portrayed in the diagram below:

:I
pair of corresponding polynomials f(x) and f'(y) over isomorphíc fields E
<IJ
and E', provided that the number of roots of roots of f(x) outside of E is

~~,F(l less than n (n ~ 1).

If f(x) E F[x] is a polynomial having n roots outside of F, then not all
of the irreducible factors of f(x) can be linear in F[x] ; for, otherwise,f(x)
F[x ]/(J(x)) -----? F'ey]/{J'(y)) would split cbmpletely in F, contrary to assumption. Accordingly, f(x)
must have sorne factor g(x) of degree m > 1 which is irreducible in F[x].
Certainly, <IJ is an isomorphism of F(r) onto P(r'), for the individual mappings Let g'(y) denote the corresponding irreducible factor of f'(y). Since K is
a, r, p- 1 are themselves isomorphisms. If a is an arbitrary element of F, then a splitting field of f(x) over F, g(x) in particular must have a root in K;
<lJ(a) = (fJ-l o r)(a(a)) = (P-l or)(a + (f(x))) call it r. Similar1y, one of the roots of the polynomialf'(y), say 1", is a root
of g'(y) in K'. By Theorem 7-29, a can be extended to an isomorphism a'
= p-l(a(a) + (f'(y))) = a(a),
between the fields F(r) and F'(r'). Now, K is a splitting field off(x), viewed
whence <IJ is actually an extension of a to all of F(r). Finally, we point out as a polynomial with coefficients from F(r); in a like manner, K' can be
that regan;led as a splitting field off'(y) over the field F'(r'). Because the number
<IJ(r) = (P-l o r)(a(r)) = (fJ-l o r)(x + (f(x))
'"
P-l(y + '(f'(y))) = 1",
=
.
-..""
of roots off(x) lying outside of F(r) is les s than n,the induction hypothesis
permits us to extend a' (itse1f an extension of a) to an is'Ó'fuorphism <IJ of
asrequired, and the theorem is pro ved in its entirety. K' onto K. This completes the induction step and the probfofthe theorem
as well, for a has been suitably extended.
,For a simple, but nonetheless satisfYing, illustration of this last result,
take both F and P to be the real number field R # ; let f(x) E R # [x] be the . ;. With the corollary below, we achieve our objective.'
irreducible polynomial f(x) = X2 + 1, so that f'(y) = y2 + 1 (recall that CoroUary. Any two splitting fields of a nonconstant polynomial
th~ identity map is the only isomorphism of R# ontoitself). Finally, choose .;; f(x) E F[x] are isomorphic via an isomorphism «l> such that the restric-
l' '= i and 1" = - i. Theorem 7-29 then asserts that R # (i) ~ R # ( - i) under tion <lJIF is the identity mapping.
ao.isomorphismwhichcarriesionto-i, InasmuchasR#(i) = R#(-i) = e,
the isomorphism in question is jus~ the correspondence between a complex Proof. This is ah immediate consequence of the theorem on taking F = P
number and its conjugate. and a to be the identity isomorphism iF •
We now have the mathematical machinery to show the uniqueness (to
within isomorphism) of splitting fields. Actua1ly, we shall prove a some- PROBLEMS
what more general result. '
1. If R is a commutative ring with identity, prove that
Theorem 7-30. Let a be an isomorphism of the field F onto the field a) The set 1 = {¡(x) e R[[x]]lordf(x) > O} u {O} forros an ideal of the ring
P. Let f(x) = ao + a1x + ...
+ anxn EF[x] and f'(y) = a(ao) + R[[x]]; in fact, 1 = (x).
152 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IOEALS ,l· PROBLEMS 153
b) 'The ideal 1" eonsists ofall power series having order ~n, together with O, 9. Consider the polynomial domain F[x], where F is a field, and a fixed element
e) n..zJ' = {O}. rE F. Show that t,he set of al1 polynomials having r as a' root,
2. For any field F, eonsider the set F(x> eonsisting of all expressions of the form M, = {¡(x) E F[x]lf(r) = O},
f
k=-n
ak xk = IL.x-' + a_.+1x-·+l + oo' + a_lx- 1 + ao + alx + a2 x 2 + '" forms a maximal ideal of F[xJ,wlth F[x]jMr ~ F. [Hint: Mr
<p, : F[x J
-+ F is the substitu tion homomorphism indueed by r.]
= ker<p" where

" where aH the ak E F and n ~ Ovaries. 10. Regarding thering ofExample 8, Chapter 1, show thatthe polynom¡al (a, 0)x 2 E R[x]
I

. ·If addition and multiplieation are defined in the obvious way, F(x> becomes a has infinitely many roots in R[x].. .
"i\,ring, known as the ring af extended (formal) .pawer series aver F. Show that F(x> 11. Given f(x) = ao + a1x + oO, + a.x' E C[x], define the polyn¿inial f(x) by
/('is in faet the field of quotients of the domain F[[x]J. [Hint: Given nEZ+,
\YQc¡(F[[xJ]) must eontain x-'.J ](x) = iio + ii1x +
+ a.x',
'oO

.3/''t,et R be a eornmutative ring with identity. If R is a local ring, prove that the where iik denotes the usual eomplex eonjugate of dk • Verify t,§ii'
~':''''power series ring R[[x]] is also local. a) rE C is a root of/(x) if and only if r is a r90t ofJ(x). [Hint':]fr) = 1(r).J
b) If f(x) E R#[xJ ~ C[x] and r is a eomplex root of f(x), th,en'r is also a root
~~)íÚiven that R is a eom~utative ring with identity, deduce that of f(x),,~.';';c
;~:';:~) No monic polynomial is R[x] is a zero divisor. . '::::':: . :;.
12. Let R be a eommutative ring with identity and let f(x) E R[~J: The fundion
"'}!:') If the polynomial f(x) = ao + a1x + + a.X' is a zero divisor in R[x],
oO.

then there exists ari element O -+ rE R sueh that rf(x) = O. [Hint: Assume that
f(x)g(x) = O. Use the polynomials akg(x) to obtain O =1= h(x) E R[x], with
deg h(x) < deg f(x), satisfying h(x)f(x) = O.J .
5. If R is a eommutative ring with identity, verify that the polynomial 1 + ax is
invertible in R[x J if and only if the element a is nilpotent in R. [Hint: Problem 10,
1: R -+ R defined by taking l(r) = f(r) for every rE R is eal1ea .the palynamial
jimetian indueed by f(x). Assuming that P R denotes the set of all polynomial
. funetions indueed by elements of R[x], prove that
a) PR forms a subring of map R, known as the ring of polynomial funetions on R;
b) the mapping a: R[xJ -+ PR given by a(!(x)) = 1 is a homomorphism of R[xJ
onto PR ; .

Chapter L] e) if the element rE R is fixed and 1, = {lE P Rll<r) = O}, then Ir is an ideal of
PR'
6. For an arbitrary ring R, prove that .
13. a) When R is an integral domain, show that <;Iistinet polynomials in R[x] induce
a) If 1 is an ideal of R, then I[x] forms an ideal ofthe polynomial ring R[xJ.
b) If R and R' are isomorphie rings, then R[x] is isomorphie to R'ex]. distinet polynomial funetions (in other words, the mapping a: R[x J -+ P R is
one-to-one) if ando only if R has an infinite number of elements.
e) ehar R = ehar R[x] = ehar R[[x]J.
b) Give an example oftwo distinet polynomials whieh induce the same polynomial
d) If 1 is a ni! ideal of R, then I[x] is a ni! ideal of R[xJ. [Hint: Induet on the
funetion.
degree of polynomials in I[x].J
14. Let R be a eommutative ring with identity and·define the funetion 15: R[xJ -+ R[x],
7. Establish the following assertions eoneerning the polynomialring Z[xJ: the so-ealled derivative fonctian, as fo1!ows:
a) The ideal If f(x) = ao + a1x + + a.X' E R[x],
.oO

(x) = {a1x + a2 r + oO, + a.X'lak E Z; n ~ 1}

then
is a prime ideal of Z[x], but not a maximal ideaL Ineidentally, (x) is maximal
. in F[x], where F is a field.· . . For any f(x), g(x) E R[x] and any rE R, establish that
b) Z[x] is not a principal ideal domain. [Hint: Conslder (x, 2), the (maxlmal) a) 15(!(x) + g(x)) = 15f(x) + 15g(x).
ideal of polynomials with even eonstant terros.J b) 15(rf(x)) = r15f(x).
e) The primary ideal (x, 4) is not the power of any prime ideal of Z[x]. [Hint: e) 15(!(x)g(x)) = 15f(x)'g(x) + f(x)·15g(x). [Hint: Induet on the number of terms
(x, 2) is the only prime ideal eontaining (x,4).J off(x).J
15. Suppose that R is a eommutative ring with identity and let r E R be a root of the
8. Let P be a prime ideal of R, a eommutative ring with identity. Prove that P[xJ
nonzero polynomial f(x) E R[x]. We eall r a multiple raat of f(x) provided that
is a prime ideal of the polynomial ring R[x]. If M is a maximal ideal of R, is
M[xJ a maximal ideal of R[x]? f(x) = (x - r)'g(x) (n > 1),
152 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IOEALS ,l· PROBLEMS 153
b) 'The ideal 1" eonsists ofall power series having order ~n, together with O, 9. Consider the polynomial domain F[x], where F is a field, and a fixed element
e) n..zJ' = {O}. rE F. Show that t,he set of al1 polynomials having r as a' root,
2. For any field F, eonsider the set F(x> eonsisting of all expressions of the form M, = {¡(x) E F[x]lf(r) = O},
f
k=-n
ak xk = IL.x-' + a_.+1x-·+l + oo' + a_lx- 1 + ao + alx + a2 x 2 + '" forms a maximal ideal of F[xJ,wlth F[x]jMr ~ F. [Hint: Mr
<p, : F[x J
-+ F is the substitu tion homomorphism indueed by r.]
= ker<p" where

" where aH the ak E F and n ~ Ovaries. 10. Regarding thering ofExample 8, Chapter 1, show thatthe polynom¡al (a, 0)x 2 E R[x]
I

. ·If addition and multiplieation are defined in the obvious way, F(x> becomes a has infinitely many roots in R[x].. .
"i\,ring, known as the ring af extended (formal) .pawer series aver F. Show that F(x> 11. Given f(x) = ao + a1x + oO, + a.x' E C[x], define the polyn¿inial f(x) by
/('is in faet the field of quotients of the domain F[[x]J. [Hint: Given nEZ+,
\YQc¡(F[[xJ]) must eontain x-'.J ](x) = iio + ii1x +
+ a.x',
'oO

.3/''t,et R be a eornmutative ring with identity. If R is a local ring, prove that the where iik denotes the usual eomplex eonjugate of dk • Verify t,§ii'
~':''''power series ring R[[x]] is also local. a) rE C is a root of/(x) if and only if r is a r90t ofJ(x). [Hint':]fr) = 1(r).J
b) If f(x) E R#[xJ ~ C[x] and r is a eomplex root of f(x), th,en'r is also a root
~~)íÚiven that R is a eom~utative ring with identity, deduce that of f(x),,~.';';c
;~:';:~) No monic polynomial is R[x] is a zero divisor. . '::::':: . :;.
12. Let R be a eommutative ring with identity and let f(x) E R[~J: The fundion
"'}!:') If the polynomial f(x) = ao + a1x + + a.X' is a zero divisor in R[x],
oO.

then there exists ari element O -+ rE R sueh that rf(x) = O. [Hint: Assume that
f(x)g(x) = O. Use the polynomials akg(x) to obtain O =1= h(x) E R[x], with
deg h(x) < deg f(x), satisfying h(x)f(x) = O.J .
5. If R is a eommutative ring with identity, verify that the polynomial 1 + ax is
invertible in R[x J if and only if the element a is nilpotent in R. [Hint: Problem 10,
1: R -+ R defined by taking l(r) = f(r) for every rE R is eal1ea .the palynamial
jimetian indueed by f(x). Assuming that P R denotes the set of all polynomial
. funetions indueed by elements of R[x], prove that
a) PR forms a subring of map R, known as the ring of polynomial funetions on R;
b) the mapping a: R[xJ -+ PR given by a(!(x)) = 1 is a homomorphism of R[xJ
onto PR ; .

Chapter L] e) if the element rE R is fixed and 1, = {lE P Rll<r) = O}, then Ir is an ideal of
PR'
6. For an arbitrary ring R, prove that .
13. a) When R is an integral domain, show that <;Iistinet polynomials in R[x] induce
a) If 1 is an ideal of R, then I[x] forms an ideal ofthe polynomial ring R[xJ.
b) If R and R' are isomorphie rings, then R[x] is isomorphie to R'ex]. distinet polynomial funetions (in other words, the mapping a: R[x J -+ P R is
one-to-one) if ando only if R has an infinite number of elements.
e) ehar R = ehar R[x] = ehar R[[x]J.
b) Give an example oftwo distinet polynomials whieh induce the same polynomial
d) If 1 is a ni! ideal of R, then I[x] is a ni! ideal of R[xJ. [Hint: Induet on the
funetion.
degree of polynomials in I[x].J
14. Let R be a eommutative ring with identity and·define the funetion 15: R[xJ -+ R[x],
7. Establish the following assertions eoneerning the polynomialring Z[xJ: the so-ealled derivative fonctian, as fo1!ows:
a) The ideal If f(x) = ao + a1x + + a.X' E R[x],
.oO

(x) = {a1x + a2 r + oO, + a.X'lak E Z; n ~ 1}

then
is a prime ideal of Z[x], but not a maximal ideaL Ineidentally, (x) is maximal
. in F[x], where F is a field.· . . For any f(x), g(x) E R[x] and any rE R, establish that
b) Z[x] is not a principal ideal domain. [Hint: Conslder (x, 2), the (maxlmal) a) 15(!(x) + g(x)) = 15f(x) + 15g(x).
ideal of polynomials with even eonstant terros.J b) 15(rf(x)) = r15f(x).
e) The primary ideal (x, 4) is not the power of any prime ideal of Z[x]. [Hint: e) 15(!(x)g(x)) = 15f(x)'g(x) + f(x)·15g(x). [Hint: Induet on the number of terms
(x, 2) is the only prime ideal eontaining (x,4).J off(x).J
15. Suppose that R is a eommutative ring with identity and let r E R be a root of the
8. Let P be a prime ideal of R, a eommutative ring with identity. Prove that P[xJ
nonzero polynomial f(x) E R[x]. We eall r a multiple raat of f(x) provided that
is a prime ideal of the polynomial ring R[x]. If M is a maximal ideal of R, is
M[xJ a maximal ideal of R[x]? f(x) = (x - r)'g(x) (n > 1),
154 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
where g(x)ER[xJ is a polynomial such that g(r) -+ O. Prove that an element
rE R is a multiple root of f(x) if and only if ,. is a root of both f(x) and c5f(x).
16. Let F be a field andf(x) E F[xJ be a polynomial of degree 2 or 3. Deduce that
f(x) is irreducible in F[xJ if and only if it has no root in F. Give an example which
shows that this result need not hold if degf(x) ~ 4.
17. Prove that if a polynomial f(x) E F[x J (F a field of characteristic O) is irreducible,
then a)1 of its roots in any field containing F must be distinct. [Hint: First show
tha~ gcd (J(x), c5f(x)) = 1.J
18. Given that l is a proper ideal of R, a cornmutative ring with identity, establish the
assertions below:
a) If v: R[xJ -> (R/I)[xJ is the reduction homomorphism modulo the ideal l,
thenker v = l[xJ;hence,R[xJ/l[xJ ~ (R/l)[xJ.
b) If the polynomiaIJ(x)E R[xJ is such that v(J(x)) is irreducible in (R/l)[xJ,
thenf(x) is irreducíl;>le in R[xJ.
c) The polynomial f(xl = x 3 - X2 + 1 is irreducible in Z[xJ. [Hint: Reduce
the coefficients modulo 2.J
19. Let R be a unique factorization domain. Show that any nonconstant divisor of a
primitive polynomial in R[xJ is again primitive.
20. Utilize Gauss's Lemma to give an alternative proof of the fact that if R is a unique
factorization domain, then so is the polynomial ring R[xJ. [Hint: For
0-+ f(x) E R[xJ, induct on degf(x); if degf(x) > O, write f(x) = Cfl(X), where
e E R and fl(X) is primitive; if fl(X) is reducible, apply induction to its factors.]
21. Apply the Eisenstein Criterion to establish that the following polynomials are
irreducibleinQ[xJ:f(x) = X2 + 1,g(x) = X2 - X + 1,andh(x) = 2x s - 6x 3 +
9X2 - 15. [Hint: Considerf(x + 1), g(-x).J
22. Let R be a unique factorization doniih.t and K its field of quotients. Assume that
ab- l E K (where a and b are relativéi)(p'rime) is a nonzero root of the polynomial
f(x) = a o + alx + ... + a.X' E R[x;J" Verify that aJa o and bJa•.
23. Prove ,the following assertions concér~,ng the polynomial ring Z[x, y]:
a) The ideals (x), (x, y) and (2, x, y) i§''e aH prime in Z[x, yJ, but only the last is
maximal. . :. :'
b) (x, y) = .J(x2, y) = .J(x2, xy, y2):;::;
c) The ideal (xl', xy, y2) is primary iifZ[x, yJ for any integer k E Z+.
d) If l = (x 2, xy), then.JI is a prime i?eal, but lis not primary. [Hint:.JI = (x).J
24. Consider the polynomial domain F[Jé, yJ, where F forms a field.
a) Show that (x 2, xy, y2) is not a prin'cipal ideal of F[ x, y J. '
b) Establish the isomorphlsm F[ x, y J/(x + y) ~ F[ xJ.
25. Let the element r be algebraic over the field F and let f(x) E F[ x J be a monic
polynomial such thatf(r) = O. Prove thatf(x) is the mínimum polynomial of r
over F if and only iff(x) is irreducible in F[xJ.
26. Assuming that F' is a finite extension of the field F, verify each of the statements
below:
PROBLEMS 155
a) When [F': F] is prilI!e, F' is a simple extension of F; in fact, F' = F(I') for every
element rE F' - F.
b) Iff(x) E F[xJ is an irreducible polynomial whose degree is relatively prime to
[F':FJ, thenf(x) has no roots in F'.
c) If r E F' is algebraic of degree n, then each element of F(r) has as its degree an
integer dividing n.
d) Given fields Ki (i = 1,2) such that F' 2 Ki 2 F, with [Kl:F] and [K2:FJ
relatively prime integers, necessarily Kl n K 2 = F.
27. Show that the following extension fields of Q are simple extensions and determine
their respective degrees: Q(.j3, .j7), Q(.j3, 0, Q(.ji, ~),
28. a) Prove that the extension field F' = F(r l , r 2, ... , r.), where each element r i is
algebraic over F, forms a finite extension of F. [Hint: If Fi = Fi_l(r;), then
F. = F' and [F':FJ = IT¡[Fi+1:FiJ.]
b) If F" is an algebraic extension of F' and F' is an algebraic extension of F, show
that F" is an algebraic extension of F. [Hint: Each r E FU is a root of sorne
polynomial f(x) = a o + alx + ... + a.x' E F'exJ; consider the extension
fields K ~ F(a o, al' ... , a.) and K' = K(r); r is algebraic over K'.]
29. Let F' be an extension of the field F. Prove that the set of aH elements in F' which
are algebraic over F constitute a s,ubfield of F'; applied to the case where F' = C
and F = Q, this yields the field of algebraic numbers. [Hint: If r, s are algebraic
over F, [F(r, s):FJ is finite; hence, F(r, s) is an algebraic extension of F.]
JO. a) Granting that f(x) = X2 + X + 2 is an irreducible polynomial in Z3[ x J,
construct the multiplication table for the field Z3[XJ/(f(x)).
b) Show that the polynomial f(x) = x 3 + X2 + 1 E Z2[XJ factors into linear
factors in Z2[XJ/(f(x)) by actually finding the factorization.
31. If n -+ 1 is a (nonzero) square-free integer, verify that Q[xJ/(x 2 - n) forros a field
isomorph¡c to, tIle quadratic field
Q(Jñ) = {a + bJñJa, b E Q}.
32. Describe the spíitting fields' of the following polynomials:
a) x 3 - 3 E Q[;J,
b) X2 + X + "í'e
Zs[xJ,
c) x 4 + 2X2 +1 ER#[xJ,
d) (xl - 2)(x 2 .,+ l)EQ[xJ.
33. Let r be a rodi of the polynomial f(x) = x 3 - X + 1 E Q[ x J. Find the inverse
of 1 - 2r + 3;'2 in Q(r).
34. Letf(x) E F[xJ be an irreducible polynomial and r, s be two roots off(x) in sorne
splitting field. ' Show that F[rJ ~ F[sJ, by a unique isomorphlsm that leaves
every element of F fixed and takes r into s.
35. Suppose that F' is the splitting field for the polynomialf(x) E F[xJ; say
f(x) = a(x - r1)(x - rz} ... (x - r.) (ri E F', a -+ O).
154 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
where g(x)ER[xJ is a polynomial such that g(r) -+ O. Prove that an element
rE R is a multiple root of f(x) if and only if ,. is a root of both f(x) and c5f(x).
16. Let F be a field andf(x) E F[xJ be a polynomial of degree 2 or 3. Deduce that
f(x) is irreducible in F[xJ if and only if it has no root in F. Give an example which
shows that this result need not hold if degf(x) ~ 4.
17. Prove that if a polynomial f(x) E F[x J (F a field of characteristic O) is irreducible,
then a)1 of its roots in any field containing F must be distinct. [Hint: First show
tha~ gcd (J(x), c5f(x)) = 1.J
18. Given that l is a proper ideal of R, a cornmutative ring with identity, establish the
assertions below:
a) If v: R[xJ -> (R/I)[xJ is the reduction homomorphism modulo the ideal l,
thenker v = l[xJ;hence,R[xJ/l[xJ ~ (R/l)[xJ.
b) If the polynomiaIJ(x)E R[xJ is such that v(J(x)) is irreducible in (R/l)[xJ,
thenf(x) is irreducíl;>le in R[xJ.
c) The polynomial f(xl = x 3 - X2 + 1 is irreducible in Z[xJ. [Hint: Reduce
the coefficients modulo 2.J
19. Let R be a unique factorization domain. Show that any nonconstant divisor of a
primitive polynomial in R[xJ is again primitive.
20. Utilize Gauss's Lemma to give an alternative proof of the fact that if R is a unique
factorization domain, then so is the polynomial ring R[xJ. [Hint: For
0-+ f(x) E R[xJ, induct on degf(x); if degf(x) > O, write f(x) = Cfl(X), where
e E R and fl(X) is primitive; if fl(X) is reducible, apply induction to its factors.]
21. Apply the Eisenstein Criterion to establish that the following polynomials are
irreducibleinQ[xJ:f(x) = X2 + 1,g(x) = X2 - X + 1,andh(x) = 2x s - 6x 3 +
9X2 - 15. [Hint: Considerf(x + 1), g(-x).J
22. Let R be a unique factorization doniih.t and K its field of quotients. Assume that
ab- l E K (where a and b are relativéi)(p'rime) is a nonzero root of the polynomial
f(x) = a o + alx + ... + a.X' E R[x;J" Verify that aJa o and bJa•.
23. Prove ,the following assertions concér~,ng the polynomial ring Z[x, y]:
a) The ideals (x), (x, y) and (2, x, y) i§''e aH prime in Z[x, yJ, but only the last is
maximal. . :. :'
b) (x, y) = .J(x2, y) = .J(x2, xy, y2):;::;
c) The ideal (xl', xy, y2) is primary iifZ[x, yJ for any integer k E Z+.
d) If l = (x 2, xy), then.JI is a prime i?eal, but lis not primary. [Hint:.JI = (x).J
24. Consider the polynomial domain F[Jé, yJ, where F forms a field.
a) Show that (x 2, xy, y2) is not a prin'cipal ideal of F[ x, y J. '
b) Establish the isomorphlsm F[ x, y J/(x + y) ~ F[ xJ.
25. Let the element r be algebraic over the field F and let f(x) E F[ x J be a monic
polynomial such thatf(r) = O. Prove thatf(x) is the mínimum polynomial of r
over F if and only iff(x) is irreducible in F[xJ.
26. Assuming that F' is a finite extension of the field F, verify each of the statements
below:
PROBLEMS 155
a) When [F': F] is prilI!e, F' is a simple extension of F; in fact, F' = F(I') for every
element rE F' - F.
b) Iff(x) E F[xJ is an irreducible polynomial whose degree is relatively prime to
[F':FJ, thenf(x) has no roots in F'.
c) If r E F' is algebraic of degree n, then each element of F(r) has as its degree an
integer dividing n.
d) Given fields Ki (i = 1,2) such that F' 2 Ki 2 F, with [Kl:F] and [K2:FJ
relatively prime integers, necessarily Kl n K 2 = F.
27. Show that the following extension fields of Q are simple extensions and determine
their respective degrees: Q(.j3, .j7), Q(.j3, 0, Q(.ji, ~),
28. a) Prove that the extension field F' = F(r l , r 2, ... , r.), where each element r i is
algebraic over F, forms a finite extension of F. [Hint: If Fi = Fi_l(r;), then
F. = F' and [F':FJ = IT¡[Fi+1:FiJ.]
b) If F" is an algebraic extension of F' and F' is an algebraic extension of F, show
that F" is an algebraic extension of F. [Hint: Each r E FU is a root of sorne
polynomial f(x) = a o + alx + ... + a.x' E F'exJ; consider the extension
fields K ~ F(a o, al' ... , a.) and K' = K(r); r is algebraic over K'.]
29. Let F' be an extension of the field F. Prove that the set of aH elements in F' which
are algebraic over F constitute a s,ubfield of F'; applied to the case where F' = C
and F = Q, this yields the field of algebraic numbers. [Hint: If r, s are algebraic
over F, [F(r, s):FJ is finite; hence, F(r, s) is an algebraic extension of F.]
JO. a) Granting that f(x) = X2 + X + 2 is an irreducible polynomial in Z3[ x J,
construct the multiplication table for the field Z3[XJ/(f(x)).
b) Show that the polynomial f(x) = x 3 + X2 + 1 E Z2[XJ factors into linear
factors in Z2[XJ/(f(x)) by actually finding the factorization.
31. If n -+ 1 is a (nonzero) square-free integer, verify that Q[xJ/(x 2 - n) forros a field
isomorph¡c to, tIle quadratic field
Q(Jñ) = {a + bJñJa, b E Q}.
32. Describe the spíitting fields' of the following polynomials:
a) x 3 - 3 E Q[;J,
b) X2 + X + "í'e
Zs[xJ,
c) x 4 + 2X2 +1 ER#[xJ,
d) (xl - 2)(x 2 .,+ l)EQ[xJ.
33. Let r be a rodi of the polynomial f(x) = x 3 - X + 1 E Q[ x J. Find the inverse
of 1 - 2r + 3;'2 in Q(r).
34. Letf(x) E F[xJ be an irreducible polynomial and r, s be two roots off(x) in sorne
splitting field. ' Show that F[rJ ~ F[sJ, by a unique isomorphlsm that leaves
every element of F fixed and takes r into s.
35. Suppose that F' is the splitting field for the polynomialf(x) E F[xJ; say
f(x) = a(x - r1)(x - rz} ... (x - r.) (ri E F', a -+ O).
156 FIRST COURSE 'IN RINGS AND IDEALS

Prove that F' = F(r l' r2' ... , r.). As a particular illustration, establish' that EIGHT
Q(J2,J3) is the splitting field of (x 2 - 2)(x 2 - 3) E Q[x].
36. Letf(x) E Zp[x] be an irreducible polynomial of degree n, p a prime. Verify that
the field F = Zp[xJ/(J(x)) contains p. elements.
37. If F' is a splitting field of a polynomial of degree n over F, show that [F' :F] ::;; n!
";j,
38. A field F' is said to be algebraica/ly e/osed if F' has 'n'p proper algebraic extensions.
I
Assurnlng that F' is an algebraic extension of F, prove the equivalence of the CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING
follciwing statements: '.'
"'.:
a) F' is algebraically closed.
b) Every irreducible polynomial in F'[x] is linear.....
e) Every polynomial in F[x] splits in F'. '. .
(For a proof that every field has an algebraic eXf~,nsion which is algebraicalIy We touched earlier on the~rádica1 concept by briefiy considering the notion
closed, the reader is re(erred to [23].) i! ,,' . of the ni! radical of an ¡-¿le·al. There are a number of other radicals in
circuhition ;. several of the.' more prominent ones are introduced jn this
chapter. These various fofiriulations are not, in general, equivalent to one
'.. , : . ~.
~~ ~ ...
another and this has given.tise to certain confusion and a111biguity in the
use ofthe termo (Indeed, whenever the reader encounters the word "radical"
by itself, he should take sorne pains to discover just what ismeant by it.)
By way of removing sorne of this confusion, qualifying adjectives are given
to the different types ofradicals which appear here. In addition to indicating
the importance of these new radical s in the structure theory, we will be
. con cerned with the pature of the inclusion relations between them and the
circumstances under which various radicalscoincide. The reader is agaÍn
reminded that, inthe absence ol any statement to the contrary, ihe term
"ring" will always mean a commutative ring with identity.
It appears in order to defipe one of the radicals around which our
interest centers.
Definition 8-1. The Jacobsonradical of a ring R, denoted by rad R, is
the set
rad R = n {MIM is a maximal ideal of R}.
If rad R = {O}, then R is said to be a ring without Jacobson radical or,
more briefiy, R is a semisimple ringo

The Jacobson radical always exists, since we knOw by Theorem 5-2 that
any commutative ring with identity contains at least one maximal ideal.
It is also irnmediately obvious from the definition that rad R forms an
ideal of R which is contained in each maximal ideal.
To fix ideas, let us determine the Jacobson radical in several concrete
rings.

Example 8-1. The ring Z of integers is a semi simple ringo For, according
157
156 FIRST COURSE 'IN RINGS AND IDEALS

Prove that F' = F(r l' r2' ... , r.). As a particular illustration, establish' that EIGHT
Q(J2,J3) is the splitting field of (x 2 - 2)(x 2 - 3) E Q[x].
36. Letf(x) E Zp[x] be an irreducible polynomial of degree n, p a prime. Verify that
the field F = Zp[xJ/(J(x)) contains p. elements.
37. If F' is a splitting field of a polynomial of degree n over F, show that [F' :F] ::;; n!
";j,
38. A field F' is said to be algebraica/ly e/osed if F' has 'n'p proper algebraic extensions.
I
Assurnlng that F' is an algebraic extension of F, prove the equivalence of the CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING
follciwing statements: '.'
"'.:
a) F' is algebraically closed.
b) Every irreducible polynomial in F'[x] is linear.....
e) Every polynomial in F[x] splits in F'. '. .
(For a proof that every field has an algebraic eXf~,nsion which is algebraicalIy We touched earlier on the~rádica1 concept by briefiy considering the notion
closed, the reader is re(erred to [23].) i! ,,' . of the ni! radical of an ¡-¿le·al. There are a number of other radicals in
circuhition ;. several of the.' more prominent ones are introduced jn this
chapter. These various fofiriulations are not, in general, equivalent to one
'.. , : . ~.
~~ ~ ...
another and this has given.tise to certain confusion and a111biguity in the
use ofthe termo (Indeed, whenever the reader encounters the word "radical"
by itself, he should take sorne pains to discover just what ismeant by it.)
By way of removing sorne of this confusion, qualifying adjectives are given
to the different types ofradicals which appear here. In addition to indicating
the importance of these new radical s in the structure theory, we will be
. con cerned with the pature of the inclusion relations between them and the
circumstances under which various radicalscoincide. The reader is agaÍn
reminded that, inthe absence ol any statement to the contrary, ihe term
"ring" will always mean a commutative ring with identity.
It appears in order to defipe one of the radicals around which our
interest centers.
Definition 8-1. The Jacobsonradical of a ring R, denoted by rad R, is
the set
rad R = n {MIM is a maximal ideal of R}.
If rad R = {O}, then R is said to be a ring without Jacobson radical or,
more briefiy, R is a semisimple ringo

The Jacobson radical always exists, since we knOw by Theorem 5-2 that
any commutative ring with identity contains at least one maximal ideal.
It is also irnmediately obvious from the definition that rad R forms an
ideal of R which is contained in each maximal ideal.
To fix ideas, let us determine the Jacobson radical in several concrete
rings.

Example 8-1. The ring Z of integers is a semi simple ringo For, according
157
 158 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
to Example 5-1, the maximal ideals of Z are precisely the principal ideals
generated by the prime numbers; thus,
rad R = n {(p)lp is a prime number}.
Since no nonzero integer is divisible by every prime, we see at once that
rad R = {O}. . in the form 1 = m + ra for suitable choice of m E M and r E R. But then,
Example'8-2. A more penetrating illustration is furnished by the ring
R = map(X, F), where X is an arbitrary set and F a field. For any element
x E X, consider the function <,:/ = f(x) which assigns to each function in
R its value at x. It is easily checked that <x is a homomorphism of R into F;
since R contains all the constant functions, this homomorphism actually
maps onto the field F. Thus, by Problem 10, Chapter 5, its kernel is the
maximal ideal
'Mx = {fE Rlf(x) = O}.
Because rad R ~ n Mx = {fE Rlf(x) = O for all x E X} = {O}, it follows
that R must be a semisimple ringo
Example 8-3. For a final example, we turn to the ring R[[x]] of formal
power series. Here, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the
maximal ideals M of R and maxirnal ideal s M' of R[[xJ] in such a way
that M' corresponds to M if and only if M' is generated by M and x
(Theorem 7-4). Thus,
rad R[[xJ] = n {M'IM' is a maximal ideal of R[[xJ]}
= n {(M, x)IM is a maximal ideal of R}
= (n M, x) = (rad R, x).
In particular, if R is taken to be a field F, we have rad F[[xJ] = (x),;Jhe
principal ideal generated by X. : ceding theorem, we see that 1 - a has an inverse:iiJ R; say (1 - ",)b
Our first theorem establishes a basic connection between the Jacobson
radical and invertibility of ring elements. . a = a(l - a)b = (a - a 2 )b'e O,
Theorem 8-1. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. Then 1 ~ r~d R i(and
only if each element of the coset 1 + 1 has ·an inverse in R. ;
Proof. We begin by assuming that 1 ~ rad R and that there is sorne
element a El for which 1 + a is not invertible. Our object, of course, 'is
to derive a contradiction. By the corollary to Theorem 5-3, the element
1 + a must belong to sorne maximal ideal M ofthe ring R. Since a E rao R,
a is also contained in M, and therefore 1 = (1 + a) - a líes in M. But this
mean s that M = R, which is c1early impossible.
CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 159
To pro ve the converse, suppose that each member. of 1 + 1 has a
multiplicative inverse in R, but 1 $ rad R. By definition of the Jacobson
radical, there will exist a maximal ideal M of R with 1 $ M. Now, if a is
any element of 1 which is not in M, the maximality of M implies that the
ideal (M, a) = R. Knowing this, the identity element 1 can be expressed
m = 1 - ra E 1 + 1, so that m possesses an inverse. The conc1usion is
untenable, since no proper ideal contains an invertible element.
The form which this result takes when 1 is the principal ideal generated
by a Erad R furnishes a characterization of the Jacobson radical in terms
of elements rather than ideals. Although actually a corollary to the theorem
just proved, it is iIilportant enough to be singled out as a theorem.
Theorem 8-2. In any ring R, an element a Erad R if and only if 1 - ra
is invertible for each r E R.
This theorem adapts itself' to many uses. Three fairly short and
instructive applications are presented below. .
Corollary 1. An element a is invertible in the ring R if and only if the
coset a + rad R is invertible in the quotient ring Rlrad R.
Proof. Assume that the coset a + rad ~ has an inverse in Rlrad R, so that
(a + rad R)(b + rad R) = 1 + rad R
for sorne bE R. Then 1 - ab lies in rad R. We now appeal to Theorem
8-2, with r = 1, to conc1ude that the product ab = 1 - 1(1 - ab) is
invertible; this, in turn, forces the element a to h~ve an inverse in R. The
other direction of the corbllary is all but obvious.";'<·"
Corollary 2. The only idempotent element i~;';;~d R is O.
Proof. Let the element a Erad R with a 2 = a. TaÍcing r = 1 in the pre-
= 1,
where b E R. This 1eads irnmediately to '
which completes the proof.
Corollary 3. Every nil ideal of R is contained in rad R.
Proof. Let N be a nil ideal of R and suppose that a E N. For every rE R,
we then have ra E N, so that the product ra is nilpotent. Problem 10,
Chapter 1, therefore implíes that 1 - ra is invertible in R. This shows that
the element a líes in rad R, from which it follows that N ~ rad R.
Although the Jacobson radical of a ring R is not necessarily a nil ideal;
very little restriction on R force s it to be nil. We shall see subsequentIy
 158 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
to Example 5-1, the maximal ideals of Z are precisely the principal ideals
generated by the prime numbers; thus,
rad R = n {(p)lp is a prime number}.
Since no nonzero integer is divisible by every prime, we see at once that
rad R = {O}. . in the form 1 = m + ra for suitable choice of m E M and r E R. But then,
Example'8-2. A more penetrating illustration is furnished by the ring
R = map(X, F), where X is an arbitrary set and F a field. For any element
x E X, consider the function <,:/ = f(x) which assigns to each function in
R its value at x. It is easily checked that <x is a homomorphism of R into F;
since R contains all the constant functions, this homomorphism actually
maps onto the field F. Thus, by Problem 10, Chapter 5, its kernel is the
maximal ideal
'Mx = {fE Rlf(x) = O}.
Because rad R ~ n Mx = {fE Rlf(x) = O for all x E X} = {O}, it follows
that R must be a semisimple ringo
Example 8-3. For a final example, we turn to the ring R[[x]] of formal
power series. Here, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the
maximal ideals M of R and maxirnal ideal s M' of R[[xJ] in such a way
that M' corresponds to M if and only if M' is generated by M and x
(Theorem 7-4). Thus,
rad R[[xJ] = n {M'IM' is a maximal ideal of R[[xJ]}
= n {(M, x)IM is a maximal ideal of R}
= (n M, x) = (rad R, x).
In particular, if R is taken to be a field F, we have rad F[[xJ] = (x),;Jhe
principal ideal generated by X. : ceding theorem, we see that 1 - a has an inverse:iiJ R; say (1 - ",)b
Our first theorem establishes a basic connection between the Jacobson
radical and invertibility of ring elements. . a = a(l - a)b = (a - a 2 )b'e O,
Theorem 8-1. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. Then 1 ~ r~d R i(and
only if each element of the coset 1 + 1 has ·an inverse in R. ;
Proof. We begin by assuming that 1 ~ rad R and that there is sorne
element a El for which 1 + a is not invertible. Our object, of course, 'is
to derive a contradiction. By the corollary to Theorem 5-3, the element
1 + a must belong to sorne maximal ideal M ofthe ring R. Since a E rao R,
a is also contained in M, and therefore 1 = (1 + a) - a líes in M. But this
mean s that M = R, which is c1early impossible.
CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 159
To pro ve the converse, suppose that each member. of 1 + 1 has a
multiplicative inverse in R, but 1 $ rad R. By definition of the Jacobson
radical, there will exist a maximal ideal M of R with 1 $ M. Now, if a is
any element of 1 which is not in M, the maximality of M implies that the
ideal (M, a) = R. Knowing this, the identity element 1 can be expressed
m = 1 - ra E 1 + 1, so that m possesses an inverse. The conc1usion is
untenable, since no proper ideal contains an invertible element.
The form which this result takes when 1 is the principal ideal generated
by a Erad R furnishes a characterization of the Jacobson radical in terms
of elements rather than ideals. Although actually a corollary to the theorem
just proved, it is iIilportant enough to be singled out as a theorem.
Theorem 8-2. In any ring R, an element a Erad R if and only if 1 - ra
is invertible for each r E R.
This theorem adapts itself' to many uses. Three fairly short and
instructive applications are presented below. .
Corollary 1. An element a is invertible in the ring R if and only if the
coset a + rad R is invertible in the quotient ring Rlrad R.
Proof. Assume that the coset a + rad ~ has an inverse in Rlrad R, so that
(a + rad R)(b + rad R) = 1 + rad R
for sorne bE R. Then 1 - ab lies in rad R. We now appeal to Theorem
8-2, with r = 1, to conc1ude that the product ab = 1 - 1(1 - ab) is
invertible; this, in turn, forces the element a to h~ve an inverse in R. The
other direction of the corbllary is all but obvious.";'<·"
Corollary 2. The only idempotent element i~;';;~d R is O.
Proof. Let the element a Erad R with a 2 = a. TaÍcing r = 1 in the pre-
= 1,
where b E R. This 1eads irnmediately to '
which completes the proof.
Corollary 3. Every nil ideal of R is contained in rad R.
Proof. Let N be a nil ideal of R and suppose that a E N. For every rE R,
we then have ra E N, so that the product ra is nilpotent. Problem 10,
Chapter 1, therefore implíes that 1 - ra is invertible in R. This shows that
the element a líes in rad R, from which it follows that N ~ rad R.
Although the Jacobson radical of a ring R is not necessarily a nil ideal;
very little restriction on R force s it to be nil. We shall see subsequentIy
 160 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RIN'G 161

that, if every ideal of R is finitely generated, then rad R is not only ni! but Again appealing to Theorem 8-2, we conclude that the element
nilpotent. b - rab = 1 - 1(1 - b + rab)
This is a cpnvenient place to also point out that a homomorphic image
of a semisimple ríng need not be semisimpleo An explicit example of tbis has an inve,fse e in R. But then
situation can easily be obtained from the ring Z of integerso While Z forms (1 - ra)(bc) = (b - rab)c = 1,
a ring without a Jacobson radical, its homomorphic image Zpn (p a prime;
n > 1) eqntains the nil ideal (p); appealing to Corollary 3 aboye, we see so that 1 - ra possesses a multiplicative inverse in R. As this argl,lment
that Zp. cannot be semisimpleo holds for every r E R, it follows that a Erad R = 1, as desiredo "
'-, . ., Continuing this theme, let us expre~s the Jacobson radical ofthe qiJotient
Example 8-4.;iConsider F[[x ]], the ríng of formal power series over a field '0'.
F. From th6';lemma 011 page 116, it is known that an element f(x) = ríng Rj1 as a function of the radical of R. ;':: ,'¡ • ~ •

ao + a 1x + '.o:.~ + a.x· + .0. has an inverse in F[[x]] if and only if the Theorem 8-4. If 1 is an ideal of the ríng R, then
. ;,';'

constant ter~~ap =1= 00 This observatión (in conjunction with Theorem 8-2) :.. ,'

rad R +1
implies that:if g(x) = biJ + b1x + o.. + bllx" + ... , then 1) rad (Rjl) 2 1 " and,

, rad F[[~:iJ~'~ {j(x)! i - f(x)g(x) is invertible for aH g(x) E F[[xJ]} 2) whenever 1 5; rad R, rad (Rjl) = (rad R)/1.
• ":,;'h {j(x)!1 - aob o =1= O for all bo E F} , Proo/. Perhapsthe q~ickest way to establish the first assertion is by Íiieans
of the Correspondence Theorem; using this, one has
O} = (x).
< •
= {j(x)!a o =
rad (R/I) = n {M'! M' is a maximal ideal of RjI} ,
Thus, we have a second proof ofthe fact that the Jacobson radical of F[[xJ]
is the principal ideal generatedby Xo , = n {nat¡M!M is a maximal ideal of R with 1 5; M}
Wenext prove several resuItsbearing on the Jacobson radical of qt¡.otient, < rad R+ 1
2 nat¡ (rad R + 1), = 1 '
ríngs. The first.of these provides a convenient method for manufacturil.lg
semisimple rings; its proof utilizes both implications of the iast theorem. which is the first part of our theorem (the crucial step requires the inclusion
Theorem 8-3. For any ring R, the quotient ring Rjrad R is semisimple; nJ<;MM 2 1 + rad R)o ' '
that is, rad(Rjrad R) = {O}o With an eye to proving (2), notice that whenever 1 5; rad R, then
Proo/. Before becoming involved in details, let us remark that since rad R , 'radR+l .
rad (Rjl) 2 l ' ~ (rad ,~)j!: :
,constitutes an ideal of R, we may certainly form the quotient ring RjradR.
To simplify no tati o n somewhat, we will temporarily denote rae!. R by 1.
Thus, we need only to show the inclusion (rad R)jl 2 rad (Rjl)o To this
Suppose that the coset a + 1 Erad (Rjl). Our strategy is to show that
purpose, choose the coset a + 1 Erad (Rjl) and let M be an arbitrary
the element a E 1, for then a + 1 = 1, which would imply that rad (Rjl)
maximal ideal of R. Since 1 5; rad R 5; M, the image nat¡M = Mjl must
eonsists of only the zero element of Rjlo Sinee a + 1 is a member of rad (Rjl),
be a maximal ideal of the qUbtient ríng Rjl (Problem 3, Chapter 5)0 But
Theorem 8-2 asserts that then, '
(1 + 1) - (r+ l)(a + 1) = 1 - ra + 1
a + 1 Erad (R/I) 5; Mjl,
is invertible in Rjl for each choice of r E Ro Accordingly, there exists a
coset b + 1 (depending, of course,.on both r and a) such that foreing the element ato lie in Mo As this holds for every maxirnal ideal of
R, it follows that a Erad R and so a + 1 E (rad R)/lo All in all, we have
(1 - ra + l)(b + 1) = 1 + lo proved that rad (Rjl) 5; (rad R)jl, which, combined with our earlier
This is plainly equivalent to requiring inclusion, leads to (2).

1 - (b - rab) E 1 = rad R. Armed with Theorem 8-4, we are in a position to establish:

 160 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RIN'G 161

that, if every ideal of R is finitely generated, then rad R is not only ni! but Again appealing to Theorem 8-2, we conclude that the element
nilpotent. b - rab = 1 - 1(1 - b + rab)
This is a cpnvenient place to also point out that a homomorphic image
of a semisimple ríng need not be semisimpleo An explicit example of tbis has an inve,fse e in R. But then
situation can easily be obtained from the ring Z of integerso While Z forms (1 - ra)(bc) = (b - rab)c = 1,
a ring without a Jacobson radical, its homomorphic image Zpn (p a prime;
n > 1) eqntains the nil ideal (p); appealing to Corollary 3 aboye, we see so that 1 - ra possesses a multiplicative inverse in R. As this argl,lment
that Zp. cannot be semisimpleo holds for every r E R, it follows that a Erad R = 1, as desiredo "
'-, . ., Continuing this theme, let us expre~s the Jacobson radical ofthe qiJotient
Example 8-4.;iConsider F[[x ]], the ríng of formal power series over a field '0'.
F. From th6';lemma 011 page 116, it is known that an element f(x) = ríng Rj1 as a function of the radical of R. ;':: ,'¡ • ~ •

ao + a 1x + '.o:.~ + a.x· + .0. has an inverse in F[[x]] if and only if the Theorem 8-4. If 1 is an ideal of the ríng R, then
. ;,';'

constant ter~~ap =1= 00 This observatión (in conjunction with Theorem 8-2) :.. ,'

rad R +1
implies that:if g(x) = biJ + b1x + o.. + bllx" + ... , then 1) rad (Rjl) 2 1 " and,

, rad F[[~:iJ~'~ {j(x)! i - f(x)g(x) is invertible for aH g(x) E F[[xJ]} 2) whenever 1 5; rad R, rad (Rjl) = (rad R)/1.
• ":,;'h {j(x)!1 - aob o =1= O for all bo E F} , Proo/. Perhapsthe q~ickest way to establish the first assertion is by Íiieans
of the Correspondence Theorem; using this, one has
O} = (x).
< •
= {j(x)!a o =
rad (R/I) = n {M'! M' is a maximal ideal of RjI} ,
Thus, we have a second proof ofthe fact that the Jacobson radical of F[[xJ]
is the principal ideal generatedby Xo , = n {nat¡M!M is a maximal ideal of R with 1 5; M}
Wenext prove several resuItsbearing on the Jacobson radical of qt¡.otient, < rad R+ 1
2 nat¡ (rad R + 1), = 1 '
ríngs. The first.of these provides a convenient method for manufacturil.lg
semisimple rings; its proof utilizes both implications of the iast theorem. which is the first part of our theorem (the crucial step requires the inclusion
Theorem 8-3. For any ring R, the quotient ring Rjrad R is semisimple; nJ<;MM 2 1 + rad R)o ' '
that is, rad(Rjrad R) = {O}o With an eye to proving (2), notice that whenever 1 5; rad R, then
Proo/. Before becoming involved in details, let us remark that since rad R , 'radR+l .
rad (Rjl) 2 l ' ~ (rad ,~)j!: :
,constitutes an ideal of R, we may certainly form the quotient ring RjradR.
To simplify no tati o n somewhat, we will temporarily denote rae!. R by 1.
Thus, we need only to show the inclusion (rad R)jl 2 rad (Rjl)o To this
Suppose that the coset a + 1 Erad (Rjl). Our strategy is to show that
purpose, choose the coset a + 1 Erad (Rjl) and let M be an arbitrary
the element a E 1, for then a + 1 = 1, which would imply that rad (Rjl)
maximal ideal of R. Since 1 5; rad R 5; M, the image nat¡M = Mjl must
eonsists of only the zero element of Rjlo Sinee a + 1 is a member of rad (Rjl),
be a maximal ideal of the qUbtient ríng Rjl (Problem 3, Chapter 5)0 But
Theorem 8-2 asserts that then, '
(1 + 1) - (r+ l)(a + 1) = 1 - ra + 1
a + 1 Erad (R/I) 5; Mjl,
is invertible in Rjl for each choice of r E Ro Accordingly, there exists a
coset b + 1 (depending, of course,.on both r and a) such that foreing the element ato lie in Mo As this holds for every maxirnal ideal of
R, it follows that a Erad R and so a + 1 E (rad R)/lo All in all, we have
(1 - ra + l)(b + 1) = 1 + lo proved that rad (Rjl) 5; (rad R)jl, which, combined with our earlier
This is plainly equivalent to requiring inclusion, leads to (2).

1 - (b - rab) E 1 = rad R. Armed with Theorem 8-4, we are in a position to establish:

 162 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Theorem 8-5. For any ring R, rad R is the smallest ideal l of R such
that the quotient ring Rll is semisimple (in other words, if Rll is a
semisimple ring, then rad R S;;; l).
Proof. From Theorem 8-3, it is already known that Rlrad R is without
{ Jacobson radical. Now, assume that l is any ideal of R fúr which the
associated quotient ring Rll is semisimple. Using part (1) of the preceding
theorem, we can then deduce the equality (I + rad R)ll = 1. This in turn
leads to the inclusion rad R S;;; l, which is what we sought to pro ve.
This may be a good place to mention two theorems concerning the
number of maximal ideals in a ring; these are of a rather special character,
but typify the results that can be obtained.
Theorem 8-6. Let F- be a principal ideal domain. Then, R is semi-
simple if and only if R is either a field or has an infinite number of
maximal ideals.
Proof. Let {p;} be the sét of prime elements of R. According to Theorem
6~·-10, themaximal ideals of R are simply the principal ideals (p¡). It follows
that an element a erad R if and only if a is divisible by each prime Pi- If
R has an infinite set of maximal ideals, then a = O, since every nonzero
noninvertible element of R is uniquely representable as a finite product of
primes. On the other hand, if R contains only a finite number of primes
PI' P2' ... , p", we have
. rad R = n (p¡) = (PIP2 ... Pn) +- {O},
n
i=1
,
so that R cannot be semisimple.. Finally, observe that if the set {Pi} is empty,
then each nonzero element oJ Ris invertible and R is a field (in which case
rad R = { O } ) . ' ( !
CoroUary. The ring Z of,integers is semisimple.
Theorem 8-7. Let {M;},i' F J, be the set of maximal ideals of the ring
R. If, for each i, there !e?Cists an element ai e Mi such that 1 - a i e
rad R - Mi' then {Ma i~ a finite set.
Proof. Suppose that the indéx set J is infinite. Then there exists a well-
ordering ~ of J under which J has no last el~ent. (See Appendix A for
terminology.) For each ieJ, we define li ~"I( li<jMj' Then {l;} forms
a chain of proper ideals of R. 'By hypothesis, we can select an element
ai e Mi such that 1 -, ai e li - Mi' Now the ideal l = u li is also a proper
ideal of R, since 1 ~ 1. By our choice of the li' l is not contained in any
maximal ideal of R. Indeed, suppose that there does exist án index i for
which l S;;; Mi; then,
CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 163
yielding the contradiction 1 e Mi' But it is known that every proper ideal
of R is contained in a maximal ideal of R (Theorem 5-2). From this
contradiction we conclude that J must be finite.
Let us now turn to a consideration of another radical which plays an
essential role in ring theory, to wit, the prime. radical. Its definition may
also be framed in terms of the intersection of certain ideals.
Definition 8-2. The prime radical of a ring R, denoted by Rad R (in
contrast with rad R), is the set
Rad R = n {plp is a prime ideal of R}.
If Rad R = {O}, we say that the ring R is without prime radical or has
zero prime radical.
Theorem 5-7, together with Definition 8-1, shows that the prime radical
exists, forms an ideal of R, and satisfies the inclusion Rad R S;;; rad R. It
is useful to keep in mind that, for any integral domain, the zero ideal is a
prime ideal ;for these rings, Rad R = {O}. In particular, the ring F[ [xJ]
of formal power series over a field F has zero prime radical but, as we already
know, a non trivial Jacobson radical.
Perhaps the most striking result of the present chapter is that the prime
radical, although seemingly quite different, is actually equal to the nil
radical of a ringo The lemma below provides the key to establishing this
assertion.
Lemma. Let l be an ideal ofthe ring R. Further, assume that the subset
. S S;;; R is closed under multiplication and disjoint from 1. Then there
exists an ideal P which is maximal in the set of ideals which contain l .'
aná '40 not meet s; any such ideal is necessarily prime.
.)
Proof.Consider the family $' of all ideals J of R such that l S;;; J and
J n S == ifJ. This family is not empty since l itself satisfies the indicated
conditions. Our immediate aim is to show that for any chain of ideals {J;}
in $', their union u Ji also belongs to $'. It has already be'en established
in Theorem 5-2 that the union of a chain of ideals is again an ideal; more-
over, since l S;;; Ji for each i, we certainly have l S;;; u Ji' Finally, observe
that '
(u J¡) n S = u (Ji n S) = u ifJ = ifJ.
The crux of the matter is that Zorn 's Lemma can now be applied to inter
that $' has a maximal element P; this is the ideal that we want.
By definition, P is maximal in the set of ideal s which contain l but do
not meet S. To settle the whole affair there remains simply to show that
P is a prime ideal. For this purpose, assume that the product ab e P but
that a ~ P and b ~ P. Since it is strictIy larger than P, the ideal (P, a) must
 162 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Theorem 8-5. For any ring R, rad R is the smallest ideal l of R such
that the quotient ring Rll is semisimple (in other words, if Rll is a
semisimple ring, then rad R S;;; l).
Proof. From Theorem 8-3, it is already known that Rlrad R is without
{ Jacobson radical. Now, assume that l is any ideal of R fúr which the
associated quotient ring Rll is semisimple. Using part (1) of the preceding
theorem, we can then deduce the equality (I + rad R)ll = 1. This in turn
leads to the inclusion rad R S;;; l, which is what we sought to pro ve.
This may be a good place to mention two theorems concerning the
number of maximal ideals in a ring; these are of a rather special character,
but typify the results that can be obtained.
Theorem 8-6. Let F- be a principal ideal domain. Then, R is semi-
simple if and only if R is either a field or has an infinite number of
maximal ideals.
Proof. Let {p;} be the sét of prime elements of R. According to Theorem
6~·-10, themaximal ideals of R are simply the principal ideals (p¡). It follows
that an element a erad R if and only if a is divisible by each prime Pi- If
R has an infinite set of maximal ideals, then a = O, since every nonzero
noninvertible element of R is uniquely representable as a finite product of
primes. On the other hand, if R contains only a finite number of primes
PI' P2' ... , p", we have
. rad R = n (p¡) = (PIP2 ... Pn) +- {O},
n
i=1
,
so that R cannot be semisimple.. Finally, observe that if the set {Pi} is empty,
then each nonzero element oJ Ris invertible and R is a field (in which case
rad R = { O } ) . ' ( !
CoroUary. The ring Z of,integers is semisimple.
Theorem 8-7. Let {M;},i' F J, be the set of maximal ideals of the ring
R. If, for each i, there !e?Cists an element ai e Mi such that 1 - a i e
rad R - Mi' then {Ma i~ a finite set.
Proof. Suppose that the indéx set J is infinite. Then there exists a well-
ordering ~ of J under which J has no last el~ent. (See Appendix A for
terminology.) For each ieJ, we define li ~"I( li<jMj' Then {l;} forms
a chain of proper ideals of R. 'By hypothesis, we can select an element
ai e Mi such that 1 -, ai e li - Mi' Now the ideal l = u li is also a proper
ideal of R, since 1 ~ 1. By our choice of the li' l is not contained in any
maximal ideal of R. Indeed, suppose that there does exist án index i for
which l S;;; Mi; then,
CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 163
yielding the contradiction 1 e Mi' But it is known that every proper ideal
of R is contained in a maximal ideal of R (Theorem 5-2). From this
contradiction we conclude that J must be finite.
Let us now turn to a consideration of another radical which plays an
essential role in ring theory, to wit, the prime. radical. Its definition may
also be framed in terms of the intersection of certain ideals.
Definition 8-2. The prime radical of a ring R, denoted by Rad R (in
contrast with rad R), is the set
Rad R = n {plp is a prime ideal of R}.
If Rad R = {O}, we say that the ring R is without prime radical or has
zero prime radical.
Theorem 5-7, together with Definition 8-1, shows that the prime radical
exists, forms an ideal of R, and satisfies the inclusion Rad R S;;; rad R. It
is useful to keep in mind that, for any integral domain, the zero ideal is a
prime ideal ;for these rings, Rad R = {O}. In particular, the ring F[ [xJ]
of formal power series over a field F has zero prime radical but, as we already
know, a non trivial Jacobson radical.
Perhaps the most striking result of the present chapter is that the prime
radical, although seemingly quite different, is actually equal to the nil
radical of a ringo The lemma below provides the key to establishing this
assertion.
Lemma. Let l be an ideal ofthe ring R. Further, assume that the subset
. S S;;; R is closed under multiplication and disjoint from 1. Then there
exists an ideal P which is maximal in the set of ideals which contain l .'
aná '40 not meet s; any such ideal is necessarily prime.
.)
Proof.Consider the family $' of all ideals J of R such that l S;;; J and
J n S == ifJ. This family is not empty since l itself satisfies the indicated
conditions. Our immediate aim is to show that for any chain of ideals {J;}
in $', their union u Ji also belongs to $'. It has already be'en established
in Theorem 5-2 that the union of a chain of ideals is again an ideal; more-
over, since l S;;; Ji for each i, we certainly have l S;;; u Ji' Finally, observe
that '
(u J¡) n S = u (Ji n S) = u ifJ = ifJ.
The crux of the matter is that Zorn 's Lemma can now be applied to inter
that $' has a maximal element P; this is the ideal that we want.
By definition, P is maximal in the set of ideal s which contain l but do
not meet S. To settle the whole affair there remains simply to show that
P is a prime ideal. For this purpose, assume that the product ab e P but
that a ~ P and b ~ P. Since it is strictIy larger than P, the ideal (P, a) must
 164 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IOEALS
contain sorne element r of S; similarly, we can find an element s E S such
that s E (P, b). This means that
rs E (P, a)(P, b) ~ (P, ab) ~ Po
As S is hypothesized to be Closed under multiplication, the product rs al so
lies in So But this obviously contradicts the fact that P n S = 00 Our
argumenttherefore shows that either a or bis a member of P, which pro ves
that PiSa prime ideal. "
Remarko The ideal P need not be a maximal ideal of;R, in the usual meaning
of the term, but only maximal with respect to exclusIdn of the set So To put
it another way, if .lis any ideal of the ring R whicil properly contains P,
fhen J must contain elements of So ,'\'::
"
Two special cases of, this general setting are particularly noteworthy:
S = {1} and l = {OJo In the event S = {l}, the i~¡é1iI P mentioned in the
lemma is actual1y a maximal ideal (in the usuáCl<:1eal-theoretic sense);
consequentIy, we have a somewhat different proof onhe facts that (i) every
proper ideal is contained in a maximal ideal and (ii) each maximal ideal is
primeo
The case where l is the zero ideal is the subject ofthe following corollary,
a result which will be utilized on several occasions in thesequel.
Corollary. Let S be a subset of the ring R which is closed under multi-
plication and does not contain 00 Then there exists an ideal maximal
in the set of ideals disjoint froro S; any such ideal is prime.
As it stands, the preceding lemma is just the opening wedge; we can
exploit it rather effectively by now proving
Theorem 8-8. The intersection of all prime ideals of R which contain
a given ideal l is precisely the nilradical of l :
)7 = n {plp 2, l; P is a prime ideal}o
Proa! Ifthe element a ~ Ji,then the set S = {a"ln E Z+} does not intersect
lo Sin ce S is closed under multiplication, the preceding lemma insures the
existence ofsome prime ideal P which contains l,but not a; that is, a does
not belong to the intersection of prime ideals containing lo This establishes
the incIusion
n {plp 2 l; P is a prime ideal} ~ .JI.
The reverse inclusion folIows readily upon noting that ifthere exists a prime
ideal which contains l but not a, then a ~ )7,' since no power of a belongs
toPo
CERTAIN RAOICALS OF A RING 165
As with the case of the Jaco bson radical, the prime radical may be
characterized by its elements; this is brought out by a result promised
earliero '
Corollary. The prime radIcal of a ring R coincides with the nil radical
of R; that is, Rad/R is simply the ideal of all nilpotent elements of R.
Proa! The assertion is aIl b~t obvious upon taking r= {O} in Theorem
8-80 '
An immediate conseque~ce of this last corollary is the potentially
powerful statement: every·nji~ideal of R is contained in the prime radical,
not simply contained in the larger Jacobson radical (Corollary 3 to Theorem
8-2)0 ,/1, '
Example 8-5. For an il1usi~aÚon of Theorem 8-8, let us fall back on the
ring Z ofintegerso In this segjí1;g, the nontrivial prime ideals are the principal
ideal s (p), where p is a pri~e,fiumbero Given n > 1, the ideal (n) ~ (p) if
and only if p divides n; this beihg so,
J[n) = n(Pi)o
pil·
Thus, if we assume that n has the prime power factorization
,n = p11p~2 000 p~r (k¡ E Z+),
it follows that
M = (Pl) n (P2) n 000 n (p,) = (P1P2 000 p,)o
Let us go back to Theorem 8-8 for a momento Another ofits advantages
is that it permits a rather simple characterization of' semiprime idealso
(The reader is reminded that we defined an ideal l to be semiprime provided
that l = )7)0
Theorem 8-? An ideal l of the ring R is a semiprime ideal if and only
if 1 is an intersection of prime ideals of R.
Proa! The proof is left to the reader; it should offer no difficultieso
Corollary. The prime radical Rad R is a semi prime ideal which is
contained in every semiprime ideal of R. '
Before pressing on, we should also prove the prime radical counterpart
of Theorem 8-30
Theorem 8-10. For any ring R, the quotient ring R/Rad R is without
prime radical.
Proa! For clarity of exposition, set l = Rad R. Suppose that a + l is
anY nilpotent element of Rilo Then, foi: sorne positive integer n,
(a + l)n = an + l = l,
 164 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IOEALS
contain sorne element r of S; similarly, we can find an element s E S such
that s E (P, b). This means that
rs E (P, a)(P, b) ~ (P, ab) ~ Po
As S is hypothesized to be Closed under multiplication, the product rs al so
lies in So But this obviously contradicts the fact that P n S = 00 Our
argumenttherefore shows that either a or bis a member of P, which pro ves
that PiSa prime ideal. "
Remarko The ideal P need not be a maximal ideal of;R, in the usual meaning
of the term, but only maximal with respect to exclusIdn of the set So To put
it another way, if .lis any ideal of the ring R whicil properly contains P,
fhen J must contain elements of So ,'\'::
"
Two special cases of, this general setting are particularly noteworthy:
S = {1} and l = {OJo In the event S = {l}, the i~¡é1iI P mentioned in the
lemma is actual1y a maximal ideal (in the usuáCl<:1eal-theoretic sense);
consequentIy, we have a somewhat different proof onhe facts that (i) every
proper ideal is contained in a maximal ideal and (ii) each maximal ideal is
primeo
The case where l is the zero ideal is the subject ofthe following corollary,
a result which will be utilized on several occasions in thesequel.
Corollary. Let S be a subset of the ring R which is closed under multi-
plication and does not contain 00 Then there exists an ideal maximal
in the set of ideals disjoint froro S; any such ideal is prime.
As it stands, the preceding lemma is just the opening wedge; we can
exploit it rather effectively by now proving
Theorem 8-8. The intersection of all prime ideals of R which contain
a given ideal l is precisely the nilradical of l :
)7 = n {plp 2, l; P is a prime ideal}o
Proa! Ifthe element a ~ Ji,then the set S = {a"ln E Z+} does not intersect
lo Sin ce S is closed under multiplication, the preceding lemma insures the
existence ofsome prime ideal P which contains l,but not a; that is, a does
not belong to the intersection of prime ideals containing lo This establishes
the incIusion
n {plp 2 l; P is a prime ideal} ~ .JI.
The reverse inclusion folIows readily upon noting that ifthere exists a prime
ideal which contains l but not a, then a ~ )7,' since no power of a belongs
toPo
CERTAIN RAOICALS OF A RING 165
As with the case of the Jaco bson radical, the prime radical may be
characterized by its elements; this is brought out by a result promised
earliero '
Corollary. The prime radIcal of a ring R coincides with the nil radical
of R; that is, Rad/R is simply the ideal of all nilpotent elements of R.
Proa! The assertion is aIl b~t obvious upon taking r= {O} in Theorem
8-80 '
An immediate conseque~ce of this last corollary is the potentially
powerful statement: every·nji~ideal of R is contained in the prime radical,
not simply contained in the larger Jacobson radical (Corollary 3 to Theorem
8-2)0 ,/1, '
Example 8-5. For an il1usi~aÚon of Theorem 8-8, let us fall back on the
ring Z ofintegerso In this segjí1;g, the nontrivial prime ideals are the principal
ideal s (p), where p is a pri~e,fiumbero Given n > 1, the ideal (n) ~ (p) if
and only if p divides n; this beihg so,
J[n) = n(Pi)o
pil·
Thus, if we assume that n has the prime power factorization
,n = p11p~2 000 p~r (k¡ E Z+),
it follows that
M = (Pl) n (P2) n 000 n (p,) = (P1P2 000 p,)o
Let us go back to Theorem 8-8 for a momento Another ofits advantages
is that it permits a rather simple characterization of' semiprime idealso
(The reader is reminded that we defined an ideal l to be semiprime provided
that l = )7)0
Theorem 8-? An ideal l of the ring R is a semiprime ideal if and only
if 1 is an intersection of prime ideals of R.
Proa! The proof is left to the reader; it should offer no difficultieso
Corollary. The prime radical Rad R is a semi prime ideal which is
contained in every semiprime ideal of R. '
Before pressing on, we should also prove the prime radical counterpart
of Theorem 8-30
Theorem 8-10. For any ring R, the quotient ring R/Rad R is without
prime radical.
Proa! For clarity of exposition, set l = Rad R. Suppose that a + l is
anY nilpotent element of Rilo Then, foi: sorne positive integer n,
(a + l)n = an + l = l,
 166 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
so that d' E l. But 1 consists of all nilpotent elements of R. Thus, we must
have (d,)m = O for suitably chosen m E Z+; this is simply the statement
that a El, and, hence, a + 1 is the zero element of R/I. Our argument
~mp1ies that the quotient ring R/I has no nonzero nilpoient elements, which
lS to say that Rad (R/I) = {O}.
To round out the picture, two theorems are stated without proof; it will
be o bserved that these take the same form as the corresponding result
established for the Jacobson radical (Theorems 8-4 and 8-5).
Theorem 8-11. If 1 is an ideal of the ring R, then
1) Rad (R/I);:2 Rad ~ + 1, and,
2) whenever 1 ~ Rad R, Rad (R/I) = (Rad R)/l.
Theorem 8-12. For uny ring R, Rad R is the smallest ideal 1 of R such
that the quotient ring R/I is without prime radical.
A problem exerting a natural appeal is that of describing the prime
radical of the polynomial ring R[x J in terms of the prime radical of R.
As a starting point, let us first prove a lemma which is of interest for various
parts of ring theory.
Lemma. A polynomialf(x) = €lo + alx + ... + a"x" is invertible in
R[ x J if and only if a o is invertible in R and aIl the other coefficients
al> al' ... , a" are nilpotent elements of R.
Proof. If aohas an inversein R and al' al' ... , a" are all nilpotent, then the
polynomial f(x) = a o + alx + ... + anxn is tbe sum of irt ,invertible
element ando a nilpotent elemento Hence, f(x) must ítself be a'n"invertible
element of R[x J (Problem 5, Chapter 7). , k,' ,
Going in the other direction, assume that the polyno~~l f(x) =
a o + alx + ... + an~ER[xJ possesses an ,nverse. That'áo is then
in;ertí?le in R should be obvíous. Forany prime ideal P of R,P[xJ is a
pnme Ideal of R[xJ and the quotient ring R[xJ/P[xJ ~ (R/P}[xJ. Thus,
'1
the homomorpbic image off(x) in (R/P)[x J,
(a o + P) + (al + P)x + ... + (a n + P)~
must have an inverse. Since R/P is an integral domain, the invertible
elements in (R/P)[xJ are nonzero constant polynomials. This impHes that
al + P = al + P = ... = al! + P = P;
, I
hence, the elements al' al' ... , an all He in P. As this statement holds for
every prime ideal of R, it follows that al' al' ... , an ERad R. By the corollary
to The'orem 8-8, the elements al' al' ... , an must therefore be nilpotent.
CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 167
Having dealt with 'these preliminaries we are now ready to prove
Theorem 8-13. For any ring R, rad R[x] = Rad R[x].
Proof. It is enough to establish the inc1usion rad R[x J ~ Rad R[xJ. If
the polynomial f(x) = ao + alx + ... + an~ Erad R[xJ, Theorem 8-2
tells us that
1 + xf(x) = 1 + aox + ... + allx"+ l
must be invertible in R[x J. Hence, by the aboye lemma, the coefficients
ao, al' ... , a" are all nilpotent elements of R. For a sufficiently large power,
f(x) will then be nilpotent in R[xJ and thus be in Rad R[xJ.
The assertion ofTheorem 8-13 can be improved upon. For the reader
will have little difficulty in now convincing bimself that
Rad R[x J = (Rad ~)[x J,
where (Rad R)[x J denotes the ring of polynomials in x with coefficients
from Rad R; In fact, the inclusion Rad R[x J ~ (Rad R)[x J is implicit in
the foregoing proof; the opposite inclusion requires the corollary to Theorem:
8-8.
By virtue of the displayed equation, we have
rad F[xJ = (Rad F)[x] = {O}
for any field F. That is to say, the polynomíal ring F[x J constitutes a semi"
simple ringo
Suppose for the moment that 1 is an ideal of the ring R with 1 ~ Rad R.
Given añ idempotent element e =1= O in.,\R, we know that the coset e + 1
will be idempotent in R/I. What is not SQobvious lS that e + 1 =1= 1; tbis
follows from the fact that Rad R containsIiÓ'11onzero idempotents (Corollary
to Theorem 8-2). We are mainly conceined with the converse here: If
u + 1 is a nonzero idempotent of the quotient ring R/I, does there exist an
idempotent e E R for which e + 1 = u + I?
Before becoming involved in this ,discussion, let us give a general
definition. ' "•
' ' ' -,
DefinidOR 8-3. Let 1 be an arbitrary ideal of the ring R. We say that
the idempotents of R/I can be raised ,or lifted into R in case every idem-
potent element of R/I is pf the form e + 1, where e is idempotent in R.
Definition 8-3 means just this: the idempotents of R/I can be lifted if
for each element u E R such that ul - U El there exists some element
el e E R with e - u E l. Although ít is surely too much to expect the
lifting ofidempotents to take place for every 1, we shalI see that tbis situation
does occur whenever 1 is a nil ideal (or, equívalently, whenever 1 ~ Rad R).
Let us begin with a lemma, important in itself.
 166 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
so that d' E l. But 1 consists of all nilpotent elements of R. Thus, we must
have (d,)m = O for suitably chosen m E Z+; this is simply the statement
that a El, and, hence, a + 1 is the zero element of R/I. Our argument
~mp1ies that the quotient ring R/I has no nonzero nilpoient elements, which
lS to say that Rad (R/I) = {O}.
To round out the picture, two theorems are stated without proof; it will
be o bserved that these take the same form as the corresponding result
established for the Jacobson radical (Theorems 8-4 and 8-5).
Theorem 8-11. If 1 is an ideal of the ring R, then
1) Rad (R/I);:2 Rad ~ + 1, and,
2) whenever 1 ~ Rad R, Rad (R/I) = (Rad R)/l.
Theorem 8-12. For uny ring R, Rad R is the smallest ideal 1 of R such
that the quotient ring R/I is without prime radical.
A problem exerting a natural appeal is that of describing the prime
radical of the polynomial ring R[x J in terms of the prime radical of R.
As a starting point, let us first prove a lemma which is of interest for various
parts of ring theory.
Lemma. A polynomialf(x) = €lo + alx + ... + a"x" is invertible in
R[ x J if and only if a o is invertible in R and aIl the other coefficients
al> al' ... , a" are nilpotent elements of R.
Proof. If aohas an inversein R and al' al' ... , a" are all nilpotent, then the
polynomial f(x) = a o + alx + ... + anxn is tbe sum of irt ,invertible
element ando a nilpotent elemento Hence, f(x) must ítself be a'n"invertible
element of R[x J (Problem 5, Chapter 7). , k,' ,
Going in the other direction, assume that the polyno~~l f(x) =
a o + alx + ... + an~ER[xJ possesses an ,nverse. That'áo is then
in;ertí?le in R should be obvíous. Forany prime ideal P of R,P[xJ is a
pnme Ideal of R[xJ and the quotient ring R[xJ/P[xJ ~ (R/P}[xJ. Thus,
'1
the homomorpbic image off(x) in (R/P)[x J,
(a o + P) + (al + P)x + ... + (a n + P)~
must have an inverse. Since R/P is an integral domain, the invertible
elements in (R/P)[xJ are nonzero constant polynomials. This impHes that
al + P = al + P = ... = al! + P = P;
, I
hence, the elements al' al' ... , an all He in P. As this statement holds for
every prime ideal of R, it follows that al' al' ... , an ERad R. By the corollary
to The'orem 8-8, the elements al' al' ... , an must therefore be nilpotent.
CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 167
Having dealt with 'these preliminaries we are now ready to prove
Theorem 8-13. For any ring R, rad R[x] = Rad R[x].
Proof. It is enough to establish the inc1usion rad R[x J ~ Rad R[xJ. If
the polynomial f(x) = ao + alx + ... + an~ Erad R[xJ, Theorem 8-2
tells us that
1 + xf(x) = 1 + aox + ... + allx"+ l
must be invertible in R[x J. Hence, by the aboye lemma, the coefficients
ao, al' ... , a" are all nilpotent elements of R. For a sufficiently large power,
f(x) will then be nilpotent in R[xJ and thus be in Rad R[xJ.
The assertion ofTheorem 8-13 can be improved upon. For the reader
will have little difficulty in now convincing bimself that
Rad R[x J = (Rad ~)[x J,
where (Rad R)[x J denotes the ring of polynomials in x with coefficients
from Rad R; In fact, the inclusion Rad R[x J ~ (Rad R)[x J is implicit in
the foregoing proof; the opposite inclusion requires the corollary to Theorem:
8-8.
By virtue of the displayed equation, we have
rad F[xJ = (Rad F)[x] = {O}
for any field F. That is to say, the polynomíal ring F[x J constitutes a semi"
simple ringo
Suppose for the moment that 1 is an ideal of the ring R with 1 ~ Rad R.
Given añ idempotent element e =1= O in.,\R, we know that the coset e + 1
will be idempotent in R/I. What is not SQobvious lS that e + 1 =1= 1; tbis
follows from the fact that Rad R containsIiÓ'11onzero idempotents (Corollary
to Theorem 8-2). We are mainly conceined with the converse here: If
u + 1 is a nonzero idempotent of the quotient ring R/I, does there exist an
idempotent e E R for which e + 1 = u + I?
Before becoming involved in this ,discussion, let us give a general
definition. ' "•
' ' ' -,
DefinidOR 8-3. Let 1 be an arbitrary ideal of the ring R. We say that
the idempotents of R/I can be raised ,or lifted into R in case every idem-
potent element of R/I is pf the form e + 1, where e is idempotent in R.
Definition 8-3 means just this: the idempotents of R/I can be lifted if
for each element u E R such that ul - U El there exists some element
el e E R with e - u E l. Although ít is surely too much to expect the
lifting ofidempotents to take place for every 1, we shalI see that tbis situation
does occur whenever 1 is a nil ideal (or, equívalently, whenever 1 ~ Rad R).
Let us begin with a lemma, important in itself.
1.68 F!RS,T COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 169

Lemma. If e and e' are two idempotent elements ofthe ring R such that Since r is nilpotent (being a member of Rad R), the displayed series will
e - el ERad R, then e = el. . terminate in a finite number of steps; the result is a perfectly meaningful
polynomial in r with integral coefficients. Thus, the desired idempotent is
Proof Inasmuch as the product (e el){l - (e + el») O, it lS enough
e = u + x(1 - 2u), where x ERad R.
to show that 1 - (e + el) is an invertible element of R. Now, one may
write 1 - (e + e') in the form CoroUary. For any nil ideal 1 of R, the idempotents of R/l can be lífted.
1 - (e',;4- e1 = (1 - 2e) + (e e), Proof Because 1 S;; Rad R,an appeal to the last lemma (with J = Rad R) , ;~

is legitimate.
where(l' - 2e)2 = 1 - 4e + ~ = 1. Theimplicationisthat 1 -:- (e + e'),
being the sum of a nilpote~relement and an ínvertible element, is necessarily \f:,et us define a ring R to be primary whenever the zero ideal is a primary
invertible in- R (Problem~~;; COOpter 1). ideáljbf R. This readily translates into a state'ment involving the elements
of]{ :.R is a primary ring if and only if every zero divisor of R is nilpotent.
Corollary. LetI, J be:jdeals of the ring R with 1 J S;;; Rad R. If the
Int~.g¡.al domains are examples of primary pngs. In general, primary rings
idempotents of RfJ cá~,be lifted into R, then so can the idempotents of
caíi'bt:, obtained by constructing quotient rings R/Q, where Q is a primary
R/l~ r~t.i:'i ' ideaLof
- -
~'}- ~
R.
Proof Suppose that u ~;l}s any idempotent of RjI. Since 1 S;; J, it follows ';-;:'N,s anapplication of the preceding ideas; we shall characterize such
that u + J is an idempoterit element of RfJ; u2 U E 1 S;; J. By assump- rings;in terms ,of minimal prime ideaIs. (A prime ideal is said to be a mini mal
tion, there must exist somee2 = e in R such that e + J u + J, whence prime ideal if it is minimal in the set of prime idel:!.ls; in a cornmutative ring
e - u E J. But then with identity, such ideals are necessarily proper.) .The crucial step in the
proof is the corollary on page 164.
(e + 1) - (u + 1)= e - u + 1 E J/l S;;; (Rad R)/1 = Rad (R/l).
Theorem 8-15. A ring R is a primary ring if and only if R has a minimal
Applying the lemma to the quotient ring R/l, we conclude that the coset
prime ideal which contains aH zero divisors.
u + 1 = e + land so the idempotents of R/l can be lifted.
Proof F or the first half of the proof, let R' be a primary ringo Then the set
The key to showing that the idempotents of RJRad R are liftable is the of zero divisors of R, along with zero, coincides with the ideal N of nilpotent
circumsta~'ce that certain quadrati~ equations have a solution in the prime elements, and N will be prime. Being equal. to the prime radical of R, N is
radical of R. necessarily contained in every prime ideal of R; that lS to say, N is a minimal
Theorem 8-14. For any ring R, the idempotents of RJRad R can be prime ideal.
lifted into R. The converse is less obvious; in fact, it is easiest to prove the contra-
posítive form of the converse. Suppose, then, that·R ha~ a mínimal. prime
Proof Let u· + Rad R be an idempotent element of RJRad R, so that ideal P which contalns all zero divisors and let a E R be any nonnilpotent
u2 - u = r ERad R. The problem is to find an idempotent e E R with element. We define the set S by
e - u ERad R or, putting it another way, to obtain a solution a of the
equation (u + a)2 = u + a, with a ERad R.
S = {r~nlr~P; n ~ O}.
Wefirst set a = x(! 2u), where x is yet to be determined. Now, the S is easily seen to be closed under multiplication and 1 E S, Notice, particu-
requirement that the element u + a u + x(1 - 2u) be ídempotent is larly, that the Zero element does not líe in S, for, otherwise, we would have
ran = O with an =1= O; this ímplies that r lS a zero divisor and therefore a
equivalent to the equation
member'of P. We now appeal to the corollary on page 164 to infer that
(x 2 x)(l + 4r) + r = O. the complement of S contains a prime ideal Pi. Since pi S;; R - S S;;; P,
By the quadratic formula, tbis has a formal solution with P being a mínimal prime ideal, it follows that R S = P. But a E S,
whence a ~ P, so that a cannot be a zero divisor of R. In other words, every
x = Hl . 1 zero divisor of R is nilpotent, which completes the proof.
For the sake of refinement, let us temporarily drop the assumption that
1/2(2r @r2 + (~)r3 ... ). all rings must have a multiplicative identity (commutativity could al so be
1.68 F!RS,T COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 169

Lemma. If e and e' are two idempotent elements ofthe ring R such that Since r is nilpotent (being a member of Rad R), the displayed series will
e - el ERad R, then e = el. . terminate in a finite number of steps; the result is a perfectly meaningful
polynomial in r with integral coefficients. Thus, the desired idempotent is
Proof Inasmuch as the product (e el){l - (e + el») O, it lS enough
e = u + x(1 - 2u), where x ERad R.
to show that 1 - (e + el) is an invertible element of R. Now, one may
write 1 - (e + e') in the form CoroUary. For any nil ideal 1 of R, the idempotents of R/l can be lífted.
1 - (e',;4- e1 = (1 - 2e) + (e e), Proof Because 1 S;; Rad R,an appeal to the last lemma (with J = Rad R) , ;~

is legitimate.
where(l' - 2e)2 = 1 - 4e + ~ = 1. Theimplicationisthat 1 -:- (e + e'),
being the sum of a nilpote~relement and an ínvertible element, is necessarily \f:,et us define a ring R to be primary whenever the zero ideal is a primary
invertible in- R (Problem~~;; COOpter 1). ideáljbf R. This readily translates into a state'ment involving the elements
of]{ :.R is a primary ring if and only if every zero divisor of R is nilpotent.
Corollary. LetI, J be:jdeals of the ring R with 1 J S;;; Rad R. If the
Int~.g¡.al domains are examples of primary pngs. In general, primary rings
idempotents of RfJ cá~,be lifted into R, then so can the idempotents of
caíi'bt:, obtained by constructing quotient rings R/Q, where Q is a primary
R/l~ r~t.i:'i ' ideaLof
- -
~'}- ~
R.
Proof Suppose that u ~;l}s any idempotent of RjI. Since 1 S;; J, it follows ';-;:'N,s anapplication of the preceding ideas; we shall characterize such
that u + J is an idempoterit element of RfJ; u2 U E 1 S;; J. By assump- rings;in terms ,of minimal prime ideaIs. (A prime ideal is said to be a mini mal
tion, there must exist somee2 = e in R such that e + J u + J, whence prime ideal if it is minimal in the set of prime idel:!.ls; in a cornmutative ring
e - u E J. But then with identity, such ideals are necessarily proper.) .The crucial step in the
proof is the corollary on page 164.
(e + 1) - (u + 1)= e - u + 1 E J/l S;;; (Rad R)/1 = Rad (R/l).
Theorem 8-15. A ring R is a primary ring if and only if R has a minimal
Applying the lemma to the quotient ring R/l, we conclude that the coset
prime ideal which contains aH zero divisors.
u + 1 = e + land so the idempotents of R/l can be lifted.
Proof F or the first half of the proof, let R' be a primary ringo Then the set
The key to showing that the idempotents of RJRad R are liftable is the of zero divisors of R, along with zero, coincides with the ideal N of nilpotent
circumsta~'ce that certain quadrati~ equations have a solution in the prime elements, and N will be prime. Being equal. to the prime radical of R, N is
radical of R. necessarily contained in every prime ideal of R; that lS to say, N is a minimal
Theorem 8-14. For any ring R, the idempotents of RJRad R can be prime ideal.
lifted into R. The converse is less obvious; in fact, it is easiest to prove the contra-
posítive form of the converse. Suppose, then, that·R ha~ a mínimal. prime
Proof Let u· + Rad R be an idempotent element of RJRad R, so that ideal P which contalns all zero divisors and let a E R be any nonnilpotent
u2 - u = r ERad R. The problem is to find an idempotent e E R with element. We define the set S by
e - u ERad R or, putting it another way, to obtain a solution a of the
equation (u + a)2 = u + a, with a ERad R.
S = {r~nlr~P; n ~ O}.
Wefirst set a = x(! 2u), where x is yet to be determined. Now, the S is easily seen to be closed under multiplication and 1 E S, Notice, particu-
requirement that the element u + a u + x(1 - 2u) be ídempotent is larly, that the Zero element does not líe in S, for, otherwise, we would have
ran = O with an =1= O; this ímplies that r lS a zero divisor and therefore a
equivalent to the equation
member'of P. We now appeal to the corollary on page 164 to infer that
(x 2 x)(l + 4r) + r = O. the complement of S contains a prime ideal Pi. Since pi S;; R - S S;;; P,
By the quadratic formula, tbis has a formal solution with P being a mínimal prime ideal, it follows that R S = P. But a E S,
whence a ~ P, so that a cannot be a zero divisor of R. In other words, every
x = Hl . 1 zero divisor of R is nilpotent, which completes the proof.
For the sake of refinement, let us temporarily drop the assumption that
1/2(2r @r2 + (~)r3 ... ). all rings must have a multiplicative identity (commutativity could al so be
 170 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 171

abandoned, but this seerns unnecessarily elaborate for the purposes in rnind).
To make things more specific, we pose the problem of constructing a radical
which will agree with the Jacobson radical when an identity element is
available. Of course, it is always possible to imbed a ring in a ring with
identity, but the imbedding is often unnatural and distorts essential features
of the given ringo
The direct approach of considering the intersection of all maximal ideals
is not very effective, because one no longer knows that such ideals exist
(Theorem 5-2, our basic existence theorem for rnaximal ideals, c1early
requires the presence of an identity). A more useful clue is provided by
Theorem 8-2, wbich asserts that an element a Erad R if and only if 1 - ra
1S invertible for every choice of r in R, or, to put it somewhat differentIy,
the principal ideal (1 ~, ra) = R for all r E R. This latter condition can be
\Hitten as {x - raxlx E.,R} = R for each r in R, and is meaningful in the
absence of a rnultiplicative identity. It thus would appear that Theorem 8-2
constitutes a hopeful starting point to the solution of the problem before
uso Needless to say, it will be necessary to introduce concepts capable of
replacing the notions of an invertible element and 'maximal ideal which
were so essential to our earlier work:
One begins by associating with each elernent a E R the set
la = {ax - xix E R}.
A rnoment's thought shows la to be an ideal of R. Now, it may very well
happen that la = R; in this event, we shall say that a is a quasi-regular
elernent. There is ~other way of looking at quasi-regularity:
Theorem 8-16:'An element a of the ring R is quasi-regular if and only
if there exists ~o~e b E R such that
b = -a - a2 - ••• _. an - 1 is a quasi-inverse of a. Notice also that zero
is the only idempotent which is quasi-regular. For, if a2 = a and a + b
ab = O for sorne b in R, then we have
a = a2 + ab - ab = a(a + b - ab) = O.
One of the most useful tools in handling the concept of quasi-regularity
is the so-called "circ1e operation" of Perlis [54]. Given a, bE R, we define
a o b by
a o b = a + b - ab.
With tbis notation, Theorem 8~16 may be rephrased so asto assert that an
element a E R is quasi-regular if and only if there exists sorne second element
b E R for which a o b = O.
It is a simple matter to verify that the pair (R, o) is a semigroup with
identity element O; in particular, one infers from tbis that quasi-inverses
are unique, whenever they exist. An even stronger result is that the quasi-
regular elernents of R form a group with respect to the circ1e operation.
LastIy, let us 'call attention to the fact that if R possesses a multiplicative
identity 1, then '
(1 - a)(1 - b) = 1 - a o b.
Accordingly,a is quasi-regular if and only if 1 - a is an invertible element
of R. (Iying this idea more c10sely to Theorem 8-2, we see that the product
ra is quasi-regular for every rE R if and only if 1 - ra is invertible for all
r in R.)
Example 8-6. Consider the assertion: if every element of a commutati~e
,,¡ ring R is quasi-regular, with exactIy one exception, then R must be a fieI'9"
1;" To see this let us take the element e to be the one exception; certairily'~"
, ; • , ~ ~
, 1 .t.

','é =1= O, since O is quasi-regular. .' .

a + b - ab = O.
The element b),atisfying this equation is called a quasi-inverse of a.
Proof. Suppose tb;~t a is quasi-regular, so that la = R. Since'a E la, we
must have a = abj& b for suitable b in R, whence a + b -:- ab = O.
On the other hand, if there exists sorne elernent b E R satisfying
a + b - ab = O, then a E la. Thus, for any r in R, ar E la. By virtue of the
definition of la' we also have ar - r E la' which implies that
r = ar - (ar - r) E la.
This means R f; la' or rather R = la' and a is quasi-regular.
Corollary. An element a E R is quasi-regular ifand only if a E la.
Here are sorne consequences: Every nilpotent elernent of R is quasi-
regular. Indeed, if an = O, a stiaightforward calculation will establish that
2
Now, e o a = e o (-e o a) =1= O for each a E R, from which we infer
t that e2 = e. Observe also that if e o a =1= e, then there would exist so~e
..... elementb E R such that(e o a) o b = O. Associating, weobtaine o (a o b) =~:O
", and so e is a quasi-regular element, a contradiction. Accordingly, we musF
'" have e o a = e for every choice of a E R or, upon expanding, ae = a for all
in R; this implies that e acts as a rnultiplicative identity for R.
Finally, given an element x =1= O, we wrHe x = e - a, with a E R.
Then, since a =1= e,
x(e - b) = (e' - a)(e - b) =e - aob = e
for suitable b E R. In other words, every nonzero elernent of R is in vertible,
confirming R to be a field.
As heralded by our earlier remarks, we now define the J-radical (fo,1'
Jacobson, naturally enough) of a ring R to consist of those elements a for

1
 170 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 171

abandoned, but this seerns unnecessarily elaborate for the purposes in rnind).
To make things more specific, we pose the problem of constructing a radical
which will agree with the Jacobson radical when an identity element is
available. Of course, it is always possible to imbed a ring in a ring with
identity, but the imbedding is often unnatural and distorts essential features
of the given ringo
The direct approach of considering the intersection of all maximal ideals
is not very effective, because one no longer knows that such ideals exist
(Theorem 5-2, our basic existence theorem for rnaximal ideals, c1early
requires the presence of an identity). A more useful clue is provided by
Theorem 8-2, wbich asserts that an element a Erad R if and only if 1 - ra
1S invertible for every choice of r in R, or, to put it somewhat differentIy,
the principal ideal (1 ~, ra) = R for all r E R. This latter condition can be
\Hitten as {x - raxlx E.,R} = R for each r in R, and is meaningful in the
absence of a rnultiplicative identity. It thus would appear that Theorem 8-2
constitutes a hopeful starting point to the solution of the problem before
uso Needless to say, it will be necessary to introduce concepts capable of
replacing the notions of an invertible element and 'maximal ideal which
were so essential to our earlier work:
One begins by associating with each elernent a E R the set
la = {ax - xix E R}.
A rnoment's thought shows la to be an ideal of R. Now, it may very well
happen that la = R; in this event, we shall say that a is a quasi-regular
elernent. There is ~other way of looking at quasi-regularity:
Theorem 8-16:'An element a of the ring R is quasi-regular if and only
if there exists ~o~e b E R such that
b = -a - a2 - ••• _. an - 1 is a quasi-inverse of a. Notice also that zero
is the only idempotent which is quasi-regular. For, if a2 = a and a + b
ab = O for sorne b in R, then we have
a = a2 + ab - ab = a(a + b - ab) = O.
One of the most useful tools in handling the concept of quasi-regularity
is the so-called "circ1e operation" of Perlis [54]. Given a, bE R, we define
a o b by
a o b = a + b - ab.
With tbis notation, Theorem 8~16 may be rephrased so asto assert that an
element a E R is quasi-regular if and only if there exists sorne second element
b E R for which a o b = O.
It is a simple matter to verify that the pair (R, o) is a semigroup with
identity element O; in particular, one infers from tbis that quasi-inverses
are unique, whenever they exist. An even stronger result is that the quasi-
regular elernents of R form a group with respect to the circ1e operation.
LastIy, let us 'call attention to the fact that if R possesses a multiplicative
identity 1, then '
(1 - a)(1 - b) = 1 - a o b.
Accordingly,a is quasi-regular if and only if 1 - a is an invertible element
of R. (Iying this idea more c10sely to Theorem 8-2, we see that the product
ra is quasi-regular for every rE R if and only if 1 - ra is invertible for all
r in R.)
Example 8-6. Consider the assertion: if every element of a commutati~e
,,¡ ring R is quasi-regular, with exactIy one exception, then R must be a fieI'9"
1;" To see this let us take the element e to be the one exception; certairily'~"
, ; • , ~ ~
, 1 .t.

','é =1= O, since O is quasi-regular. .' .

a + b - ab = O.
The element b),atisfying this equation is called a quasi-inverse of a.
Proof. Suppose tb;~t a is quasi-regular, so that la = R. Since'a E la, we
must have a = abj& b for suitable b in R, whence a + b -:- ab = O.
On the other hand, if there exists sorne elernent b E R satisfying
a + b - ab = O, then a E la. Thus, for any r in R, ar E la. By virtue of the
definition of la' we also have ar - r E la' which implies that
r = ar - (ar - r) E la.
This means R f; la' or rather R = la' and a is quasi-regular.
Corollary. An element a E R is quasi-regular ifand only if a E la.
Here are sorne consequences: Every nilpotent elernent of R is quasi-
regular. Indeed, if an = O, a stiaightforward calculation will establish that
2
Now, e o a = e o (-e o a) =1= O for each a E R, from which we infer
t that e2 = e. Observe also that if e o a =1= e, then there would exist so~e
..... elementb E R such that(e o a) o b = O. Associating, weobtaine o (a o b) =~:O
", and so e is a quasi-regular element, a contradiction. Accordingly, we musF
'" have e o a = e for every choice of a E R or, upon expanding, ae = a for all
in R; this implies that e acts as a rnultiplicative identity for R.
Finally, given an element x =1= O, we wrHe x = e - a, with a E R.
Then, since a =1= e,
x(e - b) = (e' - a)(e - b) =e - aob = e
for suitable b E R. In other words, every nonzero elernent of R is in vertible,
confirming R to be a field.
As heralded by our earlier remarks, we now define the J-radical (fo,1'
Jacobson, naturally enough) of a ring R to consist of those elements a for

1
172 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
which lar = R for every r E R; recasting this in terms of the notion of quasi-
regularity : .
Definition 8-4. The J-radical J(R) of a ríng R, with or without an
identity, is the set
J(R) = {a E Rlar is quasi-regular for all rE R}.
If J(R) = {O}, then R is said to be a J-semisimple ring·f
To 'reinforce these ideas, let us consid~r several examplé~.
. .'~~'
Example 8-7. The ring Z. of even integers is J-semisimpl~.;¡:For, suppose
that the integer n E J(Z.). Then, in particular, n2 is quasi-"r~gular. But the
equation.'·;
n2 + x - n2 x = O, :~)
or, equivalent1y, n2 = (,F - l)x, has no solution among·'~h~:eveIi. integers
unless n = O. This implies thatJ(Z.) = {O}.L~;~::, • such that -(bx) o u = b( -x) o u =:0 'ahd a second element v for which
~ .<.,.~
Exampl~ 8-8. Any commutative regular ring R is J-semislIi1ple .. Indeed,
giveil a E J(R), there is some a' in R such that a2 a' = a. Now, aa' must be
quasi-~egular, so we can find an element x E R satisfying
aa' +x - aa' x = O.
Multiplying this equation by a and using the fact that a2 a' = O, we deduce
tbat a = O, whence J(R) = {O}.
Example 8-9. Consider the ring F[[x]] of formal power series over the
field F. As we know, F[[x]] is a commutative ríng with identity in which
L
an element f(x) = akX' is invertible if and only if ao =1= o. If f(x) belongs
to the principal ideal (x), thenf(x) has zero constant term; hence, (1 - f(x)) - 1
exists in F[[x]]' Takingf(x)' = (1 - f(X)tI, we see thatf(x) o f(x)' = O.
Thus,everymemberof(x)isquasi-regular, whichimpliesthat(x) S J(F[[x]]).
On the other hand, any element not in (x) is invertible and therefore cannot
be in the J-radical. (In general, ir a E J(R) has a multiplicative inverse, then
1 = aa -1 is quasi-regular; but zero is the only quasi-regular idempotent,
so that 1 = O, a contradiction.) The implication is that J(F[[ x]]) S (x)
and equality follows:
J(F[[x]]) = (x) = rad F[[x]]'
Turning once again to generalities, let us show that any element a E J(R)
is itself quasi-regular. Since ar is quasi-regular for each choice of r in R,
it folIows that a2 in particular wiII be quasi-regular. Therefore, we can
obtain an element bE R for which a2 o b = O. But a simple computation
shows that
ao((-a)ob) = (ao(-a))ob = a20 b = O
CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 173
One fincls in .this way that the element a is quasi-regular with quasi-inverse
(-a) o b.
It is by no means apparent from Definition 8-3 that J(R) forms an ideal
of R; our next concern is to establish that this is actually the case.
Theorem 8-17. For any ríng R, the J-radical J(R) is an ideal of R.
Proof. Suppose that the element a E JfR), so that for any choice of x E R,
ax is quasi-regular. If rE R, then ce~ainly (ar)y = a(ry) must be quasi-
regular for alI y in R, and therefore aréJ(R).
It remains to show that whenever;~'.b E J(R), then the difference a - b
lies in J(R). Given x, u, v E R, a fair1yJroutine ca1culation establishes the
identity .,,;,
(a - b)x o (u o v) = a(x - ux),o.v: + (-bx ou) - (-bx o u)v.
Taking stock of the fact that a; b belop,g;to J(R), we can select an element u
a(x- ax) o V.= O; in consequeIi.ce, (é~' b)x o (u o v) =0. This being the
case, (a - b)x is qua si-regular for every x E R, whence a - bE J(R). Thus,
the J-radical satisfies the defining conditions for an ideal of R.
As one would expect, there are many theorems concerning the J-radical
which are completely analagous to theorems stated in terms ofthe Jacobson
radical. Although it would be tedious to prove aIl of these results, the
following deserves to be carried through.
Theorem 8-18. For any ríng R, tbe quotient ring RjJ(R) is J-semisimple.
Pro~f. Take a + J(R) to be an arbitrary element of J(RjJ(R)). Then
(a + J(R)) (x + J(R)) = ax + J(R)
is quasi-regular for each, x E R. . Accordingly, tbere exists some coset
y + J(R) in RjJ(R), depending on both a and x, for which
(ax + J(R)) o (y + J(R)) = J(R).
But this implies that the element ax o y lies in J(R), and, hence, is quasi-
regular as a member of R ; say (ax o y) o Z = O, where z, E R. It foIlows from
the associativity. of o that ax is itself quasi-regular in R, with quasi-inverse
y o z. Since tbis holds for every x E R, the element a belongs to J(R), and
we have a + J(R) = J(R), the zero of the quotient ring RjJ(R).
It tums out that the c1ass of ideals which must replace the maximal
ideals are precisely those ideals whose quotient rings possess a multiplicative
identity.
Definition 8-5. An ideal l of the ring R is calIed modular (or regular, in
the older terminology) if and' only if there exists an .element e E R such
172 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
which lar = R for every r E R; recasting this in terms of the notion of quasi-
regularity : .
Definition 8-4. The J-radical J(R) of a ríng R, with or without an
identity, is the set
J(R) = {a E Rlar is quasi-regular for all rE R}.
If J(R) = {O}, then R is said to be a J-semisimple ring·f
To 'reinforce these ideas, let us consid~r several examplé~.
. .'~~'
Example 8-7. The ring Z. of even integers is J-semisimpl~.;¡:For, suppose
that the integer n E J(Z.). Then, in particular, n2 is quasi-"r~gular. But the
equation.'·;
n2 + x - n2 x = O, :~)
or, equivalent1y, n2 = (,F - l)x, has no solution among·'~h~:eveIi. integers
unless n = O. This implies thatJ(Z.) = {O}.L~;~::, • such that -(bx) o u = b( -x) o u =:0 'ahd a second element v for which
~ .<.,.~
Exampl~ 8-8. Any commutative regular ring R is J-semislIi1ple .. Indeed,
giveil a E J(R), there is some a' in R such that a2 a' = a. Now, aa' must be
quasi-~egular, so we can find an element x E R satisfying
aa' +x - aa' x = O.
Multiplying this equation by a and using the fact that a2 a' = O, we deduce
tbat a = O, whence J(R) = {O}.
Example 8-9. Consider the ring F[[x]] of formal power series over the
field F. As we know, F[[x]] is a commutative ríng with identity in which
L
an element f(x) = akX' is invertible if and only if ao =1= o. If f(x) belongs
to the principal ideal (x), thenf(x) has zero constant term; hence, (1 - f(x)) - 1
exists in F[[x]]' Takingf(x)' = (1 - f(X)tI, we see thatf(x) o f(x)' = O.
Thus,everymemberof(x)isquasi-regular, whichimpliesthat(x) S J(F[[x]]).
On the other hand, any element not in (x) is invertible and therefore cannot
be in the J-radical. (In general, ir a E J(R) has a multiplicative inverse, then
1 = aa -1 is quasi-regular; but zero is the only quasi-regular idempotent,
so that 1 = O, a contradiction.) The implication is that J(F[[ x]]) S (x)
and equality follows:
J(F[[x]]) = (x) = rad F[[x]]'
Turning once again to generalities, let us show that any element a E J(R)
is itself quasi-regular. Since ar is quasi-regular for each choice of r in R,
it folIows that a2 in particular wiII be quasi-regular. Therefore, we can
obtain an element bE R for which a2 o b = O. But a simple computation
shows that
ao((-a)ob) = (ao(-a))ob = a20 b = O
CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 173
One fincls in .this way that the element a is quasi-regular with quasi-inverse
(-a) o b.
It is by no means apparent from Definition 8-3 that J(R) forms an ideal
of R; our next concern is to establish that this is actually the case.
Theorem 8-17. For any ríng R, the J-radical J(R) is an ideal of R.
Proof. Suppose that the element a E JfR), so that for any choice of x E R,
ax is quasi-regular. If rE R, then ce~ainly (ar)y = a(ry) must be quasi-
regular for alI y in R, and therefore aréJ(R).
It remains to show that whenever;~'.b E J(R), then the difference a - b
lies in J(R). Given x, u, v E R, a fair1yJroutine ca1culation establishes the
identity .,,;,
(a - b)x o (u o v) = a(x - ux),o.v: + (-bx ou) - (-bx o u)v.
Taking stock of the fact that a; b belop,g;to J(R), we can select an element u
a(x- ax) o V.= O; in consequeIi.ce, (é~' b)x o (u o v) =0. This being the
case, (a - b)x is qua si-regular for every x E R, whence a - bE J(R). Thus,
the J-radical satisfies the defining conditions for an ideal of R.
As one would expect, there are many theorems concerning the J-radical
which are completely analagous to theorems stated in terms ofthe Jacobson
radical. Although it would be tedious to prove aIl of these results, the
following deserves to be carried through.
Theorem 8-18. For any ríng R, tbe quotient ring RjJ(R) is J-semisimple.
Pro~f. Take a + J(R) to be an arbitrary element of J(RjJ(R)). Then
(a + J(R)) (x + J(R)) = ax + J(R)
is quasi-regular for each, x E R. . Accordingly, tbere exists some coset
y + J(R) in RjJ(R), depending on both a and x, for which
(ax + J(R)) o (y + J(R)) = J(R).
But this implies that the element ax o y lies in J(R), and, hence, is quasi-
regular as a member of R ; say (ax o y) o Z = O, where z, E R. It foIlows from
the associativity. of o that ax is itself quasi-regular in R, with quasi-inverse
y o z. Since tbis holds for every x E R, the element a belongs to J(R), and
we have a + J(R) = J(R), the zero of the quotient ring RjJ(R).
It tums out that the c1ass of ideals which must replace the maximal
ideals are precisely those ideals whose quotient rings possess a multiplicative
identity.
Definition 8-5. An ideal l of the ring R is calIed modular (or regular, in
the older terminology) if and' only if there exists an .element e E R such
174
FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
that ae - a E 1 for every a in R. Such an element e is said to be an .
identity for R relative to 1, or modulo 1.
In passing, we should remark that whenever R has an identity element
1, then 1 can be taken as the element e of Definition 8-5, and all ideals of
R are modular. Notice, too, that if e is an identity for R relative to 1, then
the same is true for the elements e + i, where i E 1, and e" (n E Z).
By a ¡modular maximal ideal, we shall mean a maximal (hence, proper)
ideal which is also modular. Parallelíng the proof of Theorem 5-5, it can
be shown without too much difficulty that a'proper ideal M of R is a modular
maximal ideal if and only if the quotient ring R/M forms a field.
The existence of suitably many modular maximal ideals is assured by
the following:
Theorem 8-19. Each proper modular ideal of the ring R is contained
in a modular maxiIÍial ideal of R.
Proof. Let 1 be a proper modular ideal of R and e be an identity element
for R relative to 1. We consider the family d ofall proper ideal s of R which
contain 1; because 1 itself is such an ideal, d is certainly nonempty.
It is important to observe that the element e líes outside each ideal J
of d. Indeed, if e did belong to J, we would then have ae E J for all a in R.
By virtue ofthe fact that 1 is modular, ae . . . :. a El!:;;; J, from which it follows
that
a = ae - (ae - a) E J.
One finds in this way that J = R, a flat contradiction, inasmuch as J is a
proper ideal of R by definition of d.
Now, let {l¡} be any chain of ideals from d. When the set-theoretic
union u Ji fonns an ideal·of R containing 1. Since"e:rj!uJ¡, this ideal is
proper, whence u J¡ E d. Thus, Zom's Lemma asserts:the existence of a
maximal ideal M of R with 1 !:;;; M. Any such ideal wiHb.e modular, because
ae - aE 1 !:;;; M for each element a E R. . that a rj J(R). Using Corollary Z;we could then find a modular maximal
This t~eorem .has a num?er of i~portant. conse~~~;nces (whic,b. we list
as corollanes) havmg to do wlth quasl-regulanty. 'y
. .,.}.
CoroUary 1. If the element a E R is not quasi-regular, then there exists
a modular maximal ideal M of R such that a rj 1v[.
Proof. Since a is not quasi-regular, la = {ra - rlr ER} forms a proper
ideal of R. Moreover, la is modular, with the element a as an identity for
R modulo la. Knowing this, it follows from the theorem that there exists a
modular maximal ideal M of R containing lo and exc1uding a.
CoroUary 2. If J(R) =f R, then the ring R contains modular maximal
ideals; in fact, for any a rj J(R), there exists a modular maximal ideal
M with arjM.
CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 175
Proof. If the element a.rj J(R), thtm there is sorne x E R such that ax is not
quasi-regular. Corollary 1 asserts the existence of a modular maximal ideal
of R which exc1udes ax and, in consequence, does not contain a.
CoroUary 3. An element a E R is quasi-regular if and only if, for each
modular maximal ideal M of R, there exists an element b such that
a o b EM.
Proof. The indicated condition is c1early necessary, for it suffices to take
the quasi-inverse of a as the element b. Suppose now that the condition is
satisfied, but that a does not possess a quasi-inverse. Then the modular
ideal la = {ar - rl
r E R} will be contained in sorne modular maximal ideal
M of R. By assumption, we can find an element b in R for which a o b E M.
But ah - b E la, whence
a = aob + (ab - b) E M.
It follows that ar E M for arbitrary r in R, and, consequentIy, that
r = ar -'(aro - r) E M. Therefore, M = R, which is impossible.
In the presence of an identity element, the Jacobson radical rad R is
the intersection of all the maximal ideals of a ring R. One would rightIy
suspect that there is a similar characterization of the J-radical in terms of
modular maximal ideals· (the sole difference being that, in the present
setting, we must impose the demand that J(R) does not exhaust the ring R).
Theorem 8-20. If R is a ring such that J(R) =f R, then
J(R) = n {MIM is:~ modular maximal ideal of R}.
Proof. As so often happens, one inc1usion will be quite straightforward and
easy, and the other will be deeper-and more complícated. In the first place,
suppose that the element a lies i~every modular maximal ideal of R, but
ideal M for which a rj M, a contra,giction; consequentIy, a E J(R).
Going in the other direction,take a in J(R). We wish to show that
a E M, where M is any modular maximal ideal of R. Assume for the moment
that a rj M. Owing to the fact that M is maximal, the ideal generated by M
and a must be the whole ring R; Jherefore (in the absence of an identity),
R = {i + ra + naliEM, rER, nEZ}.
Now, let e be an identity element for R modulo M. Then there exist suitable
i E M, rE R and an integer n for which
e= i +
+ na.ra
As J(R) fonns an ideal of R, the sum ra + na E J(R), so that e - i E J(R).
174
FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
that ae - a E 1 for every a in R. Such an element e is said to be an .
identity for R relative to 1, or modulo 1.
In passing, we should remark that whenever R has an identity element
1, then 1 can be taken as the element e of Definition 8-5, and all ideals of
R are modular. Notice, too, that if e is an identity for R relative to 1, then
the same is true for the elements e + i, where i E 1, and e" (n E Z).
By a ¡modular maximal ideal, we shall mean a maximal (hence, proper)
ideal which is also modular. Parallelíng the proof of Theorem 5-5, it can
be shown without too much difficulty that a'proper ideal M of R is a modular
maximal ideal if and only if the quotient ring R/M forms a field.
The existence of suitably many modular maximal ideals is assured by
the following:
Theorem 8-19. Each proper modular ideal of the ring R is contained
in a modular maxiIÍial ideal of R.
Proof. Let 1 be a proper modular ideal of R and e be an identity element
for R relative to 1. We consider the family d ofall proper ideal s of R which
contain 1; because 1 itself is such an ideal, d is certainly nonempty.
It is important to observe that the element e líes outside each ideal J
of d. Indeed, if e did belong to J, we would then have ae E J for all a in R.
By virtue ofthe fact that 1 is modular, ae . . . :. a El!:;;; J, from which it follows
that
a = ae - (ae - a) E J.
One finds in this way that J = R, a flat contradiction, inasmuch as J is a
proper ideal of R by definition of d.
Now, let {l¡} be any chain of ideals from d. When the set-theoretic
union u Ji fonns an ideal·of R containing 1. Since"e:rj!uJ¡, this ideal is
proper, whence u J¡ E d. Thus, Zom's Lemma asserts:the existence of a
maximal ideal M of R with 1 !:;;; M. Any such ideal wiHb.e modular, because
ae - aE 1 !:;;; M for each element a E R. . that a rj J(R). Using Corollary Z;we could then find a modular maximal
This t~eorem .has a num?er of i~portant. conse~~~;nces (whic,b. we list
as corollanes) havmg to do wlth quasl-regulanty. 'y
. .,.}.
CoroUary 1. If the element a E R is not quasi-regular, then there exists
a modular maximal ideal M of R such that a rj 1v[.
Proof. Since a is not quasi-regular, la = {ra - rlr ER} forms a proper
ideal of R. Moreover, la is modular, with the element a as an identity for
R modulo la. Knowing this, it follows from the theorem that there exists a
modular maximal ideal M of R containing lo and exc1uding a.
CoroUary 2. If J(R) =f R, then the ring R contains modular maximal
ideals; in fact, for any a rj J(R), there exists a modular maximal ideal
M with arjM.
CERTAIN RADICALS OF A RING 175
Proof. If the element a.rj J(R), thtm there is sorne x E R such that ax is not
quasi-regular. Corollary 1 asserts the existence of a modular maximal ideal
of R which exc1udes ax and, in consequence, does not contain a.
CoroUary 3. An element a E R is quasi-regular if and only if, for each
modular maximal ideal M of R, there exists an element b such that
a o b EM.
Proof. The indicated condition is c1early necessary, for it suffices to take
the quasi-inverse of a as the element b. Suppose now that the condition is
satisfied, but that a does not possess a quasi-inverse. Then the modular
ideal la = {ar - rl
r E R} will be contained in sorne modular maximal ideal
M of R. By assumption, we can find an element b in R for which a o b E M.
But ah - b E la, whence
a = aob + (ab - b) E M.
It follows that ar E M for arbitrary r in R, and, consequentIy, that
r = ar -'(aro - r) E M. Therefore, M = R, which is impossible.
In the presence of an identity element, the Jacobson radical rad R is
the intersection of all the maximal ideals of a ring R. One would rightIy
suspect that there is a similar characterization of the J-radical in terms of
modular maximal ideals· (the sole difference being that, in the present
setting, we must impose the demand that J(R) does not exhaust the ring R).
Theorem 8-20. If R is a ring such that J(R) =f R, then
J(R) = n {MIM is:~ modular maximal ideal of R}.
Proof. As so often happens, one inc1usion will be quite straightforward and
easy, and the other will be deeper-and more complícated. In the first place,
suppose that the element a lies i~every modular maximal ideal of R, but
ideal M for which a rj M, a contra,giction; consequentIy, a E J(R).
Going in the other direction,take a in J(R). We wish to show that
a E M, where M is any modular maximal ideal of R. Assume for the moment
that a rj M. Owing to the fact that M is maximal, the ideal generated by M
and a must be the whole ring R; Jherefore (in the absence of an identity),
R = {i + ra + naliEM, rER, nEZ}.
Now, let e be an identity element for R modulo M. Then there exist suitable
i E M, rE R and an integer n for which
e= i +
+ na.ra
As J(R) fonns an ideal of R, the sum ra + na E J(R), so that e - i E J(R).
 176 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Tbis implies that e - i is quasi-regular, say with quasi-inverse x. From the
equation (e ...:. i) o x = 0, together witb. the modularíty of M, we obtain
e = i - ix + (xe x) E M.
In con sequen ce, M = R, and an obvious contradiction ensues. Thus,
a E M, from which one concludes that J{R) is contained in theintersection
of the modular maximal ideals of ~, completing the proof.
I .
The hypothesis that J{R) =1= R: is certainly fulfilled whenever the ring
R possesses a multiplicative identity 1. Specifically, the element 1 itself is
not quasi-regular, whence 1 f/: J(~h in fact, if 1 + b - lb = O for some b
in R, we would have 1 == O, a cótÍtradictio;o.. When an identity element is
available, all ideals of R are automatically' modular. In tbis situation, the
J-radical will coincide ?Vith the Ja'cpbson radical of R: J{R) = rad R.
If J{R) = R, then th.e ríng R. ¡n!ly contain maximal ideals, but no such
ideal can be modular. Índeed,:~~ppose that l is any modular ideal of R,
R, with e acting as an identity foi.,R,.modulo 1. By suppósition, the element
e E J(R), so that e has a quasi-invérse e'. The modularity of l then yields
e == e'e - e' E l, .which implies that l = R. Accordingly, the ring R
possesses no proper modular ideals and, in particular, no modular maximal
ideals. However, the possibility of the existence of maximal ideal s in R is
not excluded.
The following theorem provides a convenient result with which to close
this chapter.
Theorem 8.21. A ring R can be imbedded in a ring R' with identity
such that J(R) rad R'.
Proof. If R already has an identity, we simply take R' = R. Otherwise,
we imbed R in the ring R' = R x Z in the.standard way (see TheoreÍn
2-12 for details). Then R, or more precisely, its isomorphic image R x {O},
is an ideal of R' and R'IR !:::! Z; thus, R'IR is semi simple. This being so, it
follows from Theorem 8-5 that rad R' S;;; R. Since R is an ideal of R', we
also have J(R) = J(R') n R = rad R' n R (Problem 26). But rad R' 5· R,
which implies that J(R) = rad R' .
PROBLEMS
Unless indicated to thecontrary,allrings are assumed to beeommutativewith identity.
1. Describe the Jacobson radical ofthe ring Zn ofintegers modulo n. [Hint: Consider
the prime factorization of I1.J In particular, show that Zn is semisimple if and
only if 11 is a square-free integer.
2. Prove that F(xJ, the ring of polynomials in x over a field F, is semisimple.
PROBLEMS 177
3. Prove that rad R is the largest (in the set-theoretie sense) ideal 1 of R sueh that
1 + a is invertibJe for all a e: l.
4. a) Let the ring R have the property that al! zero divisors líe in rad R. If (a) = (b),
show that the elements a and b must be associates. .
b) Verify that ifthe element a e: rad R and ax x for some x e: R, then x = O..
5. ~rovethata.P?werseriesf(x) = ao + a1x+ .,. +a.,x" + ... belongstoradR[[x]]
lf and only .,!f lts constant term ao belongs to cad R.
6. Prove the .f,ollowing assertions eonceming semisimple rings:
a) A ring !i.tis semisimple if and only if a :f= O implies that there exists some element
. r e R fdt'\.vhich 1 - ra is not invertible.
b) Every :&:Aunutative regular ring is semisimple.
e) Suppo,s~:·that {J,} is a family of ideals of R sueh that R¡1 , is semisimple for
eaeh i,a~~ n 1i == {O}. ThenRitselfisasemisimplering. [Hint:Theorem 8-5.J
" ,./, .
7. 1: R = R.~,@J R 2 ® ... ® R. is the direct sum of a finite number of rings R¡
(1 = 1, 2¡!:;>i'n), prove that
" ,i~r.(
.., cad R rad R 1 (!l rad R 2 ® ... ® rad Rn' .
8. Establish that the conditions below are equivalenl:
al the ring R has exaetly one maximal ideal (that ís, R is a local ring);
b) rad R is a maximal ideal of R;
el the set of noninvertible ·elementsof R coincides with rad R'
d) the set of noninvertible elements of R form an ideal' '
el lhe sum of two noninvertible elements of R is again'noninvertible;
f) for each element r E R, either r or 1 r is in vertible.
9. Let R be a principal ideal domain. Ifthe clement a E R has the prime factorization
a == ph~~ ... ¡f-, prove that the Jacobson radical of the guotient ring Rj(a) is
(p lP2 ... Pr )¡(a). [Hint: The maximal ideals of R containing (a) are (p 1)' (P2)' ... , (Pr)']
10. J..etf be a homomorphism from the ring R onto the ring R'. Show that f(rad R) ¡;;
rad R ' and, whenever kerf ¡;; rad R, then rad R = f-1(rad R'); do the same for
.RadR..
11. Prove: An ideal 1 of R is semiprime if and only if a2 E 1 implies that a e: 1.
12. Establish that an ideal 1 of R contains a prime ideal ¡f and only if fo! eaeh 11
a1a2 ... a" = Óimplies that ak E 1 for some k. [Hint: The set '
S= {b1b2· .. b"lbkEi1;n~ 1}
is cJosed under multiplication and a~ S.]
13. Show that the prime radical of a ring R contains the sum of all nilpotent ideals of R.
14. Establish the equivalence ofthe statements below:
a) {a} is the only nilpotent ideal of R;
b) R is without prime radical; that is, Rad R = {O};
e) for any ideals 1 and J of R, 1J = {O} implies that 1 n J = {O}.
 176 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Tbis implies that e - i is quasi-regular, say with quasi-inverse x. From the
equation (e ...:. i) o x = 0, together witb. the modularíty of M, we obtain
e = i - ix + (xe x) E M.
In con sequen ce, M = R, and an obvious contradiction ensues. Thus,
a E M, from which one concludes that J{R) is contained in theintersection
of the modular maximal ideals of ~, completing the proof.
I .
The hypothesis that J{R) =1= R: is certainly fulfilled whenever the ring
R possesses a multiplicative identity 1. Specifically, the element 1 itself is
not quasi-regular, whence 1 f/: J(~h in fact, if 1 + b - lb = O for some b
in R, we would have 1 == O, a cótÍtradictio;o.. When an identity element is
available, all ideals of R are automatically' modular. In tbis situation, the
J-radical will coincide ?Vith the Ja'cpbson radical of R: J{R) = rad R.
If J{R) = R, then th.e ríng R. ¡n!ly contain maximal ideals, but no such
ideal can be modular. Índeed,:~~ppose that l is any modular ideal of R,
R, with e acting as an identity foi.,R,.modulo 1. By suppósition, the element
e E J(R), so that e has a quasi-invérse e'. The modularity of l then yields
e == e'e - e' E l, .which implies that l = R. Accordingly, the ring R
possesses no proper modular ideals and, in particular, no modular maximal
ideals. However, the possibility of the existence of maximal ideal s in R is
not excluded.
The following theorem provides a convenient result with which to close
this chapter.
Theorem 8.21. A ring R can be imbedded in a ring R' with identity
such that J(R) rad R'.
Proof. If R already has an identity, we simply take R' = R. Otherwise,
we imbed R in the ring R' = R x Z in the.standard way (see TheoreÍn
2-12 for details). Then R, or more precisely, its isomorphic image R x {O},
is an ideal of R' and R'IR !:::! Z; thus, R'IR is semi simple. This being so, it
follows from Theorem 8-5 that rad R' S;;; R. Since R is an ideal of R', we
also have J(R) = J(R') n R = rad R' n R (Problem 26). But rad R' 5· R,
which implies that J(R) = rad R' .
PROBLEMS
Unless indicated to thecontrary,allrings are assumed to beeommutativewith identity.
1. Describe the Jacobson radical ofthe ring Zn ofintegers modulo n. [Hint: Consider
the prime factorization of I1.J In particular, show that Zn is semisimple if and
only if 11 is a square-free integer.
2. Prove that F(xJ, the ring of polynomials in x over a field F, is semisimple.
PROBLEMS 177
3. Prove that rad R is the largest (in the set-theoretie sense) ideal 1 of R sueh that
1 + a is invertibJe for all a e: l.
4. a) Let the ring R have the property that al! zero divisors líe in rad R. If (a) = (b),
show that the elements a and b must be associates. .
b) Verify that ifthe element a e: rad R and ax x for some x e: R, then x = O..
5. ~rovethata.P?werseriesf(x) = ao + a1x+ .,. +a.,x" + ... belongstoradR[[x]]
lf and only .,!f lts constant term ao belongs to cad R.
6. Prove the .f,ollowing assertions eonceming semisimple rings:
a) A ring !i.tis semisimple if and only if a :f= O implies that there exists some element
. r e R fdt'\.vhich 1 - ra is not invertible.
b) Every :&:Aunutative regular ring is semisimple.
e) Suppo,s~:·that {J,} is a family of ideals of R sueh that R¡1 , is semisimple for
eaeh i,a~~ n 1i == {O}. ThenRitselfisasemisimplering. [Hint:Theorem 8-5.J
" ,./, .
7. 1: R = R.~,@J R 2 ® ... ® R. is the direct sum of a finite number of rings R¡
(1 = 1, 2¡!:;>i'n), prove that
" ,i~r.(
.., cad R rad R 1 (!l rad R 2 ® ... ® rad Rn' .
8. Establish that the conditions below are equivalenl:
al the ring R has exaetly one maximal ideal (that ís, R is a local ring);
b) rad R is a maximal ideal of R;
el the set of noninvertible ·elementsof R coincides with rad R'
d) the set of noninvertible elements of R form an ideal' '
el lhe sum of two noninvertible elements of R is again'noninvertible;
f) for each element r E R, either r or 1 r is in vertible.
9. Let R be a principal ideal domain. Ifthe clement a E R has the prime factorization
a == ph~~ ... ¡f-, prove that the Jacobson radical of the guotient ring Rj(a) is
(p lP2 ... Pr )¡(a). [Hint: The maximal ideals of R containing (a) are (p 1)' (P2)' ... , (Pr)']
10. J..etf be a homomorphism from the ring R onto the ring R'. Show that f(rad R) ¡;;
rad R ' and, whenever kerf ¡;; rad R, then rad R = f-1(rad R'); do the same for
.RadR..
11. Prove: An ideal 1 of R is semiprime if and only if a2 E 1 implies that a e: 1.
12. Establish that an ideal 1 of R contains a prime ideal ¡f and only if fo! eaeh 11
a1a2 ... a" = Óimplies that ak E 1 for some k. [Hint: The set '
S= {b1b2· .. b"lbkEi1;n~ 1}
is cJosed under multiplication and a~ S.]
13. Show that the prime radical of a ring R contains the sum of all nilpotent ideals of R.
14. Establish the equivalence ofthe statements below:
a) {a} is the only nilpotent ideal of R;
b) R is without prime radical; that is, Rad R = {O};
e) for any ideals 1 and J of R, 1J = {O} implies that 1 n J = {O}.
 178 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS· AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 179

15. A multiplieatively elosed subset S of the ring R is said to be saturated if ab E S b) Verify that the annihilator of a J-semisimple ring R is zero; in other words,
implies thatboth a E S and bES. Prove that ann R = {O}o
a) S is a saturated multiplieatively elosed subset of R if and only if its eomplement
23. If f is a homomorphism froID the ring R onto the ring R', establish the inelusion
R - S is a union ofprime ideals;
f(J(R») S;;; J(R'); also show that ir kerf S;;; J(R), then J(R) = rl(J(R'»o
b) the set of non-zero-divisors of R is a saturated multiplieatively elosed subset
(hence, the set of zero divisors of R, along with zero, is a union of prime ideals)o 24. Prove eaeh of the statements below:
a) J(R) eontains every nil ideal of the ring R.
16. a) Prove that Rad R is the maximal nil ideal of R (maximal among the set of nil b) J(R) is a semiprime ideal of R. [Hint: Theorem 5-11.]
ideals); this property is often taken as the definition of the prime radical of R. e) For any ring R, Rad R S;;; J(R)o
b) If R has no nonzero nil ideals, deduce that the polynomial ring R[x] is semi-
simpleo 25. Ifwe define R = {2n/(2m + 1)ln, m E Z}, then R forms a eommutative ring under
e) Let ehar R = n > 00 Prove that if R is without prime radical, then n is a ordinary addition and multiplieationo Show that J(R) = R, whíle Rad R = {O}o
square-free integero [Hint: Assume that n = p2q for some prime p; then there
exists an element a E R sueh that pqa =1 O, but(pqaV = 00]
[Hint:(~)o(
2m + 1 2( - n
-2n
+ m) +
)= O]
1 o

17. Prove that the following.statements are equivalent:
a) R has a uniq ue prope~' prime ideal; . 27_ Prove that ifthe element a fE J(R) is idempotent modulo the ideal I (in other words,
b) R is a local ring with rad R = Rad R;
e) every noninvertible element of R is nilpotent;
d) R is a primary ring and every noninvertible element of R is either a zerb divisor
or zeroo
18. Supply a proof ofTheorems 8-11 and 8-120
19. A ring R is termed a Hilbert ring if eaeh proper prime ideal of R is an interseetion
of maximal idealso Prove that:
a) R is a Hilbert ring if and op,ly if for every proper ideal I of R,
rad (R/I) = Rad (R/I)o
b) Any1:lomomorphie image of a Hilbert ring is again a Hilbert ringo
e) Ifthe'p'olynomial ring R[x] is a Hilbert ring, then R is one alsoo [Hint: Utilize
(b) an'eHhe faet that R[xJ/(x) ~ Ro]
20. If I is anjdeal of the ring R, prove eaeh of the following statements:
a) The nílradieal of I is the interseetion of all the minimal prime ideals of lo
b) Rad R is the interseetion of all the minimal prime ideals of R.
e) The uníon of aIl theminimal prime ideals of R is the set
S = {r E Rlra ERad R, for sorne a rt Rad R}o
d) If I is a primary ideal of R,' then Ji is the only minimal prime ideal of lo
[Hint: Problem 19, Chapter 50]
In .Problems 21-30, the ring R need not possess an identity elemento
21. Consider the ring P(X) of subsets of some (nonempty) set Xo Show that in this
setting the eircle operation reduces to the union operation and determine the'
quasi-regular elementso
26. LetI be an ideal of the ring R. Regarding I as a ring, deduce thatJ(l) = J(R) í'I lo
(a + I? = a + 1), then a E 1.
28. Assume that the ideal I of R consists of elements whieh are quasi-regular modulo
J(R)o (J-Ie say that a is quasi-regular modulo J(R) provided that there exists an
e!ement b E R sueh that a o b E J(R»)o Establish that I S;;; J(R)o
29. a) Prove that an element a E R fails to be quasi-regular if and only if a is an identity
for R relative to some proper modular ideal of R.
b) If lis an ideal ofthe ring R and K is a modular ideal of 1, show that K is also an
ideal of R. .
30. We shall eall an ide'al I of R regular if the quotient ring R/I is a regular ring; in
j' other words, if for eaeh a E R, there exists an element b E R sueh that a2 b - a E lo
Prove that '~,' :;
o
a) Every modular maximal ideal of R is regular. ."-,:;¡~
b) If I I and 12 are both regular ideals of R, then so also is I I í'l1 2 o [Hint: Given
a E R, there exist b, e E R sueh that a2 b - a E I I and (a 2 b - a)2c -'''(a 2 b - a)
belongs to 12 ; rewrite the last expressiono] ,',
e) J(R) = í'I {III is a regular ideal of R}o ""5
, ;
[Hint: Assume that a E J(R), but not the right-hand side, so that a rtUor some
regular ideal lo If S = I í'I J(R), then a1b - a E S for some b in',Ro Take
e = ab E J(R)o Then, el - e E So Show that e E S, whieh leads to the
eontradietion that a E lo]

22. a) Prove that if the element a E R has the property that a" is quasi-regular for
so me n E Z+, then a itselfmust be quasi-regularo [Hint: a" = a o( - L:;;:l ak)o]
 178 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS· AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 179

15. A multiplieatively elosed subset S of the ring R is said to be saturated if ab E S b) Verify that the annihilator of a J-semisimple ring R is zero; in other words,
implies thatboth a E S and bES. Prove that ann R = {O}o
a) S is a saturated multiplieatively elosed subset of R if and only if its eomplement
23. If f is a homomorphism froID the ring R onto the ring R', establish the inelusion
R - S is a union ofprime ideals;
f(J(R») S;;; J(R'); also show that ir kerf S;;; J(R), then J(R) = rl(J(R'»o
b) the set of non-zero-divisors of R is a saturated multiplieatively elosed subset
(hence, the set of zero divisors of R, along with zero, is a union of prime ideals)o 24. Prove eaeh of the statements below:
a) J(R) eontains every nil ideal of the ring R.
16. a) Prove that Rad R is the maximal nil ideal of R (maximal among the set of nil b) J(R) is a semiprime ideal of R. [Hint: Theorem 5-11.]
ideals); this property is often taken as the definition of the prime radical of R. e) For any ring R, Rad R S;;; J(R)o
b) If R has no nonzero nil ideals, deduce that the polynomial ring R[x] is semi-
simpleo 25. Ifwe define R = {2n/(2m + 1)ln, m E Z}, then R forms a eommutative ring under
e) Let ehar R = n > 00 Prove that if R is without prime radical, then n is a ordinary addition and multiplieationo Show that J(R) = R, whíle Rad R = {O}o
square-free integero [Hint: Assume that n = p2q for some prime p; then there
exists an element a E R sueh that pqa =1 O, but(pqaV = 00]
[Hint:(~)o(
2m + 1 2( - n
-2n
+ m) +
)= O]
1 o

17. Prove that the following.statements are equivalent:
a) R has a uniq ue prope~' prime ideal; . 27_ Prove that ifthe element a fE J(R) is idempotent modulo the ideal I (in other words,
b) R is a local ring with rad R = Rad R;
e) every noninvertible element of R is nilpotent;
d) R is a primary ring and every noninvertible element of R is either a zerb divisor
or zeroo
18. Supply a proof ofTheorems 8-11 and 8-120
19. A ring R is termed a Hilbert ring if eaeh proper prime ideal of R is an interseetion
of maximal idealso Prove that:
a) R is a Hilbert ring if and op,ly if for every proper ideal I of R,
rad (R/I) = Rad (R/I)o
b) Any1:lomomorphie image of a Hilbert ring is again a Hilbert ringo
e) Ifthe'p'olynomial ring R[x] is a Hilbert ring, then R is one alsoo [Hint: Utilize
(b) an'eHhe faet that R[xJ/(x) ~ Ro]
20. If I is anjdeal of the ring R, prove eaeh of the following statements:
a) The nílradieal of I is the interseetion of all the minimal prime ideals of lo
b) Rad R is the interseetion of all the minimal prime ideals of R.
e) The uníon of aIl theminimal prime ideals of R is the set
S = {r E Rlra ERad R, for sorne a rt Rad R}o
d) If I is a primary ideal of R,' then Ji is the only minimal prime ideal of lo
[Hint: Problem 19, Chapter 50]
In .Problems 21-30, the ring R need not possess an identity elemento
21. Consider the ring P(X) of subsets of some (nonempty) set Xo Show that in this
setting the eircle operation reduces to the union operation and determine the'
quasi-regular elementso
26. LetI be an ideal of the ring R. Regarding I as a ring, deduce thatJ(l) = J(R) í'I lo
(a + I? = a + 1), then a E 1.
28. Assume that the ideal I of R consists of elements whieh are quasi-regular modulo
J(R)o (J-Ie say that a is quasi-regular modulo J(R) provided that there exists an
e!ement b E R sueh that a o b E J(R»)o Establish that I S;;; J(R)o
29. a) Prove that an element a E R fails to be quasi-regular if and only if a is an identity
for R relative to some proper modular ideal of R.
b) If lis an ideal ofthe ring R and K is a modular ideal of 1, show that K is also an
ideal of R. .
30. We shall eall an ide'al I of R regular if the quotient ring R/I is a regular ring; in
j' other words, if for eaeh a E R, there exists an element b E R sueh that a2 b - a E lo
Prove that '~,' :;
o
a) Every modular maximal ideal of R is regular. ."-,:;¡~
b) If I I and 12 are both regular ideals of R, then so also is I I í'l1 2 o [Hint: Given
a E R, there exist b, e E R sueh that a2 b - a E I I and (a 2 b - a)2c -'''(a 2 b - a)
belongs to 12 ; rewrite the last expressiono] ,',
e) J(R) = í'I {III is a regular ideal of R}o ""5
, ;
[Hint: Assume that a E J(R), but not the right-hand side, so that a rtUor some
regular ideal lo If S = I í'I J(R), then a1b - a E S for some b in',Ro Take
e = ab E J(R)o Then, el - e E So Show that e E S, whieh leads to the
eontradietion that a E lo]

22. a) Prove that if the element a E R has the property that a" is quasi-regular for
so me n E Z+, then a itselfmust be quasi-regularo [Hint: a" = a o( - L:;;:l ak)o]
 TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 181
NINE. a Boole~n ring, w~ proceed as follows: If the funetion f E R is sueh that
f(x) O,then , . .
(j2)(x) = f(x) '2f(x) = Ó '2 O = 0,
whereas if f(x) 1, then
1.

TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS In any event, (j2)(X) f(x) for all x E X; hence,j2; !
Th~ idempotency proviso in the definition or:;~ Boolean ring has a
.-:,.•,... ¡"
;:" ..
strong mfluence on the structure of such rings (in f~Gt, Boolean rings have
.
; ~:~
an almost embarrassingly rieh strueture). Twoot the most important
The two theorems whichwe shall be primarily eoneemed with are the Stone eonsequences are that (1) a Boolean ring is of el,iaiacteristic 2and (2) a
Representation Theorem for Boolean rings and Wedderburn's Theorembn Boolean ring is commutative. Although these facts',have appeared in the
finite division rings. O[ the two, the proof of Wedderburn's Theorem..is exercises, they have never been formally proved; laii~ly to assure complete-
more troublesome 'and occupies the major portion of our effort in '"üti~ ness, let us indicate the argument here. . . :.~Tr .
chapter. Before embarkiríg on this latter task, it is necessary to assemble'~ Given arbitrary elements 'eJ, b of a Boolean ring~, it folIows that
number of results pertinent to the strueture of finite, fields. OUT aim haír
a + b=:,' (a + b)2 a2 + ab + ba + b2 = a'+ ab + ba + b
been to spell out all the important details and the reacier may find some of
the arguments ra thei complex.' . and, henee, ab + ba == O. Setting a = b in this last equation, we obtain
We first take up the celebrated result of Stone, which asserts that eaeh
.Boolean ring can be represented by a ring of sets. At the outset, let us recall
2a a + 'a = a2 + a2
=. , °
that by a Boolean ring is meant a ring with identity every element of which : whieh shows that ehar R= 2.. The relation ab + ba = O now yields the
is idempotent. ~t may be well to emphasize that the existen ce of an identity commutativity of R; indeed, since a. -a for any a in R,
is frequently omitted in the definition of a Boolean ring; for the applications
ab -ba ba.
which we have in mind, the presence of such an e1ement will be convenient.
(One can show that if the number of elements of a Boolean ring is finite, The maximal ideals of a Boolean ring are characterized by some
then a multiplicative identity always exists.) interesting algebraic properties; to elaborate more fully on this,
Let us pause long enough to indicate several standard examples of
Theorem 9-1. If J is a proper ideal of the Boolean ring R then the
Boolean rings. '
fOllowing conditions are equivalent: '
Example 9-1. The ring Z2 of integers moduló 2. 1) J is a maximal ideal;
Example 9-2. The ring (P(X), A, n) of subsets of a nonempty set X, with 2) 1 is a prime ideal;
the usual interpretation of A and n. 3) for every element a E R, either a or 1 - a (but not both) belongs to J.
Example 9-3. For a less obvious illustration, let R = map(X, Z2), where . Proo! . The equivalen ce of assertions (1) and (2) 1S the content of Theorem
X is an arbitrary nonempty .set. ·As is eustomary in this setting, the ring 5-8. We now assume (2). Siliee a(l a) OE J for aH a in R the fact
operations are define4 pointwise; that 1S, ifj and g ,are in R, then t~at J is prime implies that either a or 1 a must lie in J (but ~ot both,
~lllce 1~ a + (1 - a)). The proof ofthe theorem is completed by showing
(f + g)(x) = f(x) +2 g(x), that (1) lS a consequence pf (3). For this, suppose that J is an ideal of R
(fg) (x) f(x) '2 g(x) (x E X). with the prope~ty t.hat J c: J S;; R; what needs to be proved is the equality
J = R. Now, lf a lS any element of J whieh is not in J, then by supposition
It is already kllown that R forms a commutative ring with identity (Example 1 - a E J. But this means 1 - a E J, so that 1 a + (1 a) E J and,
1-4). To establish the idempotency condition and thereby show that R is as a result, J = R.
180
 TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 181
NINE. a Boole~n ring, w~ proceed as follows: If the funetion f E R is sueh that
f(x) O,then , . .
(j2)(x) = f(x) '2f(x) = Ó '2 O = 0,
whereas if f(x) 1, then
1.

TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS In any event, (j2)(X) f(x) for all x E X; hence,j2; !
Th~ idempotency proviso in the definition or:;~ Boolean ring has a
.-:,.•,... ¡"
;:" ..
strong mfluence on the structure of such rings (in f~Gt, Boolean rings have
.
; ~:~
an almost embarrassingly rieh strueture). Twoot the most important
The two theorems whichwe shall be primarily eoneemed with are the Stone eonsequences are that (1) a Boolean ring is of el,iaiacteristic 2and (2) a
Representation Theorem for Boolean rings and Wedderburn's Theorembn Boolean ring is commutative. Although these facts',have appeared in the
finite division rings. O[ the two, the proof of Wedderburn's Theorem..is exercises, they have never been formally proved; laii~ly to assure complete-
more troublesome 'and occupies the major portion of our effort in '"üti~ ness, let us indicate the argument here. . . :.~Tr .
chapter. Before embarkiríg on this latter task, it is necessary to assemble'~ Given arbitrary elements 'eJ, b of a Boolean ring~, it folIows that
number of results pertinent to the strueture of finite, fields. OUT aim haír
a + b=:,' (a + b)2 a2 + ab + ba + b2 = a'+ ab + ba + b
been to spell out all the important details and the reacier may find some of
the arguments ra thei complex.' . and, henee, ab + ba == O. Setting a = b in this last equation, we obtain
We first take up the celebrated result of Stone, which asserts that eaeh
.Boolean ring can be represented by a ring of sets. At the outset, let us recall
2a a + 'a = a2 + a2
=. , °
that by a Boolean ring is meant a ring with identity every element of which : whieh shows that ehar R= 2.. The relation ab + ba = O now yields the
is idempotent. ~t may be well to emphasize that the existen ce of an identity commutativity of R; indeed, since a. -a for any a in R,
is frequently omitted in the definition of a Boolean ring; for the applications
ab -ba ba.
which we have in mind, the presence of such an e1ement will be convenient.
(One can show that if the number of elements of a Boolean ring is finite, The maximal ideals of a Boolean ring are characterized by some
then a multiplicative identity always exists.) interesting algebraic properties; to elaborate more fully on this,
Let us pause long enough to indicate several standard examples of
Theorem 9-1. If J is a proper ideal of the Boolean ring R then the
Boolean rings. '
fOllowing conditions are equivalent: '
Example 9-1. The ring Z2 of integers moduló 2. 1) J is a maximal ideal;
Example 9-2. The ring (P(X), A, n) of subsets of a nonempty set X, with 2) 1 is a prime ideal;
the usual interpretation of A and n. 3) for every element a E R, either a or 1 - a (but not both) belongs to J.
Example 9-3. For a less obvious illustration, let R = map(X, Z2), where . Proo! . The equivalen ce of assertions (1) and (2) 1S the content of Theorem
X is an arbitrary nonempty .set. ·As is eustomary in this setting, the ring 5-8. We now assume (2). Siliee a(l a) OE J for aH a in R the fact
operations are define4 pointwise; that 1S, ifj and g ,are in R, then t~at J is prime implies that either a or 1 a must lie in J (but ~ot both,
~lllce 1~ a + (1 - a)). The proof ofthe theorem is completed by showing
(f + g)(x) = f(x) +2 g(x), that (1) lS a consequence pf (3). For this, suppose that J is an ideal of R
(fg) (x) f(x) '2 g(x) (x E X). with the prope~ty t.hat J c: J S;; R; what needs to be proved is the equality
J = R. Now, lf a lS any element of J whieh is not in J, then by supposition
It is already kllown that R forms a commutative ring with identity (Example 1 - a E J. But this means 1 - a E J, so that 1 a + (1 a) E J and,
1-4). To establish the idempotency condition and thereby show that R is as a result, J = R.
180
182 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 183

A natural undertaking is to determine which Boolean rings are also such functions. Inasmuqh as 1 + a El S; M, the coset 1 + a + M = M,
fields. We may dispose of tliis question rather quickly: up to isomorphism, so that
the only BooIean field is the ring of integers modulo 2. 1 +2 f(a) = f(l) +zf(a) = f(l + a)
Theorem 9-2., A Boolean ring R is a field if and only if R ~ 2 2, = g(l + a + M) = g(M) = O.
Proof. Let R be a Boolean field. For any nonzero el~ment a E R, we then
have But 1 +2 f(a) = O if and only iff(a) = 1, which finishes the proof.
a = al = a(aa- 1 ) = a2a- 1 = aa- 1 = 1. That any Boolean ring is semisimple is an immediate consequence of
the foregoing result. '
This reasoning shows that the only nonzero element of R is the multiplicative
identity; in other words, R = {O, 1}. But any two-element field is iso- CoroUary. Every Boolean ring R is a sernisimple ring; that is,
morphic to 2 2 , The Converse of the theorem is fairly obvious. rad R = {O}.
This gives rise to another characterization of maximal (equivalently, Proof. In order to arrive at a contradiction, we assume that a Erad R with
prime) ideals in Boolean"rings. a =1= O. Then there'exist~ an onto homomorphismf: R -+ 2 2 for which
f(a) = 1. It follows that kerfmust be a proper ideal ofthe ring R. Hence,
CoroUary. A proper ideal l of a Boolean ring R is a maximal ideal if
there exists sorne maximal ideal M of R with ker f S; M. In particular, the
and onIy ifR.jl ~ 2 2 ,
element 1 - ti E ker f S; M. But also, a Erad R S; M, which implies that
Proof. Since the quotient ring Rjl inherits the idempotency condition, Rjl 1 = a + (1 I a) E M. This at once leads' to M = R, the desired contra-
is itself a Boolean ringo By Theorem 5-5, l is a maximal ideal if and only diction.
if Rjl is a (Boo.1ean) field. An appeal to the aboye theorem now completes
We now set our~elves to the prinCipal task, that of showing that each
the p~oof.
Boolean ring is essentially a ring of sets.
Tlie next theorem is a major one and requires a preliminary lemma of
sorne intrinsic interest. Theorem 9-3. (Stone Representation Theorem). Any Boolean ring R
is isornorphic to a ring of subsets of sorne fixed seto
Lemma. Let R be a Boolean ringo For, each n~nzero element a E R,
there exists a homomorphism f from R;~'~pto the field 2 2 such that Proof. To begin the attac~, let H denote the collection of all hornornorphisrns
of R onto the field 2 2 , ~ext, define a function h: R -+ P(H) by assigning
f(a) = 1 . ) / . ,
to each element a E R thQsemembers of H which as sume the value 1 at a;
Proof. Consider the principal ideal l f
= (1 q) generated by the element in other words, ..
1 + a. Now,l =1= R,sincetheidentityelemeni,ls.notamemberofI. Indeed, " ':
"1"'11"
if 1 E l, then 1 = r(1 + a) for sorne choice o'fr in R; this means h(ii) = {fE Hlf(a) = 1}.
. . /. .-,:.

1= r(l + a)2 = (r(l + a})(l +::'a) = 1(1 + a), Although the notation is perfectly c1ear, let us stress that h is a set-valued
"H function in the sense that:#~ functional values are certain subsets of H. By
from which it follows that a = O, contrary to 'assumption. means of this function, we'shall establish the isornorphism mentioned in the
Because lis a proper ideal, Theorem 5-2guarantees theexistence of a theorern. ' [
maximal ideal M of R with l s; M. In the \ight of the result just proven, Let us now give the details. For any fE H, the productf(a) '2f(b) = 1
the corresponding quotient ring RjM will be isomorphic to 2 2 via sorne if and only if both f(a) = 1 and f(b) = 1. This being so, one conc1udes
homomorphism g. We may therefore define a function f: R -+ 2 2 by that
taking f = g o nat M , where natM is the usual natural mapping ofR onto
RjM. h(ab) = {fE Hlf(ab) = 1}
The remainder of the proof amounts to showing that the function J, so = {fE Hlf(a) '2f(b) = 1}
defined, has the properties asserted in the statement ofthe theotem. Plainly,
fis both an onto rnap and a homornorphisrn, being the cornposition oftwo = {fE Hlf(a) = 1} n {fE Hlf(b) = 1} = h(a) n h(b),
182 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 183

A natural undertaking is to determine which Boolean rings are also such functions. Inasmuqh as 1 + a El S; M, the coset 1 + a + M = M,
fields. We may dispose of tliis question rather quickly: up to isomorphism, so that
the only BooIean field is the ring of integers modulo 2. 1 +2 f(a) = f(l) +zf(a) = f(l + a)
Theorem 9-2., A Boolean ring R is a field if and only if R ~ 2 2, = g(l + a + M) = g(M) = O.
Proof. Let R be a Boolean field. For any nonzero el~ment a E R, we then
have But 1 +2 f(a) = O if and only iff(a) = 1, which finishes the proof.
a = al = a(aa- 1 ) = a2a- 1 = aa- 1 = 1. That any Boolean ring is semisimple is an immediate consequence of
the foregoing result. '
This reasoning shows that the only nonzero element of R is the multiplicative
identity; in other words, R = {O, 1}. But any two-element field is iso- CoroUary. Every Boolean ring R is a sernisimple ring; that is,
morphic to 2 2 , The Converse of the theorem is fairly obvious. rad R = {O}.
This gives rise to another characterization of maximal (equivalently, Proof. In order to arrive at a contradiction, we assume that a Erad R with
prime) ideals in Boolean"rings. a =1= O. Then there'exist~ an onto homomorphismf: R -+ 2 2 for which
f(a) = 1. It follows that kerfmust be a proper ideal ofthe ring R. Hence,
CoroUary. A proper ideal l of a Boolean ring R is a maximal ideal if
there exists sorne maximal ideal M of R with ker f S; M. In particular, the
and onIy ifR.jl ~ 2 2 ,
element 1 - ti E ker f S; M. But also, a Erad R S; M, which implies that
Proof. Since the quotient ring Rjl inherits the idempotency condition, Rjl 1 = a + (1 I a) E M. This at once leads' to M = R, the desired contra-
is itself a Boolean ringo By Theorem 5-5, l is a maximal ideal if and only diction.
if Rjl is a (Boo.1ean) field. An appeal to the aboye theorem now completes
We now set our~elves to the prinCipal task, that of showing that each
the p~oof.
Boolean ring is essentially a ring of sets.
Tlie next theorem is a major one and requires a preliminary lemma of
sorne intrinsic interest. Theorem 9-3. (Stone Representation Theorem). Any Boolean ring R
is isornorphic to a ring of subsets of sorne fixed seto
Lemma. Let R be a Boolean ringo For, each n~nzero element a E R,
there exists a homomorphism f from R;~'~pto the field 2 2 such that Proof. To begin the attac~, let H denote the collection of all hornornorphisrns
of R onto the field 2 2 , ~ext, define a function h: R -+ P(H) by assigning
f(a) = 1 . ) / . ,
to each element a E R thQsemembers of H which as sume the value 1 at a;
Proof. Consider the principal ideal l f
= (1 q) generated by the element in other words, ..
1 + a. Now,l =1= R,sincetheidentityelemeni,ls.notamemberofI. Indeed, " ':
"1"'11"
if 1 E l, then 1 = r(1 + a) for sorne choice o'fr in R; this means h(ii) = {fE Hlf(a) = 1}.
. . /. .-,:.

1= r(l + a)2 = (r(l + a})(l +::'a) = 1(1 + a), Although the notation is perfectly c1ear, let us stress that h is a set-valued
"H function in the sense that:#~ functional values are certain subsets of H. By
from which it follows that a = O, contrary to 'assumption. means of this function, we'shall establish the isornorphism mentioned in the
Because lis a proper ideal, Theorem 5-2guarantees theexistence of a theorern. ' [
maximal ideal M of R with l s; M. In the \ight of the result just proven, Let us now give the details. For any fE H, the productf(a) '2f(b) = 1
the corresponding quotient ring RjM will be isomorphic to 2 2 via sorne if and only if both f(a) = 1 and f(b) = 1. This being so, one conc1udes
homomorphism g. We may therefore define a function f: R -+ 2 2 by that
taking f = g o nat M , where natM is the usual natural mapping ofR onto
RjM. h(ab) = {fE Hlf(ab) = 1}
The remainder of the proof amounts to showing that the function J, so = {fE Hlf(a) '2f(b) = 1}
defined, has the properties asserted in the statement ofthe theotem. Plainly,
fis both an onto rnap and a homornorphisrn, being the cornposition oftwo = {fE Hlf(a) = 1} n {fE Hlf(b) = 1} = h(a) n h(b),
 184 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 185
showing that the function h preserves muItiplication. The verification that
h(a + b) = h(a) 8 h(b) is equally straightforward, depending chiefiy on the ~hus; there exists an element a' E R such that a = aa'a, making R a regular
~S·. . '
observation that the sumf(a) +d(b) = 1 if and only if one off(a) or f(b)
is 1, while the other is O; the reader may easily fill in the steps for himselL CorolJary 1. A commutative ring R is regular if and only if evei'y ideal
These remarks serve to demonstrate the fact that h is a homomorphism from' I Qf R is idempotept. ..
R into the ring of sets (P(H), 8, ()). . , ! Pro?f. If R is regular, .ve may take 1 = J in the theorem to conclude that
AH that is needed to complete the proof is to show that h is a one-to-one
function'or:, equivalentIy, that ker h = {O}. But this foHows immediately the ld~ls o~ R are idempotent. On the other hand, let 1 and J be arbitrary
from the preceding lemma, which asserts that h(a) is nonempty if and only 0l
(two-slded) ldeals R. Then the idempotency of 1 tl J yields
if a +- O; w h e n c e ' · . . :\'1 tl J = (1 tl J)2 S;; 1J S;; 1 tl J,
kerh = {aERlh(~);:~:: 0} = {O}. and so 1J = 1 ()~!/ Appealing to the theorem once more it follows that
R must be a reguli;lt ringo . ,
AH the pieces faH into place and we s.~:~that the ring R i8 isomorphic to a
..... .,.."
subring (namely, the sll,bring h(R») oqI:~JH), 8, tl).
• "/-;·.'l
. CorolIary 2.fídl. commutative ring R with identity, the condition
We shall return to Boolean rings:frqm time to time in the sequel, but . "c:;', (ab) = (a) tl (b), a, bE R
• ~ :,~~,!
,-? '.
for the moment let us raise the foIlowirig:question (which may have already lS eqUlvalent t.q,,tegularity.
. .l::,
occurred to some readers): whatis the effect.of requiring that each ideal of
Proof. If the indicated condition hólds, then in particular a E R implies
a ring R be indempotent? In the theorem below, we characterize the regular 2
(a ) = (a) () (a). Rence, for each a in R, there exists some a' E R such that
ring8 by a condition on one-sided ideals which in the commutative case i8 2
a = a' a = 00' a and R is regular. Conversely, if R is regular, it follows
equivalent to the idempotency of the ideals of R. To recall the earlier
from the theorem that (a) tl (b) = (a)(b) = (ah) for alI a, b E R. .
definition, a regular ring is a ring R with the property that every element
a has a pseudo-inver8e a' E R satisIYing aa' a = a; it is worth emphasizing . F~o~ no,: on, we shall assume that any regular ring possesses a multí-
that regular ri~gs need not be commutative or póssess an identity. phc~t1ve. l~entIty 1; this requirement is not essential, buthas the advantage
of slmphfymg our arguments.
Tbeorem 9-4. A ring R is regular if and only if To continue with the analysis of regular rings,
IJ=1tlJ
:Lem~a. A ring R ls regular if and only if ev~ry principal right (left)
holds for every right ideal 1 and left ideal J of R; ldealls generated by an idempotent.
Proof.. S~ppos~ that R is regular and aR ii> a principal right ideal.. If the
Proof. Let 1 be a rigbt ideal and J a left ideal of the regular ring R. Since element a E R lS such that aa'a = a, then
the inclusion IJ S;; 1 () J always obtains, we have only ·to show that any
element a of 1 tl J is in U. By the regularity of R, aa' a = a for some a' E R. (aa')2 = (aa'a)a' = aa',
Rere a'a is a me~ber ofthe left ideal J, so that the product a(a'a) E IJ, from = 00' is !dempot~nt ..
so that e From a .= ea E eR, we deduce that aR S;; eR.
which one infers that a E U. Rowever~ e ;: aa E aR, Yleldtng eR S;; aR and the subsequent equ:ality.
For the converse, we assume that the indicated condition holds and ~ Turmng matte~s around, let us now assume that every principal. right
]2roceed to establish that R is regular. Let a be an arbitrary elemenf of R. Ideal of R has an ldempotent generator: Given an element a E R 'ch
Then (in the absence of an identity) the right ideal generate9 by a is the set 'd ' oose
~ I empotent e such that ~R = eR: Then, for suitable r, s in R, the equa-
aR + Za {ar + nalr E R, n E Z}. By virtue oC our hypothesis, tlons a = er and e = as wIIl be sattsfied. But this implies that
aR + Za ;: (aR + Za) () R = (aR + Za)R = aR, asa'= ea = e(er) = er = a,
and so a E aR. Analogously, a ERa, which leads to whence R forms a regular ringo

a E aR tl Ra = aR2a. !he elementary lemma just proved enables us to throw new light on
theldeaI structure of regular rings. .
 184 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 185
showing that the function h preserves muItiplication. The verification that
h(a + b) = h(a) 8 h(b) is equally straightforward, depending chiefiy on the ~hus; there exists an element a' E R such that a = aa'a, making R a regular
~S·. . '
observation that the sumf(a) +d(b) = 1 if and only if one off(a) or f(b)
is 1, while the other is O; the reader may easily fill in the steps for himselL CorolJary 1. A commutative ring R is regular if and only if evei'y ideal
These remarks serve to demonstrate the fact that h is a homomorphism from' I Qf R is idempotept. ..
R into the ring of sets (P(H), 8, ()). . , ! Pro?f. If R is regular, .ve may take 1 = J in the theorem to conclude that
AH that is needed to complete the proof is to show that h is a one-to-one
function'or:, equivalentIy, that ker h = {O}. But this foHows immediately the ld~ls o~ R are idempotent. On the other hand, let 1 and J be arbitrary
from the preceding lemma, which asserts that h(a) is nonempty if and only 0l
(two-slded) ldeals R. Then the idempotency of 1 tl J yields
if a +- O; w h e n c e ' · . . :\'1 tl J = (1 tl J)2 S;; 1J S;; 1 tl J,
kerh = {aERlh(~);:~:: 0} = {O}. and so 1J = 1 ()~!/ Appealing to the theorem once more it follows that
R must be a reguli;lt ringo . ,
AH the pieces faH into place and we s.~:~that the ring R i8 isomorphic to a
..... .,.."
subring (namely, the sll,bring h(R») oqI:~JH), 8, tl).
• "/-;·.'l
. CorolIary 2.fídl. commutative ring R with identity, the condition
We shall return to Boolean rings:frqm time to time in the sequel, but . "c:;', (ab) = (a) tl (b), a, bE R
• ~ :,~~,!
,-? '.
for the moment let us raise the foIlowirig:question (which may have already lS eqUlvalent t.q,,tegularity.
. .l::,
occurred to some readers): whatis the effect.of requiring that each ideal of
Proof. If the indicated condition hólds, then in particular a E R implies
a ring R be indempotent? In the theorem below, we characterize the regular 2
(a ) = (a) () (a). Rence, for each a in R, there exists some a' E R such that
ring8 by a condition on one-sided ideals which in the commutative case i8 2
a = a' a = 00' a and R is regular. Conversely, if R is regular, it follows
equivalent to the idempotency of the ideals of R. To recall the earlier
from the theorem that (a) tl (b) = (a)(b) = (ah) for alI a, b E R. .
definition, a regular ring is a ring R with the property that every element
a has a pseudo-inver8e a' E R satisIYing aa' a = a; it is worth emphasizing . F~o~ no,: on, we shall assume that any regular ring possesses a multí-
that regular ri~gs need not be commutative or póssess an identity. phc~t1ve. l~entIty 1; this requirement is not essential, buthas the advantage
of slmphfymg our arguments.
Tbeorem 9-4. A ring R is regular if and only if To continue with the analysis of regular rings,
IJ=1tlJ
:Lem~a. A ring R ls regular if and only if ev~ry principal right (left)
holds for every right ideal 1 and left ideal J of R; ldealls generated by an idempotent.
Proof.. S~ppos~ that R is regular and aR ii> a principal right ideal.. If the
Proof. Let 1 be a rigbt ideal and J a left ideal of the regular ring R. Since element a E R lS such that aa'a = a, then
the inclusion IJ S;; 1 () J always obtains, we have only ·to show that any
element a of 1 tl J is in U. By the regularity of R, aa' a = a for some a' E R. (aa')2 = (aa'a)a' = aa',
Rere a'a is a me~ber ofthe left ideal J, so that the product a(a'a) E IJ, from = 00' is !dempot~nt ..
so that e From a .= ea E eR, we deduce that aR S;; eR.
which one infers that a E U. Rowever~ e ;: aa E aR, Yleldtng eR S;; aR and the subsequent equ:ality.
For the converse, we assume that the indicated condition holds and ~ Turmng matte~s around, let us now assume that every principal. right
]2roceed to establish that R is regular. Let a be an arbitrary elemenf of R. Ideal of R has an ldempotent generator: Given an element a E R 'ch
Then (in the absence of an identity) the right ideal generate9 by a is the set 'd ' oose
~ I empotent e such that ~R = eR: Then, for suitable r, s in R, the equa-
aR + Za {ar + nalr E R, n E Z}. By virtue oC our hypothesis, tlons a = er and e = as wIIl be sattsfied. But this implies that
aR + Za ;: (aR + Za) () R = (aR + Za)R = aR, asa'= ea = e(er) = er = a,
and so a E aR. Analogously, a ERa, which leads to whence R forms a regular ringo

a E aR tl Ra = aR2a. !he elementary lemma just proved enables us to throw new light on
theldeaI structure of regular rings. .
186 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 187

Theorem 9,·5. The sum of two principal right (left) ideal s of a regular
ring R is itself a principal right (left) ideal.
Proo! Consider the right ideal aR + bR. As reference to the lemma will
confirm, aR is of the form aR = eR, with e an idempotent. We also ha ve
eR + bR = {ex + bylx,YER}
Proo! First, take R to be a regular ring and J and arbitrary ideal of R.
Since we always ha ve J S;; .JI, it is enough to establish the reverse inclusion
here. For this, let a be any element of .JI, so that el' E J for sorne positive
integer n. By the regularity oC R, there exists an a' E R with a = a2 a'.
Repeated multiplication of this relation by aa' leads to a = a/l(a,)n-l E J,
whence .JI S;; 1.

= {ex + eby + (1 - e)bylx, y E R} Going in the other direction, assume that R is a ring in which every
ideal coincides with its nil radical. Given an element a E R, we consider the
= {e(x + by) + (1 - e)bylx, y E R} principal ideal (a 2). Because a 3 'E (a 2), it follows that a E -J(a2) and so, by
= {ez + (1 - e)bylz, y E R} = eR + (1 - e)bR. our hypothesis, that a E (a 2). But then, a = a2a' for a suitable choice of a'
in R, making R aregular ringo
Put e = (1 - e)b, so that aR + bR = eR + eR, where the element e has
As a prelude to the second of the two theorems on our program, it is
thepropertyee.= e(1 - e)b = (e - e2)b = O. Weagaininvokethelemma
essential to exaffiine the structure of fields with a finite number of elements.
to come up with eR ~ fR, f being an idempotent of R; since f is of the
In this connection, the most reasonable question is whether there exist finite
formf = ex, the product ef = O. As a final preliminary, let g = f(1 - e).
fields other than the fields Zp (p a prime) and, if so, whether they can be
To see that the element g is idempotertt, observe that
completely described. We launch our inquiry by proving that every finite
gf = f(1 - e)f = fU - ef) = f2 = j, field is of prime-power order.
which subsequently yields g2 = gf(1 - e) = f(1 - e) = g. A further and Theorem 9-7. If F is a finite field, then F has exactly p" elements for
very important deduction is that sorne prime p and n E Z+.
eg = ef(1 - e) = 0, °
Proo! Since the prime subfield of a field of characteristic has infinitely
many elements, F must necessarily be of characteristic p, where p is a prime.
ge = f(1 - e)e = O.
Nothing will be lost by assuming, as we shall henceforth, that the prime
As bothf = gfe gR and g = f(1 - e) EfR, the ideal fR = gR. One finds subfield of F is actually the field Zp (Theorem 4-12). In the light of the
in this way that the sum aR + bR = eR + gR. finitenessofF,itmayberegardedasafiniteextensionofZp , say [F: Zp] = n.
. , ,Our remaining objective is to demonstrate that eR + gR = (e + g)R. Suppose that the n elements r 1, r2 , ... , rn. constitute:aJJasis for F as a
Tlíe reasoning proceeds as follows. Since e + g e eR + gR, the inclusion . ..1 vector space over Zp. Then every element r in F can De ',üniquely written
+
(e. g)R S;; eR + gR evidentIy holds. On the other hand, the element in the form "~~ ,;':
é.~ e2 + ge = (e + g)e E (e + g)R,and,atthesametime,g = eg + g2 = r = a1r 1 + a2r 2 + ... + anrn , . ·t , ~ ~

(~.;.+ g)g E (e + g)R, which forces eR + gR S;; (e + g)R. Thisleads to the Üi.
t:gp.ality eR + gR = (e + g)R and in turn to aR + bR = (e + g)R, t
concluding the proof.
.: By an easy induction, we arrive naturally at
Corollary. A right (left) ideal of a regular ring is finitely generated if
and only if it is principal.
We conclude this phase of our investigation with a rather surprising
characterization of commutative regular rings in terms of semi prime ideaÍs.
(Lest one forget, an ideal J of a ring R is said to be semiprime if and only
if J = .JI.)
where the a¡ E Zp. Now, each coefficient a¡ is capable of assuming p values,
so that the total number of such linear combinations is gn; It follows that
there are pn distinct members of F . . ' "
'~'.
Corollary. The number of .elements in a finite field i is pn, where the
prime p = char F and n = [F: Zp]' .
The implications of Theorem 9-7 is that one cannot construct finite
fields with q elements unless q is a power of a prime. This immediately
raises the question: Given q, a prescribed power of a prime, do there actually
exist fields with q elements? In obtaining an answer, it is crucial to know the
following. .

Theorem 9-6. A commutative ring R is regular if and only if every Lemma. Every element of a finite field F with pn elements isa root of
ideal of R is semiprime. the polynomialf(x) = xpn - x e F[x].
186 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 187

Theorem 9,·5. The sum of two principal right (left) ideal s of a regular
ring R is itself a principal right (left) ideal.
Proo! Consider the right ideal aR + bR. As reference to the lemma will
confirm, aR is of the form aR = eR, with e an idempotent. We also ha ve
eR + bR = {ex + bylx,YER}
Proo! First, take R to be a regular ring and J and arbitrary ideal of R.
Since we always ha ve J S;; .JI, it is enough to establish the reverse inclusion
here. For this, let a be any element of .JI, so that el' E J for sorne positive
integer n. By the regularity oC R, there exists an a' E R with a = a2 a'.
Repeated multiplication of this relation by aa' leads to a = a/l(a,)n-l E J,
whence .JI S;; 1.

= {ex + eby + (1 - e)bylx, y E R} Going in the other direction, assume that R is a ring in which every
ideal coincides with its nil radical. Given an element a E R, we consider the
= {e(x + by) + (1 - e)bylx, y E R} principal ideal (a 2). Because a 3 'E (a 2), it follows that a E -J(a2) and so, by
= {ez + (1 - e)bylz, y E R} = eR + (1 - e)bR. our hypothesis, that a E (a 2). But then, a = a2a' for a suitable choice of a'
in R, making R aregular ringo
Put e = (1 - e)b, so that aR + bR = eR + eR, where the element e has
As a prelude to the second of the two theorems on our program, it is
thepropertyee.= e(1 - e)b = (e - e2)b = O. Weagaininvokethelemma
essential to exaffiine the structure of fields with a finite number of elements.
to come up with eR ~ fR, f being an idempotent of R; since f is of the
In this connection, the most reasonable question is whether there exist finite
formf = ex, the product ef = O. As a final preliminary, let g = f(1 - e).
fields other than the fields Zp (p a prime) and, if so, whether they can be
To see that the element g is idempotertt, observe that
completely described. We launch our inquiry by proving that every finite
gf = f(1 - e)f = fU - ef) = f2 = j, field is of prime-power order.
which subsequently yields g2 = gf(1 - e) = f(1 - e) = g. A further and Theorem 9-7. If F is a finite field, then F has exactly p" elements for
very important deduction is that sorne prime p and n E Z+.
eg = ef(1 - e) = 0, °
Proo! Since the prime subfield of a field of characteristic has infinitely
many elements, F must necessarily be of characteristic p, where p is a prime.
ge = f(1 - e)e = O.
Nothing will be lost by assuming, as we shall henceforth, that the prime
As bothf = gfe gR and g = f(1 - e) EfR, the ideal fR = gR. One finds subfield of F is actually the field Zp (Theorem 4-12). In the light of the
in this way that the sum aR + bR = eR + gR. finitenessofF,itmayberegardedasafiniteextensionofZp , say [F: Zp] = n.
. , ,Our remaining objective is to demonstrate that eR + gR = (e + g)R. Suppose that the n elements r 1, r2 , ... , rn. constitute:aJJasis for F as a
Tlíe reasoning proceeds as follows. Since e + g e eR + gR, the inclusion . ..1 vector space over Zp. Then every element r in F can De ',üniquely written
+
(e. g)R S;; eR + gR evidentIy holds. On the other hand, the element in the form "~~ ,;':
é.~ e2 + ge = (e + g)e E (e + g)R,and,atthesametime,g = eg + g2 = r = a1r 1 + a2r 2 + ... + anrn , . ·t , ~ ~

(~.;.+ g)g E (e + g)R, which forces eR + gR S;; (e + g)R. Thisleads to the Üi.
t:gp.ality eR + gR = (e + g)R and in turn to aR + bR = (e + g)R, t
concluding the proof.
.: By an easy induction, we arrive naturally at
Corollary. A right (left) ideal of a regular ring is finitely generated if
and only if it is principal.
We conclude this phase of our investigation with a rather surprising
characterization of commutative regular rings in terms of semi prime ideaÍs.
(Lest one forget, an ideal J of a ring R is said to be semiprime if and only
if J = .JI.)
where the a¡ E Zp. Now, each coefficient a¡ is capable of assuming p values,
so that the total number of such linear combinations is gn; It follows that
there are pn distinct members of F . . ' "
'~'.
Corollary. The number of .elements in a finite field i is pn, where the
prime p = char F and n = [F: Zp]' .
The implications of Theorem 9-7 is that one cannot construct finite
fields with q elements unless q is a power of a prime. This immediately
raises the question: Given q, a prescribed power of a prime, do there actually
exist fields with q elements? In obtaining an answer, it is crucial to know the
following. .

Theorem 9-6. A commutative ring R is regular if and only if every Lemma. Every element of a finite field F with pn elements isa root of
ideal of R is semiprime. the polynomialf(x) = xpn - x e F[x].
 188 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 189
Proo! The n.onzer.o elements .of F f.orm a muItiplicative gr.oup .of .order Proo! Consider the splitting fieId F' of tbe p.oIynomial f(x) ,= xpn - x in
p" .....: 1, s.o thát f.or each such a E F, we must have a P'- l = 1. Since
Zp [x]. Since F' contains Zp' it has finite cbaracteristic p. Now, the
aP' - a == a(aP"-l - 1), derivative .off(x) is

it f.olJ.ows tbat every eIement a E F (zer.o .or n.onzer.o) satisfies t):¡e equati.on of(x) = p"xP''-¡ - 1 = 1.
aP" - a = O. '
By virtue of ProbIem 15, Cbapter 7, this mean s that th~ poIynomiaI has n.o
CoroUary 1. Any finite field F with p. elements is the splitting field .oC , repeated r.o.ots in F ' . Let the subset F'!;;; F' c.onsist orihe p' distinct roots
p off(x)inF': - ,
.
the'p.olyn.omiaIf(x)
. = x ' - XE Zp[X].i, ~

"! .
,~_Proo! We begin by recalIing that f(x) can have at m.ost aegf(x) = p~,:;;! , F = {a E F'la P' = a}.
.~:.:.distinct r.oóts in F. But p' r.o.ots are already kn.own, namely, the elements;¡\
}\;of F; whence, the p.olyn.omiaI f(x} splits c.ompIetely int.o linear fact.ors in,,':;} CIearly, the elements O and 1 He in F. Ir a, b E F, wit~<Ú: 1= 0, then we bave
\:;'F[x]. Needless t.o say, it cann.ot split in any pr.oper subfield .of F, f.or n?".; (a - bV" = a P" 'Si
;li,,~"pr.oper subfieId c.ontairi~ p' eIements. Thus, we c.onclude that F lS th~ 'l. 1
t;'
;:;t'~plitting field .ofj(x) .over Zp and '. ',; (ab-IV" aP"(bp"r = ab- '.
~I,·l\.;,',r 'Ü,,' ¡~:<"'~~~
.'f

'!:5¡Z
":"
p
x ' - x == TI (x - r¡),
risF '
\~;i~' (again using the fact char F' p), so that b.oth a {.S;:b,
ab- 1 E F. Con-
sequently, the set F c.onstitutes a subfield .of F' and, lhus, a field with p"
where the r¡ are the distinct elements .of F, elements. Fr.om the corolIary of tbe Iast theorem, we ¡nfer that F, = F '
and F'.is the desired field. Uniqueness folIows from the result that any
Since any tw.o splitting fields of a given nonconstant polyn.omial over a two frel7s having p" elements are isom.orphic (Cor.olIary 2).
given field are isomorphic (The.orem 7-30), Cor.olJary 1 leads to:
From this, it is a short step to
Corollary2. Any two finite fields having the: same number of elements
are is.om.orphic. Corollary. F.or any finite field Fand positive integer n, Jbere exists an
extension fieId .of F of degree n.
Before going on, let us digress to p.oint .out that this Iemma has an
interesting appHcati.on in the the.ory .of numbers. We wish to esta.bli~h w?at, Proo! Supp.ose that F has, q ,pm eIements, where p is the characteristic
in the líterature, goes by the name of Wilson's Theorem; t.o Wlt, If P IS a .of F and m [F: Zpl By tbe the.oremjust pr.oved, there exists a field F '
prime number, then with pmn qn eIements, nameIy, the splitting fieId of xP"'" x over Zp.
We contend that F' i8 actuaIly an extension of F. Indeed, every eIernent of
(p - 1)! == -1 (modp). F is a rO.ot of tbe p.olyn.omiaI' xP'" - x; this fact, t.ogether with tbe relati.on
Since this holds trivialIy f.or p = 2, .one may assume that p > 2 ;thus, p is pmk = pmpm(k-.I), implies that for any a e F

an .odd prime. We talce f.or F the field Zp' Then, from ab.ove, every nonzero
eIement of Z p is a ro.ot of the p.olynomial xP- 1 1 e Z p [x] : '
Thus, each eIement .of F is also a r.o.ot .of the polynomial x p"'· x, which is
XP-l 1 == (x - 1)(x - 2) ... (x - (p - 1)) (m.od p).
t.o say that F !;;; F'. FinalIy, .observe that
Putting x O (m.od p) in the just-written equation, it f.olI.ows that
mn = [F':Zp] = [F':F][F:Z p] = [F':F]m,
(-1)( -2) ." ('-(p - 1)) = (_1)P-l(P - 1)! (m.od p).
whence [P: F] = n, completing the pr.o.or.
As p - 1 is even, this leads directly t.o Wilsón's Theorem.
We next examine the multiplicative structure of a finite freId. The
We now settle the questi.on of the existence of finite fields.
finiteness assumpti.on Ieads to a particuIarly simple description : the nonzero
Theorem 9-8. F.or any prime number p and positive integer n, there elements <;.omprise a cyclic gr.oup under multiplication.
exists a fieId (unique up t.o isomorphism) with exactly p" eIements. I Theorllm 9-9. The muItiplicative gr.oup of a finite field is cycIic.

l
I
 188 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 189
Proo! The n.onzer.o elements .of F f.orm a muItiplicative gr.oup .of .order Proo! Consider the splitting fieId F' of tbe p.oIynomial f(x) ,= xpn - x in
p" .....: 1, s.o thát f.or each such a E F, we must have a P'- l = 1. Since
Zp [x]. Since F' contains Zp' it has finite cbaracteristic p. Now, the
aP' - a == a(aP"-l - 1), derivative .off(x) is

it f.olJ.ows tbat every eIement a E F (zer.o .or n.onzer.o) satisfies t):¡e equati.on of(x) = p"xP''-¡ - 1 = 1.
aP" - a = O. '
By virtue of ProbIem 15, Cbapter 7, this mean s that th~ poIynomiaI has n.o
CoroUary 1. Any finite field F with p. elements is the splitting field .oC , repeated r.o.ots in F ' . Let the subset F'!;;; F' c.onsist orihe p' distinct roots
p off(x)inF': - ,
.
the'p.olyn.omiaIf(x)
. = x ' - XE Zp[X].i, ~

"! .
,~_Proo! We begin by recalIing that f(x) can have at m.ost aegf(x) = p~,:;;! , F = {a E F'la P' = a}.
.~:.:.distinct r.oóts in F. But p' r.o.ots are already kn.own, namely, the elements;¡\
}\;of F; whence, the p.olyn.omiaI f(x} splits c.ompIetely int.o linear fact.ors in,,':;} CIearly, the elements O and 1 He in F. Ir a, b E F, wit~<Ú: 1= 0, then we bave
\:;'F[x]. Needless t.o say, it cann.ot split in any pr.oper subfield .of F, f.or n?".; (a - bV" = a P" 'Si
;li,,~"pr.oper subfieId c.ontairi~ p' eIements. Thus, we c.onclude that F lS th~ 'l. 1
t;'
;:;t'~plitting field .ofj(x) .over Zp and '. ',; (ab-IV" aP"(bp"r = ab- '.
~I,·l\.;,',r 'Ü,,' ¡~:<"'~~~
.'f

'!:5¡Z
":"
p
x ' - x == TI (x - r¡),
risF '
\~;i~' (again using the fact char F' p), so that b.oth a {.S;:b,
ab- 1 E F. Con-
sequently, the set F c.onstitutes a subfield .of F' and, lhus, a field with p"
where the r¡ are the distinct elements .of F, elements. Fr.om the corolIary of tbe Iast theorem, we ¡nfer that F, = F '
and F'.is the desired field. Uniqueness folIows from the result that any
Since any tw.o splitting fields of a given nonconstant polyn.omial over a two frel7s having p" elements are isom.orphic (Cor.olIary 2).
given field are isomorphic (The.orem 7-30), Cor.olJary 1 leads to:
From this, it is a short step to
Corollary2. Any two finite fields having the: same number of elements
are is.om.orphic. Corollary. F.or any finite field Fand positive integer n, Jbere exists an
extension fieId .of F of degree n.
Before going on, let us digress to p.oint .out that this Iemma has an
interesting appHcati.on in the the.ory .of numbers. We wish to esta.bli~h w?at, Proo! Supp.ose that F has, q ,pm eIements, where p is the characteristic
in the líterature, goes by the name of Wilson's Theorem; t.o Wlt, If P IS a .of F and m [F: Zpl By tbe the.oremjust pr.oved, there exists a field F '
prime number, then with pmn qn eIements, nameIy, the splitting fieId of xP"'" x over Zp.
We contend that F' i8 actuaIly an extension of F. Indeed, every eIernent of
(p - 1)! == -1 (modp). F is a rO.ot of tbe p.olyn.omiaI' xP'" - x; this fact, t.ogether with tbe relati.on
Since this holds trivialIy f.or p = 2, .one may assume that p > 2 ;thus, p is pmk = pmpm(k-.I), implies that for any a e F

an .odd prime. We talce f.or F the field Zp' Then, from ab.ove, every nonzero
eIement of Z p is a ro.ot of the p.olynomial xP- 1 1 e Z p [x] : '
Thus, each eIement .of F is also a r.o.ot .of the polynomial x p"'· x, which is
XP-l 1 == (x - 1)(x - 2) ... (x - (p - 1)) (m.od p).
t.o say that F !;;; F'. FinalIy, .observe that
Putting x O (m.od p) in the just-written equation, it f.olI.ows that
mn = [F':Zp] = [F':F][F:Z p] = [F':F]m,
(-1)( -2) ." ('-(p - 1)) = (_1)P-l(P - 1)! (m.od p).
whence [P: F] = n, completing the pr.o.or.
As p - 1 is even, this leads directly t.o Wilsón's Theorem.
We next examine the multiplicative structure of a finite freId. The
We now settle the questi.on of the existence of finite fields.
finiteness assumpti.on Ieads to a particuIarly simple description : the nonzero
Theorem 9-8. F.or any prime number p and positive integer n, there elements <;.omprise a cyclic gr.oup under multiplication.
exists a fieId (unique up t.o isomorphism) with exactly p" eIements. I Theorllm 9-9. The muItiplicative gr.oup of a finite field is cycIic.

l
I
190 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 191

Proof. Let E be a finite field with p" elements and E* be its multiplicative
group of nonzero elements; this group has order p" - 1. The argument
about to be presented hinges on finding an element in E* of order
h = p" - 1. To this end, we first consider the prime factorization of h:
h = qí'q~' .,. if",m,
As an application of these ideas, let us prove a statement' made earlier
to the effect that, for any finite field E, the polynomial domain E[x] contains
irreducible polynomials of arbitrary ordjr.
Theorem 9-10. Let E be afinite field. For each positive integer n,
there exists an irreducible polynomialf(x) E E[x] with degf(x) = n.

where th~ q¡ are distinct primes and r¡ E Z+. For i = 1,2, ... , m, set Proof. Suppose that E' is an extension of E with [E': E] = n. As was just
h¡ = h/q¡. Now, there exists a nonzero element a¡ E E which is not a root seen, there exists an element b in E' such that E' = E(b). If f(x) is the
of the polynomial X" - 1 E E[x] ; for this polynomial has at most h¡ distinct minimum polynomial of b oyerE, then (invoking Corollary 2 of Theorem
roots in E and h¡ < h, the number of nonzero elements of E. 7-25)
Next, take degf(x) = [E': E] = n.
b¡ -- a"I.,
¡, wh ere S¡ -- q¡r, (¡. := .'"
1 2' .... m)
Therefore, f(x) E E[x] is the required irreducible polynomial of degree n
and define b = b1 b2 .. ·b m • We certainly have and the theorem follows.
bf' = a7 = 1, Finite fields are called Galois fields after the French mathematician
so that the order b¡ must divide S¡ = qf'. On the other hand, if Evariste GalQis, who first discovered the existence offinite fields aside from
those of the form Zp. The (essentially unique) field with p" elements is
commonly denoted by the symbol GF(p"). To construct GF(p"), we need
then only determine an irreducible polynomial f(x) of degree n in Zp[x]; then
Zp [x]/(J(x)) is the required Galois field with p" elements.
contrary to our original choice of the element a¡. The implication is that It is now time to redeem a promise made earlier to provide a proof
b¡ has order q~'. that every finite division ring is a field (Wedderburn's Theorem). Our
To settle the whole affair, we will show that the element b is of order h. approach is founded on a treatment by Herstein [43]. Althóugh tbis is
In the contrary case, the order of b must be a proper divisor of h (since perhaps the most elementary, other proofs of Wedderburn's Theorem are
b" = 1, the order of b certainly divide.~. h) and therefore divides at least one common; an 'el;t~jrely different one requiring the concept of cyclotonic
ofthe integers h¡ (i = 1,2, '" , m), s~y:ihl' We then have polynomials appears in [5]. .
The argumeptwhich we are about to give is lengthy and will be prefaced
1 = bh1 =;,:.bi'b~' ... b~l. by two simplify!ng lemmas (the student who is pressed for time may wish
" ~ ,

If 2 ~ i ~ m, then qi'lh 1 , which im~~í.~s that b~' = 1 and so b~' = 1. This
means that q~' (the order of b1 ) divid1eis h1 , which is impossible. Thus, the
element b has order h and, in corisequence, the cyclic subgroup of E*
generated by b will also be of orderJ; since E* contains only p" - 1 = h
elements, this cyclic group must be al! of E*.
It is not surprising and is quite easy to prove:
Corollary. Any finite field E with p" elements is a simple algebraic
extension of the field Zp.
to omit all tl¡.is·on a first reading). Much of our success, both with
Wedderburn's:Theorem and its applications, inevitably fiows from the
result below. :'
Lemma 1. Let R be a division ring of characteristic p > 0, p a prime.
pm
Suppose that the element a E R, a ~ cent R, is such that a = a for
some m >. Q. Then there exists an x E R for which
1) xax- 1 =1= a,
2) xax- 1 E Zp(a), the extension field obtained by adjoining a to Zp.

Proof. We already know that E is an algebraic extension of degree n of its Proof. Let Zp be the prime subfield of R. Since apm - a = 0, a is algebraic
prime subfield Zp. The theorem aboye indicates that the p" elements of E over Zp. By Theorem 7-25, we know that the extension Zp(a) is a finite
can be written as 0, 1, b, b2 , ••• ,bP" - 2 for sorne b E E* ; in other words, the field and therefore must have p" elements for some.n E Z+. Furthermore,
field E = Zp(b). each rE Zp(a) satisfies r P" = r.
190 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 191

Proof. Let E be a finite field with p" elements and E* be its multiplicative
group of nonzero elements; this group has order p" - 1. The argument
about to be presented hinges on finding an element in E* of order
h = p" - 1. To this end, we first consider the prime factorization of h:
h = qí'q~' .,. if",m,
As an application of these ideas, let us prove a statement' made earlier
to the effect that, for any finite field E, the polynomial domain E[x] contains
irreducible polynomials of arbitrary ordjr.
Theorem 9-10. Let E be afinite field. For each positive integer n,
there exists an irreducible polynomialf(x) E E[x] with degf(x) = n.

where th~ q¡ are distinct primes and r¡ E Z+. For i = 1,2, ... , m, set Proof. Suppose that E' is an extension of E with [E': E] = n. As was just
h¡ = h/q¡. Now, there exists a nonzero element a¡ E E which is not a root seen, there exists an element b in E' such that E' = E(b). If f(x) is the
of the polynomial X" - 1 E E[x] ; for this polynomial has at most h¡ distinct minimum polynomial of b oyerE, then (invoking Corollary 2 of Theorem
roots in E and h¡ < h, the number of nonzero elements of E. 7-25)
Next, take degf(x) = [E': E] = n.
b¡ -- a"I.,
¡, wh ere S¡ -- q¡r, (¡. := .'"
1 2' .... m)
Therefore, f(x) E E[x] is the required irreducible polynomial of degree n
and define b = b1 b2 .. ·b m • We certainly have and the theorem follows.
bf' = a7 = 1, Finite fields are called Galois fields after the French mathematician
so that the order b¡ must divide S¡ = qf'. On the other hand, if Evariste GalQis, who first discovered the existence offinite fields aside from
those of the form Zp. The (essentially unique) field with p" elements is
commonly denoted by the symbol GF(p"). To construct GF(p"), we need
then only determine an irreducible polynomial f(x) of degree n in Zp[x]; then
Zp [x]/(J(x)) is the required Galois field with p" elements.
contrary to our original choice of the element a¡. The implication is that It is now time to redeem a promise made earlier to provide a proof
b¡ has order q~'. that every finite division ring is a field (Wedderburn's Theorem). Our
To settle the whole affair, we will show that the element b is of order h. approach is founded on a treatment by Herstein [43]. Althóugh tbis is
In the contrary case, the order of b must be a proper divisor of h (since perhaps the most elementary, other proofs of Wedderburn's Theorem are
b" = 1, the order of b certainly divide.~. h) and therefore divides at least one common; an 'el;t~jrely different one requiring the concept of cyclotonic
ofthe integers h¡ (i = 1,2, '" , m), s~y:ihl' We then have polynomials appears in [5]. .
The argumeptwhich we are about to give is lengthy and will be prefaced
1 = bh1 =;,:.bi'b~' ... b~l. by two simplify!ng lemmas (the student who is pressed for time may wish
" ~ ,

If 2 ~ i ~ m, then qi'lh 1 , which im~~í.~s that b~' = 1 and so b~' = 1. This
means that q~' (the order of b1 ) divid1eis h1 , which is impossible. Thus, the
element b has order h and, in corisequence, the cyclic subgroup of E*
generated by b will also be of orderJ; since E* contains only p" - 1 = h
elements, this cyclic group must be al! of E*.
It is not surprising and is quite easy to prove:
Corollary. Any finite field E with p" elements is a simple algebraic
extension of the field Zp.
to omit all tl¡.is·on a first reading). Much of our success, both with
Wedderburn's:Theorem and its applications, inevitably fiows from the
result below. :'
Lemma 1. Let R be a division ring of characteristic p > 0, p a prime.
pm
Suppose that the element a E R, a ~ cent R, is such that a = a for
some m >. Q. Then there exists an x E R for which
1) xax- 1 =1= a,
2) xax- 1 E Zp(a), the extension field obtained by adjoining a to Zp.

Proof. We already know that E is an algebraic extension of degree n of its Proof. Let Zp be the prime subfield of R. Since apm - a = 0, a is algebraic
prime subfield Zp. The theorem aboye indicates that the p" elements of E over Zp. By Theorem 7-25, we know that the extension Zp(a) is a finite
can be written as 0, 1, b, b2 , ••• ,bP" - 2 for sorne b E E* ; in other words, the field and therefore must have p" elements for some.n E Z+. Furthermore,
field E = Zp(b). each rE Zp(a) satisfies r P" = r.
 q
I
I
i
192 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 193

Now, define the function f: R ~ R by setting f(x) = xa - ax for all CorolJary. In the lemma, xax - 1 = ak 9= a for sorne integer k E Z +.
x in R. Using induction, it is not difficult to show that the composite
k
Proo! Since aP"-l = 1, the element a has finite order as a member of the
fk(x) = I (-lima i xa k- i (k .~ 1). multiplicative group R*. Let sbe the/order of a. Then, in the field Zp(a),
i=O each of the s elements 1, a; a2, .:. , a -1 is a root of the polynomial yS -
When k = p, the foregoing equation reduces simply to f P(x) == xa P - aPx, y E Zp[xJ. This polynomial can possess at most s I"oots in Zp(a) and
because plm for O < i < p (recall also that char R = p). Another routine 1, a, ... , as - 1 are all'distinct. But xax- 1 E Zia) and c1early
induction argument extends this to " '
: (xax- 1)S = .xas x- 1 = xx- 1 = 1.
fP"(x) = xa P", '-:- aP"x.
In consequence, xai- 1 k
But aP" = a, whence fP"(x) = xa - ax= f(x) for all x E R, which is r.:, . = a for sorne k, with 2 :::;; k :::;; s,- 1. '
equivalent to asserting thatf P" = f. :'/ To cope with the' problem at hand, we shall also need the following:
For each element rE Zp(a), consider':the functionT,. on R defined by Lemma 2. If P:'i~ finite field and O 9= a E F, then there exist elements
a
r.
T,.(x) = rx. Our cont~ntion is that commutes with all such T,.. The
reasoning proceeds asJollows: Being afi,eld, Zp(a) is commutative, so that,
a, b E F such tpi..at a = a2 + b2 •
~ { ~'

ifxER, ' ,', Proo! We first di#;énse with the case where char F = 2. In this special
(f o T,.)(x) = f(rx) ~ (rx)~:,t a(rx) = rxa - rax situation, F. has 2~Jiements and any element of F satisfies the equation
, x 2 " = X. Thus, every nonzero member a of F is a square and, in particular,
= r(xa ...,:.' ax) = (T,. o f)(x).
a = a 2" = (a 2"-1)2.
This in short, means thatf o T,. = T,. o ffor every r in Zp(a). '
, From the corollary on page 188, the polynomial yp" - y E Z P [y] The iemma is thereby established on taking a = a2"-1 and b = O.
factors completely in Zp(a); in other words, we ha ve Now, if the characteristic of F is an odd prime p, then F will contain
pn elements. Let f be the mapping of F* into itself defined by f(x) = X2
yp" - y = I1 (y - r), (as usual, F* denotes the multiplicative group of F). Then f is a group
reZp(a)
homomorphism, with
or, what amou~ts to the same thing,
yp n _ y = y I1 (y - r).
kerf= {x E F*lx2 = 1} = {1, -1}.
o 'i"reZp(a) Since char F 9= 2, 1 and -1 are necessarily distinct., This implies that, for
This formal identity requires only that y cornmute with all elements rE Zp(a). eachp Ef(F*), thereexistexactlytwoelementsa1,a 2 in F* withai = a~ = P;
Taking stock of the fact thatf o T,. = T,. o J, as well as the relation fP" = J, in fact, a 2 = -al' To put it another way,for each pair ofelements al and
we thereby obtain -':a¡'in F*, we get one element which is a square. Hence, halfthe elements
o = fP - f = foIl (f - 'T,.). of F* will be squares, call these P1' P2' ... ,Pk' where the integer k =
O'i"reZp(a) (p" - 1)/2. Given O 9= a E F, assume that a is not a square and consider
(In essence, one applies the substitution homomorphism to the ring of epi the set
polynomials whose coefficients are homomorphisms on (R, +).) s = {a - p;ji = 1,2, ... , k}.
If, for every r 9= O in Zp(a), it happens that (f - T,.)(x) = O implies
If it turns out that a - Pi is not a square for any value of i, the set S (which
x = O thetl the last-written equation would necessarily lead to f = O.
contains k distinct elements) mustcoincide with the k nonsquares of F*.
This ~ould mean that xa - ax = O for all x E R, forcing a to He in the
But then a willlie in S, yielding a = a - Pi for sorne choice of i; whence
center of R, contrary to hypothesis. Consequently, there must exist sorne
Pi = O, an obvious conttadiction. This being the case, we conc1ude that
O 9= rE Zp(a) and sorne element x 9= O in R for which (f - T,.)(x) = O;
a - Pi = Pj for suitable integers i and j, or a = Pi + pj ' Thus, a is the
that is to say, xa - ax = rx and so
sum oftwo squares in R and the requisite equation holds.
xax- 1 = r + a EZp(a).
Corollary. If F is a finite field and O 9= a E F, then there exist elements
Since r 9= O, certainly the product xax- 1 9= a. a, b in F such that 1 + a2 - ab 2 = O.
 q
I
I
i
192 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 193

Now, define the function f: R ~ R by setting f(x) = xa - ax for all CorolJary. In the lemma, xax - 1 = ak 9= a for sorne integer k E Z +.
x in R. Using induction, it is not difficult to show that the composite
k
Proo! Since aP"-l = 1, the element a has finite order as a member of the
fk(x) = I (-lima i xa k- i (k .~ 1). multiplicative group R*. Let sbe the/order of a. Then, in the field Zp(a),
i=O each of the s elements 1, a; a2, .:. , a -1 is a root of the polynomial yS -
When k = p, the foregoing equation reduces simply to f P(x) == xa P - aPx, y E Zp[xJ. This polynomial can possess at most s I"oots in Zp(a) and
because plm for O < i < p (recall also that char R = p). Another routine 1, a, ... , as - 1 are all'distinct. But xax- 1 E Zia) and c1early
induction argument extends this to " '
: (xax- 1)S = .xas x- 1 = xx- 1 = 1.
fP"(x) = xa P", '-:- aP"x.
In consequence, xai- 1 k
But aP" = a, whence fP"(x) = xa - ax= f(x) for all x E R, which is r.:, . = a for sorne k, with 2 :::;; k :::;; s,- 1. '
equivalent to asserting thatf P" = f. :'/ To cope with the' problem at hand, we shall also need the following:
For each element rE Zp(a), consider':the functionT,. on R defined by Lemma 2. If P:'i~ finite field and O 9= a E F, then there exist elements
a
r.
T,.(x) = rx. Our cont~ntion is that commutes with all such T,.. The
reasoning proceeds asJollows: Being afi,eld, Zp(a) is commutative, so that,
a, b E F such tpi..at a = a2 + b2 •
~ { ~'

ifxER, ' ,', Proo! We first di#;énse with the case where char F = 2. In this special
(f o T,.)(x) = f(rx) ~ (rx)~:,t a(rx) = rxa - rax situation, F. has 2~Jiements and any element of F satisfies the equation
, x 2 " = X. Thus, every nonzero member a of F is a square and, in particular,
= r(xa ...,:.' ax) = (T,. o f)(x).
a = a 2" = (a 2"-1)2.
This in short, means thatf o T,. = T,. o ffor every r in Zp(a). '
, From the corollary on page 188, the polynomial yp" - y E Z P [y] The iemma is thereby established on taking a = a2"-1 and b = O.
factors completely in Zp(a); in other words, we ha ve Now, if the characteristic of F is an odd prime p, then F will contain
pn elements. Let f be the mapping of F* into itself defined by f(x) = X2
yp" - y = I1 (y - r), (as usual, F* denotes the multiplicative group of F). Then f is a group
reZp(a)
homomorphism, with
or, what amou~ts to the same thing,
yp n _ y = y I1 (y - r).
kerf= {x E F*lx2 = 1} = {1, -1}.
o 'i"reZp(a) Since char F 9= 2, 1 and -1 are necessarily distinct., This implies that, for
This formal identity requires only that y cornmute with all elements rE Zp(a). eachp Ef(F*), thereexistexactlytwoelementsa1,a 2 in F* withai = a~ = P;
Taking stock of the fact thatf o T,. = T,. o J, as well as the relation fP" = J, in fact, a 2 = -al' To put it another way,for each pair ofelements al and
we thereby obtain -':a¡'in F*, we get one element which is a square. Hence, halfthe elements
o = fP - f = foIl (f - 'T,.). of F* will be squares, call these P1' P2' ... ,Pk' where the integer k =
O'i"reZp(a) (p" - 1)/2. Given O 9= a E F, assume that a is not a square and consider
(In essence, one applies the substitution homomorphism to the ring of epi the set
polynomials whose coefficients are homomorphisms on (R, +).) s = {a - p;ji = 1,2, ... , k}.
If, for every r 9= O in Zp(a), it happens that (f - T,.)(x) = O implies
If it turns out that a - Pi is not a square for any value of i, the set S (which
x = O thetl the last-written equation would necessarily lead to f = O.
contains k distinct elements) mustcoincide with the k nonsquares of F*.
This ~ould mean that xa - ax = O for all x E R, forcing a to He in the
But then a willlie in S, yielding a = a - Pi for sorne choice of i; whence
center of R, contrary to hypothesis. Consequently, there must exist sorne
Pi = O, an obvious conttadiction. This being the case, we conc1ude that
O 9= rE Zp(a) and sorne element x 9= O in R for which (f - T,.)(x) = O;
a - Pi = Pj for suitable integers i and j, or a = Pi + pj ' Thus, a is the
that is to say, xa - ax = rx and so
sum oftwo squares in R and the requisite equation holds.
xax- 1 = r + a EZp(a).
Corollary. If F is a finite field and O 9= a E F, then there exist elements
Since r 9= O, certainly the product xax- 1 9= a. a, b in F such that 1 + a2 - ab 2 = O.
194 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
After this preparation, we now undertake the task of proving the theorem
which serves as the focal point ofthe present chapter.
Theorem 9-11. (Wedderburn). Every finite division ring is a field.
Proa! Suppose, for purposes of contradiction, that the theorem is not true
for all finite division rings. Let R have minimal order among the set of
noncomrp.utative division rings, so that any division ring with fewer elements
tban R will be commutative.
Before becoming involved in the technical argument of the proof, let us
note that if the elements a, b E R satisfy abk = bka, but ab =1= ba, then
bk E cent R. For, consider the centralizer of bk in R:
CW) = {x E Rlxb k = bkx}.
It follows without difficulty that CW) comprises a division rlng (a division
subring of R). If C(b~ =F R, then by our hypothesis C(b k) would necessarily
be commutative. But a, b both lie in C(b~ and these elements c1early do
not commute. This entails that C(b~ = R, which is scarcely more tban a
restatement that bk E cent R.
Now to the proof proper. Since the multiplicative group R* is finite,
every nonzero element of R must have finite order and, as a result, some
power of it belongs to the center of R. By virtue of this circumstance, the set
S = {m E Z+ Ifor some e fj cent R, cm E cent R}
is not empty. Pick the integer n to be minimal in S. Then there exists an
element a fj cent R such tbat a" E cent R. We assert that n is a prime number.
Indeed, weren = n1 n2 , with1 < n 1, n2 < n,itwould followthata"1 fj ceut R,
yet (a"1)"' = "a" E cent R. In other words, the integer n2 is a membe¡¡,o.f,S,
a contradiction to the minimal nature of n . ¡
N~xt apply Lemma 1 to obtain an element x E R and an integer k súch
tbat xax- 1 = ak =1= a. At the outset, observe that
so, by induction, x"-l ax -(n-1) = al<!'-1. Since we know that n is primé; 'the
Little Fermat Theorem (Problem 10, Chapter 4) tells us that there exisfs an
integer u satisfying k"-l = 1 + un. Therefore,
al<!'-1 = a 1 + u" = aaun = ra,
where r = (a")U E cent R. Setting b = x"-l, one gets bab -1 = ra. Now,
the element x fj cent R, as xax- 1 =1= a, so that b cannot be long to cent R
by the minimal nature of n. From the observation at the beginning of the
theorem, we thus conc1ude that ba =1= abo The implication of aIl this is that
r =1= 1. On the other hand, since r and a" both He in the center of R,
rOan = (ra)" = (bab- 1 )" = ba"b- 1 = a",
TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 195
whence r" = 1. Because n is a prime; the order of r (as a member of R*)
must be n. Finally, it is worth noticing that
b" ".; rObo = (rb)" = (a- 1 ba)" = a- 1 b"a,
from which we derive abo = bOa. Again in the light of our opening remarks,
since a commutes with b" but not with b, necessarily b" E cent R.
We now assert that whenever an element y of R satisfies y" = 1, then it
must be of the form y = rí , where O ~ i ~ n - 1. Indeed, the extension
field (cent R)(y) (although awkward, the notation conveys the point) contains
at most n roots of the polynomial z" - 1. But, since r is of prime order n,
the elements 1, r, r2 , ••• , r"-l comprise n distinct roots of z" - 1 in tbis
field. These remarks should make it plain that y = rí for some i. In passing,
we might also observe that, because y E cent R, (cent R)(y) = centRo
With reference to Theorem 9-9, inasmuch as cent R constitutes a finite
field, its multiplicative group of nonzero elements must be cyc1ic; say with
generator S. Accordingly, a" = si, b" = Si for suitable integers j and l.
Furthermore,. n divides neither j nor l. To see this, suppose that j = nk;
then, a" = si = s"k, whence a"(s-~" = 1. As the element s lies in cent R,
we would have (as-k)" = 1. But the preceding paragraph then yields
as- k = rí for some integer i, or a = rísk E cent R, which is impossible. In
a similar fashion, one is able to estabHsh tbat n does not divide l. We now
set e = d,.d = bi . Then,
This relation, in conjunction with ba = rab, leads to ed = tde, where the
element t = r- ji E cent R. A fact wbich will not d~tain us long is that t =1= 1.
In the contrary case, r- jl = 1, wbich implies thkt.h~/; since n is a prime
number, either n\j or nl/, resulting in a contradictjon. One can deduce a
Httle more, namely, that .-
t" = (r- j/)" = (r")-jl = e
Pausing for a moment to tidy up, let us point-out tbat the reasoning so
far has succeeded in producing two elements e, dE R with the following
properties :
1) e" = d" = ex E cent R,
2) ed = tde, with t E cent R,
3) t =1= 1, but t" = 1.
From these relations, we may easily compute (e- 1 d)". In this connection,
notice that
194 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
After this preparation, we now undertake the task of proving the theorem
which serves as the focal point ofthe present chapter.
Theorem 9-11. (Wedderburn). Every finite division ring is a field.
Proa! Suppose, for purposes of contradiction, that the theorem is not true
for all finite division rings. Let R have minimal order among the set of
noncomrp.utative division rings, so that any division ring with fewer elements
tban R will be commutative.
Before becoming involved in the technical argument of the proof, let us
note that if the elements a, b E R satisfy abk = bka, but ab =1= ba, then
bk E cent R. For, consider the centralizer of bk in R:
CW) = {x E Rlxb k = bkx}.
It follows without difficulty that CW) comprises a division rlng (a division
subring of R). If C(b~ =F R, then by our hypothesis C(b k) would necessarily
be commutative. But a, b both lie in C(b~ and these elements c1early do
not commute. This entails that C(b~ = R, which is scarcely more tban a
restatement that bk E cent R.
Now to the proof proper. Since the multiplicative group R* is finite,
every nonzero element of R must have finite order and, as a result, some
power of it belongs to the center of R. By virtue of this circumstance, the set
S = {m E Z+ Ifor some e fj cent R, cm E cent R}
is not empty. Pick the integer n to be minimal in S. Then there exists an
element a fj cent R such tbat a" E cent R. We assert that n is a prime number.
Indeed, weren = n1 n2 , with1 < n 1, n2 < n,itwould followthata"1 fj ceut R,
yet (a"1)"' = "a" E cent R. In other words, the integer n2 is a membe¡¡,o.f,S,
a contradiction to the minimal nature of n . ¡
N~xt apply Lemma 1 to obtain an element x E R and an integer k súch
tbat xax- 1 = ak =1= a. At the outset, observe that
so, by induction, x"-l ax -(n-1) = al<!'-1. Since we know that n is primé; 'the
Little Fermat Theorem (Problem 10, Chapter 4) tells us that there exisfs an
integer u satisfying k"-l = 1 + un. Therefore,
al<!'-1 = a 1 + u" = aaun = ra,
where r = (a")U E cent R. Setting b = x"-l, one gets bab -1 = ra. Now,
the element x fj cent R, as xax- 1 =1= a, so that b cannot be long to cent R
by the minimal nature of n. From the observation at the beginning of the
theorem, we thus conc1ude that ba =1= abo The implication of aIl this is that
r =1= 1. On the other hand, since r and a" both He in the center of R,
rOan = (ra)" = (bab- 1 )" = ba"b- 1 = a",
TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 195
whence r" = 1. Because n is a prime; the order of r (as a member of R*)
must be n. Finally, it is worth noticing that
b" ".; rObo = (rb)" = (a- 1 ba)" = a- 1 b"a,
from which we derive abo = bOa. Again in the light of our opening remarks,
since a commutes with b" but not with b, necessarily b" E cent R.
We now assert that whenever an element y of R satisfies y" = 1, then it
must be of the form y = rí , where O ~ i ~ n - 1. Indeed, the extension
field (cent R)(y) (although awkward, the notation conveys the point) contains
at most n roots of the polynomial z" - 1. But, since r is of prime order n,
the elements 1, r, r2 , ••• , r"-l comprise n distinct roots of z" - 1 in tbis
field. These remarks should make it plain that y = rí for some i. In passing,
we might also observe that, because y E cent R, (cent R)(y) = centRo
With reference to Theorem 9-9, inasmuch as cent R constitutes a finite
field, its multiplicative group of nonzero elements must be cyc1ic; say with
generator S. Accordingly, a" = si, b" = Si for suitable integers j and l.
Furthermore,. n divides neither j nor l. To see this, suppose that j = nk;
then, a" = si = s"k, whence a"(s-~" = 1. As the element s lies in cent R,
we would have (as-k)" = 1. But the preceding paragraph then yields
as- k = rí for some integer i, or a = rísk E cent R, which is impossible. In
a similar fashion, one is able to estabHsh tbat n does not divide l. We now
set e = d,.d = bi . Then,
This relation, in conjunction with ba = rab, leads to ed = tde, where the
element t = r- ji E cent R. A fact wbich will not d~tain us long is that t =1= 1.
In the contrary case, r- jl = 1, wbich implies thkt.h~/; since n is a prime
number, either n\j or nl/, resulting in a contradictjon. One can deduce a
Httle more, namely, that .-
t" = (r- j/)" = (r")-jl = e
Pausing for a moment to tidy up, let us point-out tbat the reasoning so
far has succeeded in producing two elements e, dE R with the following
properties :
1) e" = d" = ex E cent R,
2) ed = tde, with t E cent R,
3) t =1= 1, but t" = 1.
From these relations, we may easily compute (e- 1 d)". In this connection,
notice that
 196 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 197
while a similar approach leads to (e- = 1d)3 t 1 + 2 e- 3 d3 •
A straightforward
Theorem 9-12. Let R be a J-ring. If R forms a division ring, then R is
induction argument, which we bequeath to the reader, extends this to commutative (hence, a field) .. ,
(e- 1d)n = t1+2+"'+(n-1)e-ndn = t1t2+"'+(n-l) = ~(n-1){2.
Pr.oof. As a first step, let us show tbat R is of characteristic p > O, p'a
The final stage ofthe proof achieves the long-sought contradiction. We pnme. If char R = 2, then thére is nothing to prove; thus, it rnay be
consider two cases in tum: n is an 0dd prime and n = 2. assurned ~hat. char R =1= 2. Consider any elernent a =1= Oin R. By hypothesis,
Ifn>. 2, then (n - 1)/2 is an integer and so there eXIst mtegers h, k > 1 for which ah = a, (2a)k = 2a. Setting
q = (h - l)(k - 1) + 1 > 1, it follows that both aq =' a and (2a)q = 2a.
"

,. t"(n-I){2= w)(n-I)/2 = 1,
"'....:
From tbis, we obtain (2q ...:.. 2)a' = O, with 2q - 2 =1= O. Therefore, there'
wbich i}:Íiplies that (e-l~ = 1. Being a solution of the equation y" = 1, exists a least positive integer p such that pa = O, which implies tbat
it follow§1 from earlier reasoning that, e-Id = r! E cent R for sorne choice char R = p, p a prime [Theorem 1 - 6 ) . "
ofi. B~t then r le = (e-Id) -1 E cent R and so (using (2) abo ve ), Let Zp be the prime sub:fleld of R. Since ah ::, a, the ~í6~ent a is
algeb~aic over Zp and, hence, the extension Zp(a) constitutes aflnite field;
! .,.,

,.:,.] ~-Ite = (dc- 1d- 1 )e = d(d- 1 e}e- 1

an ob~ii~,s contradictiolI. Thus, the theorem is proved, at least when n is
an odd.ipilme.
Turníj:lg to the more troublesome possibility, we now suppose that
n = 2. In tbis event, t 2 = 1 and, of course, t =1= 1, whence t = -l. Then,
say wlth p" elements. In particular, a itself líes in Zp(a), so Ü:í'át a pn = a.
Ir we now assume that a ~ cent R, then all fue hypothesis of tém:ma 1 will
be satisfied ; thus, there exists an element b E R and integer k ~':t:~atisfying
bab- 1 ak =F a. SiÍllilar reasoning applied to the extensioií.'~field Z (b)
indicates that bpm = b for sorne integer m > 1. :' p

ed = -de =1= de; consequently, the characteristic of R is differeÍlt from 2. At this point we tum our attention to the set of finÍte sums
Applying Lemma 2 to the field cent R, we can find elements Xi (i = 1,2)
in cent R satisfying

It should be apparent that W is a finite set which is closed under addition.

Armed with this, a direct computation shows that Since the relation akb = ba allows us to bring the a's and b's together in a
product, W is also c10sed under multiplication. Whatever further it may be,
(i:: + dX 1 + cdx::Y e2(1 + xi - !Xxi) O,
W has at least been shown to be a ring.· As a Bnite ~ubring of a division
which, because R is a division ring, leads to e + dX 1 + edx2 = O. To rirtg, W is more than just a ring; it lS, in fact, a Bnite division rirtg (Problem
clinch matters, since char R =1= 2, 32). Hence, by Wedderburn's Theorem, we know that W lS necessarily
commutative. In particular, a and b are both members of W; so that
O =1= 2e 2 = e(e + dx 1 +edx:z} + (e + dX1 + edx )e 2 O,
ab = ba, contradicting the relation bab -1 =' ak '=1= a. Having arrived at a
an absurdity. This contradiction finally completes the proof ofWedderburn's suitable contradiction, we infer that the choice of a ~ cent R is impossible
Theorem. ' and R must be cornmutative.
We next proceed to take up a c1ass of rings introduced by Jacobson. The transition of Theorem 9-12 from the division rings case arbitrary
rings is accomplished by two lemillas.
Definition 9-1. A ring R with identity"is called a J-ring if, for each
x E R, there exists an integer n(x) > 1 (depending on x) such that Lemma 1. Let R be a J-ring. Then every right ideal 1 of R is a two-
x"(x) = x. sided ideal of R.
Our immediate goal is to prove that every J-ríng is commutatíve. (In Proo! To begin with, we assert that R can possess no, nonzero nilpotent
a very natural way, this can be regarded as a generalization ofWedderburn's elements. Indeed, if x =1= O, the condition xn(x) = x necessarily implies that
Theorem). Before establishing the quoted result in fuIl generality, we first xm =1= O for all m ~ 1. Now, suppose that e is any idempotent elemeI1t of
settle the question for the special case of division rings; the argument relies R; then, for any x E R, , , .
heavily on the Wedderburn Theorem.
(xe - exe)2 =: (ex exe)2 = O,
 196 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
TWO CLASSIC THEOREMS 197
while a similar approach leads to (e- = 1d)3 t 1 + 2 e- 3 d3 •
A straightforward
Theorem 9-12. Let R be a J-ring. If R forms a division ring, then R is
induction argument, which we bequeath to the reader, extends this to commutative (hence, a field) .. ,
(e- 1d)n = t1+2+"'+(n-1)e-ndn = t1t2+"'+(n-l) = ~(n-1){2.
Pr.oof. As a first step, let us show tbat R is of characteristic p > O, p'a
The final stage ofthe proof achieves the long-sought contradiction. We pnme. If char R = 2, then thére is nothing to prove; thus, it rnay be
consider two cases in tum: n is an 0dd prime and n = 2. assurned ~hat. char R =1= 2. Consider any elernent a =1= Oin R. By hypothesis,
Ifn>. 2, then (n - 1)/2 is an integer and so there eXIst mtegers h, k > 1 for which ah = a, (2a)k = 2a. Setting
q = (h - l)(k - 1) + 1 > 1, it follows that both aq =' a and (2a)q = 2a.
"

,. t"(n-I){2= w)(n-I)/2 = 1,
"'....:
From tbis, we obtain (2q ...:.. 2)a' = O, with 2q - 2 =1= O. Therefore, there'
wbich i}:Íiplies that (e-l~ = 1. Being a solution of the equation y" = 1, exists a least positive integer p such that pa = O, which implies tbat
it follow§1 from earlier reasoning that, e-Id = r! E cent R for sorne choice char R = p, p a prime [Theorem 1 - 6 ) . "
ofi. B~t then r le = (e-Id) -1 E cent R and so (using (2) abo ve ), Let Zp be the prime sub:fleld of R. Since ah ::, a, the ~í6~ent a is
algeb~aic over Zp and, hence, the extension Zp(a) constitutes aflnite field;
! .,.,

,.:,.] ~-Ite = (dc- 1d- 1 )e = d(d- 1 e}e- 1

an ob~ii~,s contradictiolI. Thus, the theorem is proved, at least when n is
an odd.ipilme.
Turníj:lg to the more troublesome possibility, we now suppose that
n = 2. In tbis event, t 2 = 1 and, of course, t =1= 1, whence t = -l. Then,
say wlth p" elements. In particular, a itself líes in Zp(a), so Ü:í'át a pn = a.
Ir we now assume that a ~ cent R, then all fue hypothesis of tém:ma 1 will
be satisfied ; thus, there exists an element b E R and integer k ~':t:~atisfying
bab- 1 ak =F a. SiÍllilar reasoning applied to the extensioií.'~field Z (b)
indicates that bpm = b for sorne integer m > 1. :' p

ed = -de =1= de; consequently, the characteristic of R is differeÍlt from 2. At this point we tum our attention to the set of finÍte sums
Applying Lemma 2 to the field cent R, we can find elements Xi (i = 1,2)
in cent R satisfying

It should be apparent that W is a finite set which is closed under addition.

Armed with this, a direct computation shows that Since the relation akb = ba allows us to bring the a's and b's together in a
product, W is also c10sed under multiplication. Whatever further it may be,
(i:: + dX 1 + cdx::Y e2(1 + xi - !Xxi) O,
W has at least been shown to be a ring.· As a Bnite ~ubring of a division
which, because R is a division ring, leads to e + dX 1 + edx2 = O. To rirtg, W is more than just a ring; it lS, in fact, a Bnite division rirtg (Problem
clinch matters, since char R =1= 2, 32). Hence, by Wedderburn's Theorem, we know that W lS necessarily
commutative. In particular, a and b are both members of W; so that
O =1= 2e 2 = e(e + dx 1 +edx:z} + (e + dX1 + edx )e 2 O,
ab = ba, contradicting the relation bab -1 =' ak '=1= a. Having arrived at a
an absurdity. This contradiction finally completes the proof ofWedderburn's suitable contradiction, we infer that the choice of a ~ cent R is impossible
Theorem. ' and R must be cornmutative.
We next proceed to take up a c1ass of rings introduced by Jacobson. The transition of Theorem 9-12 from the division rings case arbitrary
rings is accomplished by two lemillas.
Definition 9-1. A ring R with identity"is called a J-ring if, for each
x E R, there exists an integer n(x) > 1 (depending on x) such that Lemma 1. Let R be a J-ring. Then every right ideal 1 of R is a two-
x"(x) = x. sided ideal of R.
Our immediate goal is to prove that every J-ríng is commutatíve. (In Proo! To begin with, we assert that R can possess no, nonzero nilpotent
a very natural way, this can be regarded as a generalization ofWedderburn's elements. Indeed, if x =1= O, the condition xn(x) = x necessarily implies that
Theorem). Before establishing the quoted result in fuIl generality, we first xm =1= O for all m ~ 1. Now, suppose that e is any idempotent elemeI1t of
settle the question for the special case of division rings; the argument relies R; then, for any x E R, , , .
heavily on the Wedderburn Theorem.
(xe - exe)2 =: (ex exe)2 = O,
198 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
so that xe - exe = O = ex- exe. Therefore, ex = exe = xe, in con-
sequence of which e E cent R. It follows that every idempotent of R must
be in the center.
Given that a E 1, with an = a (n > 1), it is easy to show that e = an - 1
is an idempotent element of R:
Hence, a" - 1 E cent R and so, for any r in R, .
where r' = an - 2 ra. Since ar' e 1, this shows that ra el also, making 1 a
two-sided ideal of R.
Lemma 2. Let R be,a J-ring. For all a, b e R, the element ab ba líes
in radR.
Proo! A standard argument, using Zom's Lemma, shows that R is endowed
with maximal right ideals M, which are two-sided from Lemma 1 (the
presence oC an identity element in R enters here). By virtue of the fact that
R/M has no nontrivial ideals, the quotient ring R/M becomes a division
ringo Being a homomorphic image of R, R/M inherits the property that
x"cx) = x. Thus, we are thrown back to a situation where Theorem 9-12
can act, and the quotient ring R/M is thereby rendered commutative. In
other words,
(a + M),(b + M) = (b + M)(a + M)
for all a, b in R, or, equivlÍleritIy, ab - ba e M. As this last relation holds
for every maximal ideal dfR,. it follows that ab - ba Erad R.
~r".
With these preliminariesestablished, we now have the constituent pieces
to prove ',:
Theorem 9-13. (JacoosO'n). If R is a J-ring, then R is commutative.
Proo! Suppose that the elj~hlent x Erad R. As. in the proof oC Lemma 1,
some power of x is an id~mpotent; to be quite explicit, if xn x, then
e = x n - 1 turns out to be idempotent. Since rad R forms an ideal of R, the
element e willlie in rad R.'But, according to the corollary ofTheorem 8-2,
Oistheonlyidempotentbelongingtorad R;hence, theelement e xn- 1 = O
and so x = x" = xx - = O. The implication of this is that R comprises
n 1
a semisimple ringo Lemma 2 tells us that ah ba erad R = {O} for all
a, b in R. The net result is that any two elements of R commute, thereby
completing the proof. ' elements of R. Define a new sum of a and b in S by taking
As an interesting application of Jacobson's Theorem, we cite
PROBLEMS 199
Corollary. Let R be a ring with the pr.operty that every nonzero subring
of R forms a division ringo Then R is a field.
Proo! Observe first that the ring R has prime characteristic. Indeed, iC R
were of characteristic zero, it would contain a proper subfield isomorphic
to Q and, hence, a proper subring isomorphic to Z. Since the ring Z of
integers is not a division ring, we obtain a contradiction.
Now, let S be the subring of R generated by any nonzero element a e R.
Then S oonsists of all polynomials in a over the prime subfield of R; that
is to say, S = Zp[aJ, for some prime p. Since the e1ement a- 1 e S, a- 1
must be a polynomial in a, which implies that a is a root oC some polynomial
with coefficients from Zp. In consequence, S forms a simple algebraic
extension (field) of Zp. By Theorem 7-26, we also know that S is a finite
field. This being the case, anCa) = a, where n(a) is the number oC elements
in S. From Jacobson's result, it follows that R is necessarily commutative;
hence, a field.
There are a number of other fairIy general assumptions which at a
glance seem quite far removed from commutativity, bui when imposed on
a given ring render it commutative. In this connection, we might mention
without proof
Theorem 9-14. (Herstein). Let R be a ring with the property that, for
each x E R, there exists an integer n(x) > 1 dep.ending on x such that
xn(x) - x E cent R. Then R is commutative.
We have noted that in a J-ring some positive power of every element
lies in the center. This provides another path along which to proceed to
comntutativity.
Theo,rem 9-15. (Herstein). Let R be a ring with the property that for
each x E R there exists a positive integer n(x) depending on x such that
xn(x) E cent R. If R contains no nonzeronil ideals, then R is commutative.
PROBLEMS
1. a) If the BooIean ring R has at least three elements, prove that every nonzero
eIement except the identity is a zero divisor oC R.
b) Verify that the idempotent eIements oC any commutative rlng with identity of
characteristic 2 Corm a BooIean subring.
2. Show that any ring R (not necessarily with identity) in which each element is
idempotent can be imbedded in a BooIean ringo [Hint: Let R' R x Zz and
mimic the argument oC Theorem 2-U.]
3. a) Let R be a commutative ring with identity. and S the set oC all idempotent
a +' b = a + b - 2ab.
198 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
so that xe - exe = O = ex- exe. Therefore, ex = exe = xe, in con-
sequence of which e E cent R. It follows that every idempotent of R must
be in the center.
Given that a E 1, with an = a (n > 1), it is easy to show that e = an - 1
is an idempotent element of R:
Hence, a" - 1 E cent R and so, for any r in R, .
where r' = an - 2 ra. Since ar' e 1, this shows that ra el also, making 1 a
two-sided ideal of R.
Lemma 2. Let R be,a J-ring. For all a, b e R, the element ab ba líes
in radR.
Proo! A standard argument, using Zom's Lemma, shows that R is endowed
with maximal right ideals M, which are two-sided from Lemma 1 (the
presence oC an identity element in R enters here). By virtue of the fact that
R/M has no nontrivial ideals, the quotient ring R/M becomes a division
ringo Being a homomorphic image of R, R/M inherits the property that
x"cx) = x. Thus, we are thrown back to a situation where Theorem 9-12
can act, and the quotient ring R/M is thereby rendered commutative. In
other words,
(a + M),(b + M) = (b + M)(a + M)
for all a, b in R, or, equivlÍleritIy, ab - ba e M. As this last relation holds
for every maximal ideal dfR,. it follows that ab - ba Erad R.
~r".
With these preliminariesestablished, we now have the constituent pieces
to prove ',:
Theorem 9-13. (JacoosO'n). If R is a J-ring, then R is commutative.
Proo! Suppose that the elj~hlent x Erad R. As. in the proof oC Lemma 1,
some power of x is an id~mpotent; to be quite explicit, if xn x, then
e = x n - 1 turns out to be idempotent. Since rad R forms an ideal of R, the
element e willlie in rad R.'But, according to the corollary ofTheorem 8-2,
Oistheonlyidempotentbelongingtorad R;hence, theelement e xn- 1 = O
and so x = x" = xx - = O. The implication of this is that R comprises
n 1
a semisimple ringo Lemma 2 tells us that ah ba erad R = {O} for all
a, b in R. The net result is that any two elements of R commute, thereby
completing the proof. ' elements of R. Define a new sum of a and b in S by taking
As an interesting application of Jacobson's Theorem, we cite
PROBLEMS 199
Corollary. Let R be a ring with the pr.operty that every nonzero subring
of R forms a division ringo Then R is a field.
Proo! Observe first that the ring R has prime characteristic. Indeed, iC R
were of characteristic zero, it would contain a proper subfield isomorphic
to Q and, hence, a proper subring isomorphic to Z. Since the ring Z of
integers is not a division ring, we obtain a contradiction.
Now, let S be the subring of R generated by any nonzero element a e R.
Then S oonsists of all polynomials in a over the prime subfield of R; that
is to say, S = Zp[aJ, for some prime p. Since the e1ement a- 1 e S, a- 1
must be a polynomial in a, which implies that a is a root oC some polynomial
with coefficients from Zp. In consequence, S forms a simple algebraic
extension (field) of Zp. By Theorem 7-26, we also know that S is a finite
field. This being the case, anCa) = a, where n(a) is the number oC elements
in S. From Jacobson's result, it follows that R is necessarily commutative;
hence, a field.
There are a number of other fairIy general assumptions which at a
glance seem quite far removed from commutativity, bui when imposed on
a given ring render it commutative. In this connection, we might mention
without proof
Theorem 9-14. (Herstein). Let R be a ring with the property that, for
each x E R, there exists an integer n(x) > 1 dep.ending on x such that
xn(x) - x E cent R. Then R is commutative.
We have noted that in a J-ring some positive power of every element
lies in the center. This provides another path along which to proceed to
comntutativity.
Theo,rem 9-15. (Herstein). Let R be a ring with the property that for
each x E R there exists a positive integer n(x) depending on x such that
xn(x) E cent R. If R contains no nonzeronil ideals, then R is commutative.
PROBLEMS
1. a) If the BooIean ring R has at least three elements, prove that every nonzero
eIement except the identity is a zero divisor oC R.
b) Verify that the idempotent eIements oC any commutative rlng with identity of
characteristic 2 Corm a BooIean subring.
2. Show that any ring R (not necessarily with identity) in which each element is
idempotent can be imbedded in a BooIean ringo [Hint: Let R' R x Zz and
mimic the argument oC Theorem 2-U.]
3. a) Let R be a commutative ring with identity. and S the set oC all idempotent
a +' b = a + b - 2ab.
200 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 201

With + as the addition, pro ve that S eonstitutes a Boolean ring, known as then the ring R is isom~rphie to a subring of the ring (P(X), d, n)o [Hint: Consider
the idempotent Boolean ring of Ro the mappingf: R -+ P(X) defined by fea) = Sao]
b) In particular, obtain the idempotent Boolean ring of Z120 ,
e) Show that the idempotent Boolean ring of any integral domain is isomorphie 11. Assume that a and b are elements of the Boolean ring R with a i bo Deduce the
to Z20 existenee of a maximal ideal M qf R sueh that a ~ M, but bE Mo

4. EstabHsh the statements below: 12. Pro ve that any proper ideal of a Boolean ring R is a semiprime ideal o
a) Up to isomorphism, the only simple Boolean ring is Z2":' 13. Let 1 be a proper ideal of a Boolean ring R and define the set l' by
b) If R is a Boolean ring, then R = Qcl(R)o .
e) A ring R is a Boolean ring if and only if R is eornmutative with identity and . l'.i, {1 - alaEI}o
ab(a + b) = O for all a, bE R. Show that 1 u ]' is the smallest s~~ring of R' in which 1 is a maximal ideal.
o 5. In any BooleaIl ring R, an order relation ::; may be intro,d.uced by taking a::; b 14. Silppose that S is a subring of theBoolean ring R. Prove that any homomorphism
if and only if ab = ao Given that the elements a, b, e, d :,~U: He in R, eonfirm the f from S onto the field Z2 can be:e~tended to all of R. [Hint: Use Theorern 2-6;
following order -properties : '-. ker f is contained üi a maximal ideal M, where R/M ~ Z2o] .
a) a ::; a, O ::; a ::; 1 for every aE R;
b) a ::; b and b ::; e imply a ::; e; . > ':!"
15. Prove that a commutative ring ~dregular if and only if every principal ideal of
e) a ::; b and b ::; a imply a = b; R is a direet summand of R.":,:'
d)a ::; b and e ::; d imply ac ::; bd; 16. Let R be a regular ringo EstaWish,that R
has no nonzero nilpotent elements if
e) be = O implies ac= O (e =f O) if and only if a :S bo and only i'f for eaeh a E R there exists an element a' in R sueh that a = a2 a'0
6. a) Let 1 be a nortempty subset of the Boolean ring Ro Show that 1 is an ideal of [Hint: If R has no nonzero nilpotent elements, then aa' being idempotent Hes in
~~ .
R if and only if
i) a, bE 1 imply a + bE 1, and' 17. Show that if R is a regular ring, then eent R is also regular. [Hint: Given that
ii) a El and r E R with r ::; a imply r E lo a E centR, then aa' a = a for sorne a' E R; show that axa :::: a, where x = 'a(a')2
b) Verify that the setI a = {r E Rlr ::; a} forms an ideal of Ro belongs to eent Ro]
7. Byan atom of a Boolean ring R is meant an element a =1= Osueh that r ::; a implies 18. Assuming that R is a regular ring with identity, prove the statements below:
either r = a or r = 00 Prove that a) if O and 1 are the only idempotent elements of R, then R is a division ring (this
a) the ideal la ¡s' maximal if and only if 1 - a is an atom of R (see Problem 6 for holds, in particular, if R has no divisors of zero); .
the definition of la); b) ir R is of positive eharaeteristic n, then n is a square-free integer;
b) any maximal ideal eontains all the atoms of R, except at most oneo [Hint: Use e) R has nO'nonzero nilpotent (two-sided) ideals;
Theorem 9-1.] d) for every right ideal 1 of R, 1 = ann,(ann¡l)o [Hint: If 1 = eR, where e is
8. Let Rbe a Boolean ringo For any nonzero element a E R, show that there exists a idempotent, thenann¡l = R(l - e).}
maximal ideal M of R such that a ~ M from this, deduce that R is semisimpleo e) If R has no nonzero nilpotent elements, then aR = Ra for every a E Ro [Hint:
[Hint: Apply Zorn's Lemrna to the family of all ideals of R which eontain 1 - a, Choose a' E R such that aa'a = a; sinee thiddempotent a'a E eentR, ar = ar(a'a)
W~~ . = sao for any r E R.]

19. If R = R 1 Ei3l R 2 Ei3l ooo Ei3l Rn is the direet sum of a finite number of regular rings
9. For any nonzero element a E R, R a Boolean ring, define the set Sa by
R¡ (i = 1, 2, o, o, n), show that R is also regularo
Sa = {MIM is a. maximal ideal of R; a ~ M}o
20;' Verify that the ring L(V) of linear mappings of an n-dimensional vector spaee V
. Establish the following properties of the sets Sa: into itself forms a regular ring; in this setting, ring multiplication is taken to be
a) Sa =1= 0 whenever a =f 00 funetional compositiono [Hint: Starting with O =1= fE L(V), a basis {Xl' 000, x k }
b) Sa+b = Sa d Sb o
fOI kerfand a basis {Xl> 000, Xk> 000' xn} for V, extend the linearly independent set
e) Sab = Sa n SbO {j(Xk+ ¡), 000 J(xn)} to a basis {y¡, ooo, Yk,!(Xk+ ¡), ooo,f(Xn )} for Vo Given any k
d) Sa :::: Sb ir and only if a = bo [Hint: a ~ M if and only if 1 - a E Mo] elements Z1, 000, Zk E V, define j' E L(V) by j'(y¡) = Z¡ for 1 ::; i ::; k,!'{J(x¡») = X¡
10. With referenee to Problem 9, prove that if for k + 1 :S i ::; n,]
X = {MIM is a maximal ideal of R}, 21. Prove that an integer n > 1 is prime if and only if (n - 1)! + 1 is divisible by no
200 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 201

With + as the addition, pro ve that S eonstitutes a Boolean ring, known as then the ring R is isom~rphie to a subring of the ring (P(X), d, n)o [Hint: Consider
the idempotent Boolean ring of Ro the mappingf: R -+ P(X) defined by fea) = Sao]
b) In particular, obtain the idempotent Boolean ring of Z120 ,
e) Show that the idempotent Boolean ring of any integral domain is isomorphie 11. Assume that a and b are elements of the Boolean ring R with a i bo Deduce the
to Z20 existenee of a maximal ideal M qf R sueh that a ~ M, but bE Mo

4. EstabHsh the statements below: 12. Pro ve that any proper ideal of a Boolean ring R is a semiprime ideal o
a) Up to isomorphism, the only simple Boolean ring is Z2":' 13. Let 1 be a proper ideal of a Boolean ring R and define the set l' by
b) If R is a Boolean ring, then R = Qcl(R)o .
e) A ring R is a Boolean ring if and only if R is eornmutative with identity and . l'.i, {1 - alaEI}o
ab(a + b) = O for all a, bE R. Show that 1 u ]' is the smallest s~~ring of R' in which 1 is a maximal ideal.
o 5. In any BooleaIl ring R, an order relation ::; may be intro,d.uced by taking a::; b 14. Silppose that S is a subring of theBoolean ring R. Prove that any homomorphism
if and only if ab = ao Given that the elements a, b, e, d :,~U: He in R, eonfirm the f from S onto the field Z2 can be:e~tended to all of R. [Hint: Use Theorern 2-6;
following order -properties : '-. ker f is contained üi a maximal ideal M, where R/M ~ Z2o] .
a) a ::; a, O ::; a ::; 1 for every aE R;
b) a ::; b and b ::; e imply a ::; e; . > ':!"
15. Prove that a commutative ring ~dregular if and only if every principal ideal of
e) a ::; b and b ::; a imply a = b; R is a direet summand of R.":,:'
d)a ::; b and e ::; d imply ac ::; bd; 16. Let R be a regular ringo EstaWish,that R
has no nonzero nilpotent elements if
e) be = O implies ac= O (e =f O) if and only if a :S bo and only i'f for eaeh a E R there exists an element a' in R sueh that a = a2 a'0
6. a) Let 1 be a nortempty subset of the Boolean ring Ro Show that 1 is an ideal of [Hint: If R has no nonzero nilpotent elements, then aa' being idempotent Hes in
~~ .
R if and only if
i) a, bE 1 imply a + bE 1, and' 17. Show that if R is a regular ring, then eent R is also regular. [Hint: Given that
ii) a El and r E R with r ::; a imply r E lo a E centR, then aa' a = a for sorne a' E R; show that axa :::: a, where x = 'a(a')2
b) Verify that the setI a = {r E Rlr ::; a} forms an ideal of Ro belongs to eent Ro]
7. Byan atom of a Boolean ring R is meant an element a =1= Osueh that r ::; a implies 18. Assuming that R is a regular ring with identity, prove the statements below:
either r = a or r = 00 Prove that a) if O and 1 are the only idempotent elements of R, then R is a division ring (this
a) the ideal la ¡s' maximal if and only if 1 - a is an atom of R (see Problem 6 for holds, in particular, if R has no divisors of zero); .
the definition of la); b) ir R is of positive eharaeteristic n, then n is a square-free integer;
b) any maximal ideal eontains all the atoms of R, except at most oneo [Hint: Use e) R has nO'nonzero nilpotent (two-sided) ideals;
Theorem 9-1.] d) for every right ideal 1 of R, 1 = ann,(ann¡l)o [Hint: If 1 = eR, where e is
8. Let Rbe a Boolean ringo For any nonzero element a E R, show that there exists a idempotent, thenann¡l = R(l - e).}
maximal ideal M of R such that a ~ M from this, deduce that R is semisimpleo e) If R has no nonzero nilpotent elements, then aR = Ra for every a E Ro [Hint:
[Hint: Apply Zorn's Lemrna to the family of all ideals of R which eontain 1 - a, Choose a' E R such that aa'a = a; sinee thiddempotent a'a E eentR, ar = ar(a'a)
W~~ . = sao for any r E R.]

19. If R = R 1 Ei3l R 2 Ei3l ooo Ei3l Rn is the direet sum of a finite number of regular rings
9. For any nonzero element a E R, R a Boolean ring, define the set Sa by
R¡ (i = 1, 2, o, o, n), show that R is also regularo
Sa = {MIM is a. maximal ideal of R; a ~ M}o
20;' Verify that the ring L(V) of linear mappings of an n-dimensional vector spaee V
. Establish the following properties of the sets Sa: into itself forms a regular ring; in this setting, ring multiplication is taken to be
a) Sa =1= 0 whenever a =f 00 funetional compositiono [Hint: Starting with O =1= fE L(V), a basis {Xl' 000, x k }
b) Sa+b = Sa d Sb o
fOI kerfand a basis {Xl> 000, Xk> 000' xn} for V, extend the linearly independent set
e) Sab = Sa n SbO {j(Xk+ ¡), 000 J(xn)} to a basis {y¡, ooo, Yk,!(Xk+ ¡), ooo,f(Xn )} for Vo Given any k
d) Sa :::: Sb ir and only if a = bo [Hint: a ~ M if and only if 1 - a E Mo] elements Z1, 000, Zk E V, define j' E L(V) by j'(y¡) = Z¡ for 1 ::; i ::; k,!'{J(x¡») = X¡
10. With referenee to Problem 9, prove that if for k + 1 :S i ::; n,]
X = {MIM is a maximal ideal of R}, 21. Prove that an integer n > 1 is prime if and only if (n - 1)! + 1 is divisible by no
202 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS PROBLEMS 203
22. Show that GF(p"') is (isomorphie to) a subfield of GF(p") if and only if mln; in 34. Show that the assumption of an identity element ls unneeessary in proving that
faet, ifmln,then there is exaetly one subfield with p" elements. [Hint: In case mln, J-rings are eommutative; in other words, if R is a ring with the property that
use the faet that a - llak - 1 for k > 1 t6 eonclude that xP'" - xlx P" - x.] for every a E R there is an integer n(a) > 1 for whleh an(a) = a, then R must be
23. Establish the following assertions: commutative. [Hint: Sineeany idempotenteisin cent R, thesubringS ... eR ... Re
a) given that an irreducible polynomial f(x) E Zp[X], then f(x)lx P " - x if and has e for an identity and, hence, is eommutative by Theorem 9-13; then
"-1 •
only if degf(x)ln; . (xy - yx)e = O. for all x, y E R; now use the faet that e ( xy - yx) lS

bl if an irreducible polynomialf(x) E Zp[X] has a root in GF(p"), thenf(x) splits idempotent.]

eompletely in GF(p"); 35. A ring R is ealled an H-ring if for every x E R there exists an integer n(x) ~ 1
e) x}'" - x is the product of all the irreducible monic polynomialsf(x) E Zp[x] such that x"(x) x E cent R. Assuming that R ls an H-ring, prove the followmg
sueh tbat degf(x)ln. assertions:
24. If pisan odd prime, prove that the Galois field GF(p") eontains an élement which a) Any homomorphic image of R is againan H-ring.
is not a square. b) For eaeh x E R, there exist arbitrarily large n for which x" x E eent R.
e) Al! the idempotentand nilpotent elements of R lie in eent R.
25. Let P be a prime ideal of R, a commutative ring with identity. If the quotient d) If a E R is a zero divisor, then there exists sorne nonzero e E cent R sueh that
ring ,R./P has only a finite number of eIements, verify that R/P is a Galois field. +
ac= O. [Hint: If ab = O, with b O, then e b" bE cent R and ac O;
26. Prove tbat if F is a finite field and K is a subfield of F, then F forms a simple if e = O, look at the idempotent d = b"-l.]
extension field of K. [Hint: Any generator of F* will generate F as a vector space
over K.]
27. Let F be a finite field with p" elements. Prove that the mapping O' p: F -+ F defined
by taking O'p(a) = aP is an automorphism, the so-eaUed Frobenius automorphism
of F; furthermore, ~ = ir
28. al Suppose that R is a ring with identity (not necessarily commutative). If R has
no nontrivial ideals, establish that R is a division ringo
b) Show that jf f is a homomorphism from a ring R onto a division ring, then
ker f forms a maximal ideal of R.
29. Prove that any finite subring of a division rÍJlg is again a division'ring.
JO. For any element a E R, a division ring, define C(a) by ..
.. .

C(a) {r E Rlra = arlo l'·

a) Show that C(a) is a division subring of R eontaining cent R. ¡' .

b) If R is finite and there are q elements in cent R, prove that thereare q" elements
in C(a) for sorne n E Z+. [Hint: C(a) may be regarded as a ve~~or space over
the finite field eent R.] .
,
31. If R is a division ring, show that its dimension as a vector spaee over cent R eannot
equa12.
32. lf an integral domain R is finite dimensional as a vector spaee over its center,
prove that R forrns a division ringo [Hint: For fixed a +
O, the linear mapping
T.,x = ax is one-to-one; henee, onto R.]
33. a) Prove that every finite field is a J -ringo
b) More generally, establish that a field F is a J-ring if and only if F is of prime
eharacteristie and is an algebraic extension of its prime subfield.
202 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS PROBLEMS 203
22. Show that GF(p"') is (isomorphie to) a subfield of GF(p") if and only if mln; in 34. Show that the assumption of an identity element ls unneeessary in proving that
faet, ifmln,then there is exaetly one subfield with p" elements. [Hint: In case mln, J-rings are eommutative; in other words, if R is a ring with the property that
use the faet that a - llak - 1 for k > 1 t6 eonclude that xP'" - xlx P" - x.] for every a E R there is an integer n(a) > 1 for whleh an(a) = a, then R must be
23. Establish the following assertions: commutative. [Hint: Sineeany idempotenteisin cent R, thesubringS ... eR ... Re
a) given that an irreducible polynomial f(x) E Zp[X], then f(x)lx P " - x if and has e for an identity and, hence, is eommutative by Theorem 9-13; then
"-1 •
only if degf(x)ln; . (xy - yx)e = O. for all x, y E R; now use the faet that e ( xy - yx) lS

bl if an irreducible polynomialf(x) E Zp[X] has a root in GF(p"), thenf(x) splits idempotent.]

eompletely in GF(p"); 35. A ring R is ealled an H-ring if for every x E R there exists an integer n(x) ~ 1
e) x}'" - x is the product of all the irreducible monic polynomialsf(x) E Zp[x] such that x"(x) x E cent R. Assuming that R ls an H-ring, prove the followmg
sueh tbat degf(x)ln. assertions:
24. If pisan odd prime, prove that the Galois field GF(p") eontains an élement which a) Any homomorphic image of R is againan H-ring.
is not a square. b) For eaeh x E R, there exist arbitrarily large n for which x" x E eent R.
e) Al! the idempotentand nilpotent elements of R lie in eent R.
25. Let P be a prime ideal of R, a commutative ring with identity. If the quotient d) If a E R is a zero divisor, then there exists sorne nonzero e E cent R sueh that
ring ,R./P has only a finite number of eIements, verify that R/P is a Galois field. +
ac= O. [Hint: If ab = O, with b O, then e b" bE cent R and ac O;
26. Prove tbat if F is a finite field and K is a subfield of F, then F forms a simple if e = O, look at the idempotent d = b"-l.]
extension field of K. [Hint: Any generator of F* will generate F as a vector space
over K.]
27. Let F be a finite field with p" elements. Prove that the mapping O' p: F -+ F defined
by taking O'p(a) = aP is an automorphism, the so-eaUed Frobenius automorphism
of F; furthermore, ~ = ir
28. al Suppose that R is a ring with identity (not necessarily commutative). If R has
no nontrivial ideals, establish that R is a division ringo
b) Show that jf f is a homomorphism from a ring R onto a division ring, then
ker f forms a maximal ideal of R.
29. Prove that any finite subring of a division rÍJlg is again a division'ring.
JO. For any element a E R, a division ring, define C(a) by ..
.. .

C(a) {r E Rlra = arlo l'·

a) Show that C(a) is a division subring of R eontaining cent R. ¡' .

b) If R is finite and there are q elements in cent R, prove that thereare q" elements
in C(a) for sorne n E Z+. [Hint: C(a) may be regarded as a ve~~or space over
the finite field eent R.] .
,
31. If R is a division ring, show that its dimension as a vector spaee over cent R eannot
equa12.
32. lf an integral domain R is finite dimensional as a vector spaee over its center,
prove that R forrns a division ringo [Hint: For fixed a +
O, the linear mapping
T.,x = ax is one-to-one; henee, onto R.]
33. a) Prove that every finite field is a J -ringo
b) More generally, establish that a field F is a J-ring if and only if F is of prime
eharacteristie and is an algebraic extension of its prime subfield.

TEN
DIRECT SUMS OF RINGS
. ,1" . •
If {R¡} ís an indexed famil),:'of rings (not necessarily distinct), it is reasonable
to ask whether there is'.so~·· promising way too use the rings R¡ to build up
new rings. Towards thi '" we now introduce the notion of the complete
direct sum of a set of ririgs ',the term "direct product" is also employe<J in .
the literature). Althouglfcpmplete direct sums can be rather complicated,
there is a specialc1ass of such sums that are more manageable¡ namely,
the subdirect sums. We gain much and lose Httle by soon turning in this .
direction. The question as to whether a ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect
suro of rings of some specified kind will be shown to be equivalent to the
problemof ascertaining whether certain type~ of ideals of R have zero·
intersection. . (a¡ E R¡).
In the absence of any statement to the contrary, we shall restrict our-
selves to connnutative rings with identity.
We begin our material by framing the definition of a complete direct
·sum.
Definition 10-1. Let {R¡} be a family of rings indexed by some set .!l.
The complete direct sum of the rings R í , denoted by ¿ EB R¡, consists
of all functions a defined on the index set .!I subject to the condition
tha!. for each element ¡E .!I the functional value a(i) lies inRi;
{ala:.!I -> v R¡; a(i) E RJ
The rings R¡ are called the component ríngs of the sum ¿ EB R¡ and,
moré specifically, we say that R¡ is the ith component.
Addition and multiplication may be introduced in the set ¿ EB R¡ by
means of the corresponding operations in the individual components;
writing this as a formula, we have
(a + b)(i) = a(i) + b(z), (ab)(i) = a(i)b(¡} for aIl í E .!l.
It follows without difficulty from the ring axioms in each component that
the résulting system comprises a ringo The zero element of ¿ EB R¡ is the
204
r DlRECT SUMS OF RINGS 205
function O:.!I -> v R¡ .defined by taking O(i) = OE R¡ for every index i;
similarIy, the negative -a of a function a E ¿ EB R¡ is given by the rule
(- a)(í) = a(i). .
At tbis point, we should m,ake several remarks. For one thing, in
defining the complete direct sum ¿ EB R¡, the component rings were not
required to be distinct; some, or even aH, ·of these rings may coincide. A
case of particular interest occurs when R¡ = R for every value of i E.!I.
Under these circumstances, ¿ EB R¡ becomes the set of all functions defined
on .fand ha ving values in the given ring R; in short, ¿ EB R¡ = map (.!l., R).
~econdly, if i runs J)ver a finite index set .!I (there is no loss in assuming
that¿pí = {l,2, ... , n}), then the situation is even simpler than it first
app~~s. When this happens, the ringR = ¿ EB R¡ may be interpreted as
consisting of all ordered n-tuples (al' a 2 , ... , a.), where the element a¡ E R¡.
Addition and multiplication are still to be carried out componentwise; that
lS tá's:tY, .
·.·.:,·:;;1
(d¡~:a2' ... ,an ) + (b l , b2, ... , bn ) (al + bl , a2 + b 2, ... ,an + bn ),
(al' a2 , ••• , a.)(b l , b 2 , .:., b~) (a1b 1, a2 b2 , ... ,anbn ).
Now, let us define 11 to be the set of all n-tuples (al' a~, ... , a.) E R with the
property that ak = O for k =f i. It is easily 9hecked that 11 constitutes an
'ideal of R, which is isomorphic to the ring R¡ under the assignment
a¡ -> (O, ... , O, al' O, ... , O)
Furthermore, e.veryelement of R has a uÍüque representation in the form
(al' az, ... , an ) = (al' O, ... ,O) + (O, az, ... , O) + .. ~ + (O, ... , 0, an ).
Tbis feature throws us back into the situation described in Chapter 2 (see
page 21). If we invoke Theorem 2-4, it follows that the. ring R is the
direct sum (in the sen se ofOefinitlon 2-4) ofthe ideals li' The point which
we wish to make is that the concept of complete direct sum extends our
previously defined direct sum; in the finite case, the two notions coincide
up to isomorphism of components. The particular ring $0 obtained is
customarily denoted by either ¿7= 1 EB R¡ or Rl EB Rz EB ... EB R". We
might also mention in passing that if.!l is the positive integers, then ¿ EB R¡
may be viewedas the set of alI infinite sequences (al' az, ... , an , .•• ) such
that a¡ E R¡ for each i E .!l.
Since the generality of the com plete direct sum confronts the imagination
with sucn a hurdle, we shall seldom have occasion to use it. Certain subrings
ofthe complete direct sum are more manageable and more interesting, 'For
instance, the discrete direct sum of the rings R¡ is the subring of ¿ EB R¡
consisting of those functions which are zero for almost all i; here the phrase
l. "for almost all i" is short for "for all i with at most a finite number of
\
I¡;

TEN
DIRECT SUMS OF RINGS
. ,1" . •
If {R¡} ís an indexed famil),:'of rings (not necessarily distinct), it is reasonable
to ask whether there is'.so~·· promising way too use the rings R¡ to build up
new rings. Towards thi '" we now introduce the notion of the complete
direct sum of a set of ririgs ',the term "direct product" is also employe<J in .
the literature). Althouglfcpmplete direct sums can be rather complicated,
there is a specialc1ass of such sums that are more manageable¡ namely,
the subdirect sums. We gain much and lose Httle by soon turning in this .
direction. The question as to whether a ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect
suro of rings of some specified kind will be shown to be equivalent to the
problemof ascertaining whether certain type~ of ideals of R have zero·
intersection. . (a¡ E R¡).
In the absence of any statement to the contrary, we shall restrict our-
selves to connnutative rings with identity.
We begin our material by framing the definition of a complete direct
·sum.
Definition 10-1. Let {R¡} be a family of rings indexed by some set .!l.
The complete direct sum of the rings R í , denoted by ¿ EB R¡, consists
of all functions a defined on the index set .!I subject to the condition
tha!. for each element ¡E .!I the functional value a(i) lies inRi;
{ala:.!I -> v R¡; a(i) E RJ
The rings R¡ are called the component ríngs of the sum ¿ EB R¡ and,
moré specifically, we say that R¡ is the ith component.
Addition and multiplication may be introduced in the set ¿ EB R¡ by
means of the corresponding operations in the individual components;
writing this as a formula, we have
(a + b)(i) = a(i) + b(z), (ab)(i) = a(i)b(¡} for aIl í E .!l.
It follows without difficulty from the ring axioms in each component that
the résulting system comprises a ringo The zero element of ¿ EB R¡ is the
204
r DlRECT SUMS OF RINGS 205
function O:.!I -> v R¡ .defined by taking O(i) = OE R¡ for every index i;
similarIy, the negative -a of a function a E ¿ EB R¡ is given by the rule
(- a)(í) = a(i). .
At tbis point, we should m,ake several remarks. For one thing, in
defining the complete direct sum ¿ EB R¡, the component rings were not
required to be distinct; some, or even aH, ·of these rings may coincide. A
case of particular interest occurs when R¡ = R for every value of i E.!I.
Under these circumstances, ¿ EB R¡ becomes the set of all functions defined
on .fand ha ving values in the given ring R; in short, ¿ EB R¡ = map (.!l., R).
~econdly, if i runs J)ver a finite index set .!I (there is no loss in assuming
that¿pí = {l,2, ... , n}), then the situation is even simpler than it first
app~~s. When this happens, the ringR = ¿ EB R¡ may be interpreted as
consisting of all ordered n-tuples (al' a 2 , ... , a.), where the element a¡ E R¡.
Addition and multiplication are still to be carried out componentwise; that
lS tá's:tY, .
·.·.:,·:;;1
(d¡~:a2' ... ,an ) + (b l , b2, ... , bn ) (al + bl , a2 + b 2, ... ,an + bn ),
(al' a2 , ••• , a.)(b l , b 2 , .:., b~) (a1b 1, a2 b2 , ... ,anbn ).
Now, let us define 11 to be the set of all n-tuples (al' a~, ... , a.) E R with the
property that ak = O for k =f i. It is easily 9hecked that 11 constitutes an
'ideal of R, which is isomorphic to the ring R¡ under the assignment
a¡ -> (O, ... , O, al' O, ... , O)
Furthermore, e.veryelement of R has a uÍüque representation in the form
(al' az, ... , an ) = (al' O, ... ,O) + (O, az, ... , O) + .. ~ + (O, ... , 0, an ).
Tbis feature throws us back into the situation described in Chapter 2 (see
page 21). If we invoke Theorem 2-4, it follows that the. ring R is the
direct sum (in the sen se ofOefinitlon 2-4) ofthe ideals li' The point which
we wish to make is that the concept of complete direct sum extends our
previously defined direct sum; in the finite case, the two notions coincide
up to isomorphism of components. The particular ring $0 obtained is
customarily denoted by either ¿7= 1 EB R¡ or Rl EB Rz EB ... EB R". We
might also mention in passing that if.!l is the positive integers, then ¿ EB R¡
may be viewedas the set of alI infinite sequences (al' az, ... , an , .•• ) such
that a¡ E R¡ for each i E .!l.
Since the generality of the com plete direct sum confronts the imagination
with sucn a hurdle, we shall seldom have occasion to use it. Certain subrings
ofthe complete direct sum are more manageable and more interesting, 'For
instance, the discrete direct sum of the rings R¡ is the subring of ¿ EB R¡
consisting of those functions which are zero for almost all i; here the phrase
l. "for almost all i" is short for "for all i with at most a finite number of
\
I¡;
 206 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
207
DIRECT 8UM8 OF RlNG8

exceptions." It would not be too far removed from traditional connotations

R¡ (11:; itself being a homori:lOrphism). Since ¿' $ R¡ is a subdirect sum,
to represent the discrete direct sum of the rings RI by ¿d $ R I :
11:¡ o f actually carries R onto R¡. On the other. hand, if there happens to
exist an isomorphism f satisfying the indicated conditions, then '\Ve certainly
¿d $ R¡ = {a E ¿ $ R;\a(¡) Ofor all buta finite number of i}.
have
Again, if the index set J is taken to be finite, say Jí = {l, 2, ... , n}, then R :::=: f(R) = ¿' (fl R¡.
the stipulation "for almost all i" is redundant and may be dropped from the
descriptión of ¿d (fl R¡; in this latter setting, lt is helpfuL to translate the foregoing lemma into a condition on the
ideals of a given ring; in what fúllows we describe just such a condition.
¿d $ R¡ Rl (fl R 2$ ... (fl R,..
Theorem 10-1. A ring R is isomorpbic to a subdirect sum of rings R¡
Another special subring of the complete direct sum ¿ $ RI which is
ir and only if R contains a collection of ideals {1¡} such that RJl¡ :::=: RI
worthy of consideration is the so~called subdirect sumo Let us proceed to
examine tbis particular concept in sorne detaiL First, observe that for a and n 11 {O}.
fixed index i, we may defiÚe a function 11:1: ¿ $ R¡ --? RI by the equation Proo! To start, we assume that R :::=: ¿B $ R¡. Then there exists an iso-
morphism f: R --? ¿s EB R¡ such that the "natuml" homomorphisms
1I:¡(a) = a(i).
11:1 0 f: R --? R¡ are all onto mappings. Using the Fundamental Homo-
One can verify that 11:1 is a homomorphism of ¿ EB RI onto the ring R¡, morphism T.heorem, this implies that RJl¡ :::=: R¡, where 11 = ker(1I:¡ 01).
called the ith component projection. Ir S is any subring of ¿ $ R¡, the Note Curther that
restriction 1I:/IS defines a homomorpbism of S into R¡ and, hence, onto a
subring 11:1(S) of Rí' The case ofprincipal interest is that in wbich 1I:¡(S) = R¡ ker f = {r E Rl!(r) = O}
for each index i; in this event, we call S a subdirect sum of the rings RI' = {r E RI(1I:¡ o f)(r) = Ofor all i} = nI¡.
Let us record these remarks as a formal definition.
Since f is a one-to-one function, kerf= {O}, from wmch it Collows that
Definition 10-2. A subring S of the complete direct sum ¿ EB R¡ is n 11 = {O}.
said to be a subdirect sum of the rings R í , written S = ¿s $ R¡, if the Going in the other direction,suppose that we are given a set of ideals
induced projectiol'l 1I:¡ls: S --? R¡ is an onto mapping for each i. The {11} of R with RJl¡ ~ R¡ and n li = {O}. Define a functionf: R - L (fl R/
subdirect sUrii;:1S nontrivial if none of the mappings 1I:¡j$ is one-to-one ., by requiringf(a) to be such that its ith projection 1I:i( ({(a») = a + 1/. ('fP.e
(hence, S is nqt isomorphic to any R i ). essentíal point here is that any element of¿ $ R¡ is completely determined
In effect, a suprlng S 5; ¿ $ Ri is a subdirect sum of tl1e rings R¡ if by its projections.) Then R is isomorphic by mean s offto a subring oC the
: '. direct sum L EB R¡. To see thatfis one-to-one, Cor instance, simply obsex:ye:
and only ir, for ea.~h index i, every element of RI appears as the functional
that .
value at i of sorne ;function ln S. ' '
)'.
Definition 10~2,raises a rather significant question: What necessary and ker f = {a E RI(1I:1 o fHa) l¡ for all i}
sufficient conditiQI),S upon a ring R will enable us to write it (up to iso-
morpbism) as the'subdirect sum of more tractable rings R¡? Up to this = {a E Rla + li = JI for all i}
point, everything' has been a matter oC definition and observation; with the = nI, = {O}.
needed preliminar,ies finally compiled, let us make a start at providing an
answer to the a:bove problem. We leave the checking oCthe remaining details as an exercise.

Lemma. A ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum of the rings R¡ if
and only if there exists an isomorphism f: R --? ¿ $ R¡ such that, for ,
each i, 11:1o f is a homomorphism of R onto R¡.
Proo! Given an isomorphism f of R onto a subdirect sum L $ R¡ of the S
rings Ro the composition 11:1o f: R --? R¡ defines a homomorphism oC R into
Most applications depend more directly on the following version of
Theorem 10-L
CoroDary. A ring R is isomorphic to Si subdirect sum of the quotient
rings RJ1i if and only if R contains a collection oC ideals {11} such that
n li = {O}. Furthermore, the subdirect sum is nontrivial if and only
+
ir 11 {O} for all i.
 206 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
207
DIRECT 8UM8 OF RlNG8

exceptions." It would not be too far removed from traditional connotations

R¡ (11:; itself being a homori:lOrphism). Since ¿' $ R¡ is a subdirect sum,
to represent the discrete direct sum of the rings RI by ¿d $ R I :
11:¡ o f actually carries R onto R¡. On the other. hand, if there happens to
exist an isomorphism f satisfying the indicated conditions, then '\Ve certainly
¿d $ R¡ = {a E ¿ $ R;\a(¡) Ofor all buta finite number of i}.
have
Again, if the index set J is taken to be finite, say Jí = {l, 2, ... , n}, then R :::=: f(R) = ¿' (fl R¡.
the stipulation "for almost all i" is redundant and may be dropped from the
descriptión of ¿d (fl R¡; in this latter setting, lt is helpfuL to translate the foregoing lemma into a condition on the
ideals of a given ring; in what fúllows we describe just such a condition.
¿d $ R¡ Rl (fl R 2$ ... (fl R,..
Theorem 10-1. A ring R is isomorpbic to a subdirect sum of rings R¡
Another special subring of the complete direct sum ¿ $ RI which is
ir and only if R contains a collection of ideals {1¡} such that RJl¡ :::=: RI
worthy of consideration is the so~called subdirect sumo Let us proceed to
examine tbis particular concept in sorne detaiL First, observe that for a and n 11 {O}.
fixed index i, we may defiÚe a function 11:1: ¿ $ R¡ --? RI by the equation Proo! To start, we assume that R :::=: ¿B $ R¡. Then there exists an iso-
morphism f: R --? ¿s EB R¡ such that the "natuml" homomorphisms
1I:¡(a) = a(i).
11:1 0 f: R --? R¡ are all onto mappings. Using the Fundamental Homo-
One can verify that 11:1 is a homomorphism of ¿ EB RI onto the ring R¡, morphism T.heorem, this implies that RJl¡ :::=: R¡, where 11 = ker(1I:¡ 01).
called the ith component projection. Ir S is any subring of ¿ $ R¡, the Note Curther that
restriction 1I:/IS defines a homomorpbism of S into R¡ and, hence, onto a
subring 11:1(S) of Rí' The case ofprincipal interest is that in wbich 1I:¡(S) = R¡ ker f = {r E Rl!(r) = O}
for each index i; in this event, we call S a subdirect sum of the rings RI' = {r E RI(1I:¡ o f)(r) = Ofor all i} = nI¡.
Let us record these remarks as a formal definition.
Since f is a one-to-one function, kerf= {O}, from wmch it Collows that
Definition 10-2. A subring S of the complete direct sum ¿ EB R¡ is n 11 = {O}.
said to be a subdirect sum of the rings R í , written S = ¿s $ R¡, if the Going in the other direction,suppose that we are given a set of ideals
induced projectiol'l 1I:¡ls: S --? R¡ is an onto mapping for each i. The {11} of R with RJl¡ ~ R¡ and n li = {O}. Define a functionf: R - L (fl R/
subdirect sUrii;:1S nontrivial if none of the mappings 1I:¡j$ is one-to-one ., by requiringf(a) to be such that its ith projection 1I:i( ({(a») = a + 1/. ('fP.e
(hence, S is nqt isomorphic to any R i ). essentíal point here is that any element of¿ $ R¡ is completely determined
In effect, a suprlng S 5; ¿ $ Ri is a subdirect sum of tl1e rings R¡ if by its projections.) Then R is isomorphic by mean s offto a subring oC the
: '. direct sum L EB R¡. To see thatfis one-to-one, Cor instance, simply obsex:ye:
and only ir, for ea.~h index i, every element of RI appears as the functional
that .
value at i of sorne ;function ln S. ' '
)'.
Definition 10~2,raises a rather significant question: What necessary and ker f = {a E RI(1I:1 o fHa) l¡ for all i}
sufficient conditiQI),S upon a ring R will enable us to write it (up to iso-
morpbism) as the'subdirect sum of more tractable rings R¡? Up to this = {a E Rla + li = JI for all i}
point, everything' has been a matter oC definition and observation; with the = nI, = {O}.
needed preliminar,ies finally compiled, let us make a start at providing an
answer to the a:bove problem. We leave the checking oCthe remaining details as an exercise.

Lemma. A ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum of the rings R¡ if
and only if there exists an isomorphism f: R --? ¿ $ R¡ such that, for ,
each i, 11:1o f is a homomorphism of R onto R¡.
Proo! Given an isomorphism f of R onto a subdirect sum L $ R¡ of the S
rings Ro the composition 11:1o f: R --? R¡ defines a homomorphism oC R into
Most applications depend more directly on the following version of
Theorem 10-L
CoroDary. A ring R is isomorphic to Si subdirect sum of the quotient
rings RJ1i if and only if R contains a collection oC ideals {11} such that
n li = {O}. Furthermore, the subdirect sum is nontrivial if and only
+
ir 11 {O} for all i.
 20a FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AN'D IDEA.LS
If a ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum ¿'
$ R¡ oC rings R¡. it is
convenient to speak oC ¿' $ Ri as being a representatíon oC R ,(as a sub-
direct sum oC the rings R¡). The last corollary, although satisCying in the
sense that it reduces the problem oC finding such representations to that oC
establishing the existence oC certain ideals, is actually a stepping stone to
the more CruitCul results below. These theorems tellus under what conditions
a ring R lis isomorphic to a subdirect sum oC rings whose struCture is welI .
known.
Theorem 10-2. A ring R is isomorphic to a sqbdirect sifm oC fields ir.
and only jC .R is semisimple. .
Proof. A ring R is semisimple iCand only iCthe intersection ofallits maximal
ideals Mi is the zero id~. By the previous corollary, this lali~r condition
is a necessary and suffiCient condition that R be isomorphici~to, a subdirect
sum oCthe quotient ring~ RIMi , each oCwhich is a field.>':¡'\'
Corollary. For any ring R, R/rad R is isomorphic to a'>Úibdirect sum
oCfields. . 'o
. Going one móre step in this direction, we also have
Theorem 10-3. A ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum oC integral
domains iC and only iC Ris without prime radical.
Corollary. For any ring R, RIRad R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum
oC integral domains.
Since any integral dornain can be imbedded in a field, Theorem 10-3
implies the ColIowing: a (commutative) ring R with no nonzero nilpotent
elements is isomorphic to a subdirect sum oC fields.
Example 10-1. The ring Z oC integers fumishes a simple illustration oC the
lack oC any kind oC uniqueness in the representation oC a ring as a subdirect
sumo Since Z is semi simple, Theorem 10-1 ensures that it is isomorphic
to a subdirect sum oC the rings Z/(p) Zp, wher.e pis a prime number:
Z~ ¿s $ Zp.
p prime
it being understood that the summation runs over al! primes. At the same
time, Z can be represented as a subdirect sum of the rings ZpI, since the
intersection of the ideals (p2) isalso the zero ideal:
Z ~ ¿s
pprime
$ ZpI'
. AH the component rings in the ftrst representation are fields, while none is
a field in the second. This shows that a given ring may be representable
as a subdirect sum oC rings having quite differerit properties.
DIRECT SUMS OF RINGS 209
Example 10-2. For anotber application oC Theorem 10-1, consider the
ring map R # oC real-valued Cunctions on R #. As we know, each oC the ideals
Mx {fe mapR# If(x) = O}, xER#
I
.!
is maximal in mapR#. Sinée (\.eRMx {O}, it Collows that mapR# is
the subdirect sum oC uncountably many copies oC the real field-one for
each point oC R #. (This should come as ,no surprise, being essen tially the
d6finition oC map R#. ) :
Simply as an application of the Coregoing ideas (Cor we shalI make no
su bsequent use oC the result), let us estabIl'sh '
Theorem 10-4. A ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum oC fields iC
. and only iC Cor each nonzero ideal J{q,f R, there exists an ideal J =1= R
such that 1 + J = R. ' ,." .
Proof. Let 1 =1= {O} bean ideal oC R, where R is isomorphicto a subdirect
sum oC fields. Then R conrains a coUé~~i¡on {Mi} oC maximal ideals with
n Mi {O}. ' Since 1 is nonzero, this entails that 1 $ Mi Cor sorne value
oC i; Cor any such i, we necessarily have 1 + Mi = R .
Conversely, as sume that the indicated condition holds. We shall argue
that each nonzero element is excIuded by sorne maximal ideal oC R, whence
rad R = {O}. Pursuing this end, let Ó =1= a E R, sothat the principal ideal
(a) =1= {O} (there is no loss in supposing also that (a) =1= R). By our hypo"
thesis, (a) + J = R Cor sorne proper ideal J oC R. Now, Zorn's Lernma
implies the existence oC an ideal M which is chosen maximal in the set of
ideal s satisCying (í) J S; M and (ii) a fj M. To see thaf Mis actualIy a maximal
ideal oC R, consider any ideal K with M e K S; R. Then, by the maximal
nature of M, the element a E K; hence, R = (a) + J S; (a) + K S; K, or
R = K. The outcome is that the intersection oC alI tI1e maxirnaI ideals oC
R is zero. This being so, Theorem 10-2 aIlows us to concIude that R is
isomorphic to á subdirect sum of ftelds.
One direction oC Theorem 10-3 can be sharpened conslderably, as the
next result shows. .
Theorem 10-5. Let R be a ring containing no nonzero nH ideals. Then
R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum oC integral domains.
Proof. For each nonnilpotent element a e R, the set
Sa = {a,a 2 , ... , a", ... }
is cIosed under multiplication and does not contain O. Thus, there exists a
. prime ideal Po oC R, with Po n So = 0 (corollary on page 164). We assert
that R ~ ¿$ $ (RIPa ), where the summation ranges over aH the nonnil-
potent elements oC R.
 20a FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AN'D IDEA.LS
If a ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum ¿'
$ R¡ oC rings R¡. it is
convenient to speak oC ¿' $ Ri as being a representatíon oC R ,(as a sub-
direct sum oC the rings R¡). The last corollary, although satisCying in the
sense that it reduces the problem oC finding such representations to that oC
establishing the existence oC certain ideals, is actually a stepping stone to
the more CruitCul results below. These theorems tellus under what conditions
a ring R lis isomorphic to a subdirect sum oC rings whose struCture is welI .
known.
Theorem 10-2. A ring R is isomorphic to a sqbdirect sifm oC fields ir.
and only jC .R is semisimple. .
Proof. A ring R is semisimple iCand only iCthe intersection ofallits maximal
ideals Mi is the zero id~. By the previous corollary, this lali~r condition
is a necessary and suffiCient condition that R be isomorphici~to, a subdirect
sum oCthe quotient ring~ RIMi , each oCwhich is a field.>':¡'\'
Corollary. For any ring R, R/rad R is isomorphic to a'>Úibdirect sum
oCfields. . 'o
. Going one móre step in this direction, we also have
Theorem 10-3. A ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum oC integral
domains iC and only iC Ris without prime radical.
Corollary. For any ring R, RIRad R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum
oC integral domains.
Since any integral dornain can be imbedded in a field, Theorem 10-3
implies the ColIowing: a (commutative) ring R with no nonzero nilpotent
elements is isomorphic to a subdirect sum oC fields.
Example 10-1. The ring Z oC integers fumishes a simple illustration oC the
lack oC any kind oC uniqueness in the representation oC a ring as a subdirect
sumo Since Z is semi simple, Theorem 10-1 ensures that it is isomorphic
to a subdirect sum oC the rings Z/(p) Zp, wher.e pis a prime number:
Z~ ¿s $ Zp.
p prime
it being understood that the summation runs over al! primes. At the same
time, Z can be represented as a subdirect sum of the rings ZpI, since the
intersection of the ideals (p2) isalso the zero ideal:
Z ~ ¿s
pprime
$ ZpI'
. AH the component rings in the ftrst representation are fields, while none is
a field in the second. This shows that a given ring may be representable
as a subdirect sum oC rings having quite differerit properties.
DIRECT SUMS OF RINGS 209
Example 10-2. For anotber application oC Theorem 10-1, consider the
ring map R # oC real-valued Cunctions on R #. As we know, each oC the ideals
Mx {fe mapR# If(x) = O}, xER#
I
.!
is maximal in mapR#. Sinée (\.eRMx {O}, it Collows that mapR# is
the subdirect sum oC uncountably many copies oC the real field-one for
each point oC R #. (This should come as ,no surprise, being essen tially the
d6finition oC map R#. ) :
Simply as an application of the Coregoing ideas (Cor we shalI make no
su bsequent use oC the result), let us estabIl'sh '
Theorem 10-4. A ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum oC fields iC
. and only iC Cor each nonzero ideal J{q,f R, there exists an ideal J =1= R
such that 1 + J = R. ' ,." .
Proof. Let 1 =1= {O} bean ideal oC R, where R is isomorphicto a subdirect
sum oC fields. Then R conrains a coUé~~i¡on {Mi} oC maximal ideals with
n Mi {O}. ' Since 1 is nonzero, this entails that 1 $ Mi Cor sorne value
oC i; Cor any such i, we necessarily have 1 + Mi = R .
Conversely, as sume that the indicated condition holds. We shall argue
that each nonzero element is excIuded by sorne maximal ideal oC R, whence
rad R = {O}. Pursuing this end, let Ó =1= a E R, sothat the principal ideal
(a) =1= {O} (there is no loss in supposing also that (a) =1= R). By our hypo"
thesis, (a) + J = R Cor sorne proper ideal J oC R. Now, Zorn's Lernma
implies the existence oC an ideal M which is chosen maximal in the set of
ideal s satisCying (í) J S; M and (ii) a fj M. To see thaf Mis actualIy a maximal
ideal oC R, consider any ideal K with M e K S; R. Then, by the maximal
nature of M, the element a E K; hence, R = (a) + J S; (a) + K S; K, or
R = K. The outcome is that the intersection oC alI tI1e maxirnaI ideals oC
R is zero. This being so, Theorem 10-2 aIlows us to concIude that R is
isomorphic to á subdirect sum of ftelds.
One direction oC Theorem 10-3 can be sharpened conslderably, as the
next result shows. .
Theorem 10-5. Let R be a ring containing no nonzero nH ideals. Then
R is isomorphic to a subdirect sum oC integral domains.
Proof. For each nonnilpotent element a e R, the set
Sa = {a,a 2 , ... , a", ... }
is cIosed under multiplication and does not contain O. Thus, there exists a
. prime ideal Po oC R, with Po n So = 0 (corollary on page 164). We assert
that R ~ ¿$ $ (RIPa ), where the summation ranges over aH the nonnil-
potent elements oC R.
 210 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
DIRECT SUMS OF RINGS 211
ClearIy, 1 = n Pa comprises an ideal of R and is not nil by hypothesis.
Corollary. Let 1 1,1 i, ... , 1" be a finite set of ideals of the ring R with
If 1 1= {O}, we can select sorne nonnilpotent element b E I. But then 1 S;;; Pb ,
while b ~ Pb , an obvious contradiction. This being the case, we must have
I the property that 1; + lj = R whenever i 1= j. Given any n elements
Xl' x 2 , ••• , Xn E R, there exists sorne x E R such that x - x; E 1; for
1 = n Pa = {O}. It follows from Theorem 10-1 that R is isomorphic to a I i = 1,2, ... , n.
subdirect sum ofthe quotient rings (actually integral domains) R/Pa.
This corollary may be applied to the ring Z of integers and to the
Before pressing forward with the main line of investigation, let us look
principal ideals (m 1), (m 2 ), ' •• , (~), where the integers m; are relatively prime
at a special case which will prove useful when, at a later stage, we study
in pairs. One then obtains an old and famous theorem about congruences
Artinian rings.
which goes by the name of the Chinese Remainder Theorem (the result
Theorem 10-6. Let 11 , 12 , ... ,In be afinite set of (nontrivial) ideals of being known to Chinese mathematicians as early as A.D. 250):
the ring R. If li + lj = R whenever i 1= j, then R/n 1; ~ ¿ Et> (R/IJ
Theorem 10-7. (Chinese Remainder Theorem). Let m1' m 2 , .... , m n be
. Proo! To start, we define a mappingf: R ~ ¿ $ (R/l;) by positive integers such that gcd (m;, mj) = 1 for i 1= j. If al' a 2 , ... , an
f(x)' = (x + 11 , X + 12 , ... , x+ U. are any n integers, then the system of congruences

The reader can painlessIy supply a ptoof that f is a homomorphism with x == al (mod m 1 ),
ker f = nI;. Our problem is to show that, under tbis homomorphism, any admits a simultaneous solution. Furthermore, tbis solution is unique
element (Xl + 1 1 , x 2 + 12 " " , x n + In) of the complete diI:ect sum modulo m' = m 1m 2 ... mn ,
¿ Et> (R/l;) appears as the image of sorne element in R; the stated result
then hinges upon an application of the Fundamental Homomorphism The hypothesis in Theorem 10-6 is conveniently expressed in terms of
Theorem. the following: a finite set of ideals 1 1,12 , ... , In of a ring R is said to be
Fix the indexj for the moment Using the fact that 1; + lj = R when- pairwise comaximal (or pairwise relative1y prime, in the older terminology)
ever i 1= j, there exist e1ements a; El;, b; E lj with a; + b; = 1. This ensures if 1; 1= R and 1; + lj = R for i 1= j; when n = 2, we simply term 1 1 and
that the product 12 comaximal. Thus, the condition on the ideal s in Theorem 10-6 is that
they be pairwise comaximal. EvidentIy, the definition ofpairwise comaximal
r¡ = a1a 2 ... aj - 1a j + 1 ... an E nI;. implies that 1; 1= lj for i 1= j, as well as 1; 1= {O} for all i.
; 'fj '" If, in the representation of a ring R as a subdirect sum of the rings R¡,
Furthermore, since 1 - a; E l j , the coset a; + lj ={l:'+ lj for all i 1= j, the "natural" homomorphism ofi:onto R; happens to be an isomorphism
whence rj + lj = 1 + l j ' ( " for sorne i, then the representatio~ ls, termed trivial; in the contrary case it
Now, pick arbitrary elements x; E R (i = 1,2, ... ·in); our.contention is is non trivial. (A nontrivial repres~ntation does not rule out the possibility
that :'i'f· . that R ~ R; by way of sorne mapping other than the "natural" homo-
f(x) = {Xl + 11 , x 2 + 12 , ... , xn +':ln ), morphism of R onto R;.) A ring.,R is called subdirectly irreducible if there
j
is no nontrivial representation of R as a subdirect sumo Let us summarize
where x = ¿ r;x;. To see tbis, observe that we may write x + lj as these remarks in a definition.

x + lj = ¿
;'fj
(r; + 1}(x; + lj) + (r j + 1)(xj + lj)' Definition 10-3. A ring R is said to be subdirectly irreducible if, in any
representation of R as a subdirect sum ofthe rings R;, at least one ofthe
But r; E lj for i 1= j, while r j + lj = 1 + l j , so the displayed equation associated homomorphisms of R onto R; is actual1y an isomorphism;
reduces to x + lj = x j + lj U = 1,2, ... ,n). This substantiates the elaim otherwise, .R is subdirectly reducible.
that f is actually an onto mapping, leading to the isomorphism
The corollary to Theorem 10-1 may be taken as asserting that R is
R/n 1; ~ ¿ Et> (R/IJ subdirectIy reducible if and only if there exists in R a set of nonzero ideal s
with zero intersection. An equivalent and often handier formulation is the
Careful scrutiny of the aboye argument shows that we have proved a
following: a ring R is subdirectIy irreducible if and only if the intersection
subresult of independent interest ; name1y,
of all the nonzero ideals of R is different from the zero ideal.
 210 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
DIRECT SUMS OF RINGS 211
ClearIy, 1 = n Pa comprises an ideal of R and is not nil by hypothesis.
Corollary. Let 1 1,1 i, ... , 1" be a finite set of ideals of the ring R with
If 1 1= {O}, we can select sorne nonnilpotent element b E I. But then 1 S;;; Pb ,
while b ~ Pb , an obvious contradiction. This being the case, we must have
I the property that 1; + lj = R whenever i 1= j. Given any n elements
Xl' x 2 , ••• , Xn E R, there exists sorne x E R such that x - x; E 1; for
1 = n Pa = {O}. It follows from Theorem 10-1 that R is isomorphic to a I i = 1,2, ... , n.
subdirect sum ofthe quotient rings (actually integral domains) R/Pa.
This corollary may be applied to the ring Z of integers and to the
Before pressing forward with the main line of investigation, let us look
principal ideals (m 1), (m 2 ), ' •• , (~), where the integers m; are relatively prime
at a special case which will prove useful when, at a later stage, we study
in pairs. One then obtains an old and famous theorem about congruences
Artinian rings.
which goes by the name of the Chinese Remainder Theorem (the result
Theorem 10-6. Let 11 , 12 , ... ,In be afinite set of (nontrivial) ideals of being known to Chinese mathematicians as early as A.D. 250):
the ring R. If li + lj = R whenever i 1= j, then R/n 1; ~ ¿ Et> (R/IJ
Theorem 10-7. (Chinese Remainder Theorem). Let m1' m 2 , .... , m n be
. Proo! To start, we define a mappingf: R ~ ¿ $ (R/l;) by positive integers such that gcd (m;, mj) = 1 for i 1= j. If al' a 2 , ... , an
f(x)' = (x + 11 , X + 12 , ... , x+ U. are any n integers, then the system of congruences

The reader can painlessIy supply a ptoof that f is a homomorphism with x == al (mod m 1 ),
ker f = nI;. Our problem is to show that, under tbis homomorphism, any admits a simultaneous solution. Furthermore, tbis solution is unique
element (Xl + 1 1 , x 2 + 12 " " , x n + In) of the complete diI:ect sum modulo m' = m 1m 2 ... mn ,
¿ Et> (R/l;) appears as the image of sorne element in R; the stated result
then hinges upon an application of the Fundamental Homomorphism The hypothesis in Theorem 10-6 is conveniently expressed in terms of
Theorem. the following: a finite set of ideals 1 1,12 , ... , In of a ring R is said to be
Fix the indexj for the moment Using the fact that 1; + lj = R when- pairwise comaximal (or pairwise relative1y prime, in the older terminology)
ever i 1= j, there exist e1ements a; El;, b; E lj with a; + b; = 1. This ensures if 1; 1= R and 1; + lj = R for i 1= j; when n = 2, we simply term 1 1 and
that the product 12 comaximal. Thus, the condition on the ideal s in Theorem 10-6 is that
they be pairwise comaximal. EvidentIy, the definition ofpairwise comaximal
r¡ = a1a 2 ... aj - 1a j + 1 ... an E nI;. implies that 1; 1= lj for i 1= j, as well as 1; 1= {O} for all i.
; 'fj '" If, in the representation of a ring R as a subdirect sum of the rings R¡,
Furthermore, since 1 - a; E l j , the coset a; + lj ={l:'+ lj for all i 1= j, the "natural" homomorphism ofi:onto R; happens to be an isomorphism
whence rj + lj = 1 + l j ' ( " for sorne i, then the representatio~ ls, termed trivial; in the contrary case it
Now, pick arbitrary elements x; E R (i = 1,2, ... ·in); our.contention is is non trivial. (A nontrivial repres~ntation does not rule out the possibility
that :'i'f· . that R ~ R; by way of sorne mapping other than the "natural" homo-
f(x) = {Xl + 11 , x 2 + 12 , ... , xn +':ln ), morphism of R onto R;.) A ring.,R is called subdirectly irreducible if there
j
is no nontrivial representation of R as a subdirect sumo Let us summarize
where x = ¿ r;x;. To see tbis, observe that we may write x + lj as these remarks in a definition.

x + lj = ¿
;'fj
(r; + 1}(x; + lj) + (r j + 1)(xj + lj)' Definition 10-3. A ring R is said to be subdirectly irreducible if, in any
representation of R as a subdirect sum ofthe rings R;, at least one ofthe
But r; E lj for i 1= j, while r j + lj = 1 + l j , so the displayed equation associated homomorphisms of R onto R; is actual1y an isomorphism;
reduces to x + lj = x j + lj U = 1,2, ... ,n). This substantiates the elaim otherwise, .R is subdirectly reducible.
that f is actually an onto mapping, leading to the isomorphism
The corollary to Theorem 10-1 may be taken as asserting that R is
R/n 1; ~ ¿ Et> (R/IJ subdirectIy reducible if and only if there exists in R a set of nonzero ideal s
with zero intersection. An equivalent and often handier formulation is the
Careful scrutiny of the aboye argument shows that we have proved a
following: a ring R is subdirectIy irreducible if and only if the intersection
subresult of independent interest ; name1y,
of all the nonzero ideals of R is different from the zero ideal.
 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
212
The importance of subdirectly irreducible rings is demonstrated by the
following representation theorem due to Birkhoff.
Theorem 10-8. (Birkhoff). Every ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect
surn of subdirectly irreducible rings.
Proo! For each element a =f O of R, Zorn's Lemrna can be used to seleá
an ideal 1 which is maximal in the family of all ideals of R contained in
R - {~}I; this family is evidently nonempty, since the zero ideal belongs
to i1. Our definition of l. implies that if 1 i,s any ideal of R with the property
that 1 e 1, then a E l. We~hould also point out that the intersection of
the id~alsla (where a runs ovet:'all nonzero elements of R) is zero. Indeed,
if b E na'/' o l. with b =f O, th~n b must, in particular, He in the ideal J b;
this contradicts the fact thatdvwas originally chosen so as to exclude the
element b; hence, n.tO l.~:{a}. It now follows from the corollary to
Theorem 10-1 that R 'ís isómorphic to a subdirect sum of the quotient
rings RIl.. ir·,)
The proofis completed up'ón showing thateach ring Rila is itself sub-
directly irreducible or, more to the point, that the intersection 'of all th~
nonzero ideals oY Rila is nonzero. By the Corre~pondence Theorem, it
suffices to establish that the intersection of all the ideals of R properly
containing l. again contains l. as a proper su bse1. In Iight of the maximality
of 1 the element ti must belong to all such ideal s ; therefore, their inter-
secti¿n contains a and, hence, contains l. properly. The implication is that
the coset a + l. is nonzero and lies in every nonzero ideal of RI1•. Thus,
OUf goal is achieved.
Before announcing the next result, let us introduce sorne convenient
notation.
Definition 10-4. For any ring R, the heart of R is the ideal
I ann (ann R V), then R v 5; (a) and, hence, O =f 'ar E R v for sorne choice of
RV = í'I {Jll is a nonzero ideal of R}.
We observe that R v is a minimal ideal of R which is contained in each
nonzero ideal of R; for this reason, R v is frequently called the minimal ideal
of R. When R v =f {O}, it is not hard to see that R v constitutes a principal
ideal with any ofits nonzero elements serving as a generator. The relation
of this notion to the concept of a subdirect sum should be fairly obvious: a
ring R is subdirectly irreducible if and only if R v =f {O}.
A definition deserves a theorem, so we oblige with the following:
v Although no further attempt is made to discuss the subject of subdirect
Theorem 10-9. (McCoy). If R is a ring for which'R =f {a}, then
1) ann R v is a maximal ideal of R;
2) ann R v consists of all zero divisors of R, plus zero;
3) whenever Ris 'without prime radical, R forms a field.
DIRECT SUMS OF RINGS 213
Proo! First, suppose that the element r <t ann R v • Then ra =f O for sorne
choice of a in R v. Since ra lies in R v, it will serve as a generator for R v ;
that is, R v = (ra). Thus, we can find an eIement s E R satisfying a = ras,
whence the product (1 - rs}a =, O. It follows that 1 - rs E ann R v,' in
consequence of which ann R v is a maximal ideal of R (Problem 2, Chapter
5).
Regard,ing the second assertion of the theorem, choose r to be any zero
divisor of,¡R. Then ann (r) =f {O} and, since R v is contained inevery
nonzero i4:~al of R, ann (r) ;2 R v. This last inclusion simply asserts that '
r E ann (ai1p. (r)) S;; ann R v, so that ann R v consists of all zero divisors,
together wjth O.
We n;óvi pass to a proof of (3). According to the hypothesis, the ideal
(R vf =f::{P} (by Problem 14, Chapter 8, {O} is the only nilpotent ideal of R).
Thus, tht:Ty,;exists sorne element tE R v for which rR v =f {O}. The implica-
tion of thi,~dact is that R v $ ann R v. Inasmuch as R v is minimal in the
set of nom#ro ideals of R, we conclude at once that ann R v = {O}. The
rest follow(Irom (1): {O} is a maximal ideal of R and so R forms l;l field.
As a special case of part (3) aboye, we might point out that any sub-
directly irreducible Boolean ring must be a field, which is c1early isomorphic
to Z2 (Theorem 9-2).
There is a corollary to Theorem 10-9 that wíIl be usefullater on.
Corollary. If R V =f {a}, then the annihilator ofthe set ofzero divisors
of R is precisely R v.
Proo! With reference to the theorem, it is enough to prove that
ann (ann R V) = R v • Since one always has R v S;; ann (ann R V), let us
concentrate on the reverse inclusion. If a is any nonzero element of
, r ~ ann R v (in other words, r is not a zero divisor of R). As in the proof
of Theorem 10-9, we can find an element s E R for which 1 - rs E ann R v •
This means that a(1 - rs) = O and so a = (ar)s E R v. It follows that
aun (ann R V) 5; R v, which completes the argumen1. '
There are a number of situaiions where the hypothesis of Theorem
10-9 occurs quite naturally. By way ofexample, the hypothesis ís certainly
fulfilled in any field. A more interesting illustration is provided by the ring
R = Zpn of integers modulo a power of a prime; in this setting, one has
i R V = (pn-l) and annR v = (p).
sums systematically, we shall continue to throw sidelong glances in this
direction (for a more thoroughtreatment, the reader is invited to consult
[49J). Sorne of these ideas will be put to work in the next section when
rings with chain conditions are discussed..
 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
212
The importance of subdirectly irreducible rings is demonstrated by the
following representation theorem due to Birkhoff.
Theorem 10-8. (Birkhoff). Every ring R is isomorphic to a subdirect
surn of subdirectly irreducible rings.
Proo! For each element a =f O of R, Zorn's Lemrna can be used to seleá
an ideal 1 which is maximal in the family of all ideals of R contained in
R - {~}I; this family is evidently nonempty, since the zero ideal belongs
to i1. Our definition of l. implies that if 1 i,s any ideal of R with the property
that 1 e 1, then a E l. We~hould also point out that the intersection of
the id~alsla (where a runs ovet:'all nonzero elements of R) is zero. Indeed,
if b E na'/' o l. with b =f O, th~n b must, in particular, He in the ideal J b;
this contradicts the fact thatdvwas originally chosen so as to exclude the
element b; hence, n.tO l.~:{a}. It now follows from the corollary to
Theorem 10-1 that R 'ís isómorphic to a subdirect sum of the quotient
rings RIl.. ir·,)
The proofis completed up'ón showing thateach ring Rila is itself sub-
directly irreducible or, more to the point, that the intersection 'of all th~
nonzero ideals oY Rila is nonzero. By the Corre~pondence Theorem, it
suffices to establish that the intersection of all the ideals of R properly
containing l. again contains l. as a proper su bse1. In Iight of the maximality
of 1 the element ti must belong to all such ideal s ; therefore, their inter-
secti¿n contains a and, hence, contains l. properly. The implication is that
the coset a + l. is nonzero and lies in every nonzero ideal of RI1•. Thus,
OUf goal is achieved.
Before announcing the next result, let us introduce sorne convenient
notation.
Definition 10-4. For any ring R, the heart of R is the ideal
I ann (ann R V), then R v 5; (a) and, hence, O =f 'ar E R v for sorne choice of
RV = í'I {Jll is a nonzero ideal of R}.
We observe that R v is a minimal ideal of R which is contained in each
nonzero ideal of R; for this reason, R v is frequently called the minimal ideal
of R. When R v =f {O}, it is not hard to see that R v constitutes a principal
ideal with any ofits nonzero elements serving as a generator. The relation
of this notion to the concept of a subdirect sum should be fairly obvious: a
ring R is subdirectly irreducible if and only if R v =f {O}.
A definition deserves a theorem, so we oblige with the following:
v Although no further attempt is made to discuss the subject of subdirect
Theorem 10-9. (McCoy). If R is a ring for which'R =f {a}, then
1) ann R v is a maximal ideal of R;
2) ann R v consists of all zero divisors of R, plus zero;
3) whenever Ris 'without prime radical, R forms a field.
DIRECT SUMS OF RINGS 213
Proo! First, suppose that the element r <t ann R v • Then ra =f O for sorne
choice of a in R v. Since ra lies in R v, it will serve as a generator for R v ;
that is, R v = (ra). Thus, we can find an eIement s E R satisfying a = ras,
whence the product (1 - rs}a =, O. It follows that 1 - rs E ann R v,' in
consequence of which ann R v is a maximal ideal of R (Problem 2, Chapter
5).
Regard,ing the second assertion of the theorem, choose r to be any zero
divisor of,¡R. Then ann (r) =f {O} and, since R v is contained inevery
nonzero i4:~al of R, ann (r) ;2 R v. This last inclusion simply asserts that '
r E ann (ai1p. (r)) S;; ann R v, so that ann R v consists of all zero divisors,
together wjth O.
We n;óvi pass to a proof of (3). According to the hypothesis, the ideal
(R vf =f::{P} (by Problem 14, Chapter 8, {O} is the only nilpotent ideal of R).
Thus, tht:Ty,;exists sorne element tE R v for which rR v =f {O}. The implica-
tion of thi,~dact is that R v $ ann R v. Inasmuch as R v is minimal in the
set of nom#ro ideals of R, we conclude at once that ann R v = {O}. The
rest follow(Irom (1): {O} is a maximal ideal of R and so R forms l;l field.
As a special case of part (3) aboye, we might point out that any sub-
directly irreducible Boolean ring must be a field, which is c1early isomorphic
to Z2 (Theorem 9-2).
There is a corollary to Theorem 10-9 that wíIl be usefullater on.
Corollary. If R V =f {a}, then the annihilator ofthe set ofzero divisors
of R is precisely R v.
Proo! With reference to the theorem, it is enough to prove that
ann (ann R V) = R v • Since one always has R v S;; ann (ann R V), let us
concentrate on the reverse inclusion. If a is any nonzero element of
, r ~ ann R v (in other words, r is not a zero divisor of R). As in the proof
of Theorem 10-9, we can find an element s E R for which 1 - rs E ann R v •
This means that a(1 - rs) = O and so a = (ar)s E R v. It follows that
aun (ann R V) 5; R v, which completes the argumen1. '
There are a number of situaiions where the hypothesis of Theorem
10-9 occurs quite naturally. By way ofexample, the hypothesis ís certainly
fulfilled in any field. A more interesting illustration is provided by the ring
R = Zpn of integers modulo a power of a prime; in this setting, one has
i R V = (pn-l) and annR v = (p).
sums systematically, we shall continue to throw sidelong glances in this
direction (for a more thoroughtreatment, the reader is invited to consult
[49J). Sorne of these ideas will be put to work in the next section when
rings with chain conditions are discussed..
214 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
PROBLEMS 215
PROBLEMS 8. Pro ve that an irredundant subdireet sum of a finite number of simple rings is their
In the set ofproblems below, aH rings are assumed to be eonmlUtative with identity. direet Sunl.

1. Prove each ofthe foIJowing assertions regarding the complete direet sum ¿ El:> R¡: 9. If R is a (eonmlUtative) regular ring, verify that R is isomorphie to a subdireet
a) If a and b ar~ elements of ¿ El:> R¡ sueh that n¡(a) = n¡(b) for eaeh index i, Sunl of fields.
then a = b. I
10. a) Prove that a ring Ris isomorphie to the complete direet Sunl of a finite number
b) If an element r¡ E R¡ is given for eaeh i, then there exists a unique a E ¿ El:> R¡
satisfying ¡¡Aa) = r¡.
.[ of fields if and only if (i) R eontains only a finite number of ideals and (ii)
rad R = {O}.
e) 'If R¡ =1= 0 for aIJ i, then the ith projection n¡ maps ¿ El:> R¡ onto R¡. b) Prove that a finite ring R is a direet sum offields if and only ifit has no nonzero
nilpotent elements.
2. Prove that an arbitrary funetion f from a ring R into the complete direet Sunl
¿ El:> R¡ of the rings R¡ is a homomorphism if and only if the eomposition 11. Demonstrate that the conc1usion ofTheorem 10-6 is false if an infinite numbér of
n¡ o f: R -+ R¡ is itself a homomorphism for each value of i. ideals li are allowed. [Hint: Consider the ring Z and the ideals li = (p¡), where
Pi is the ith prime.]
3. Consider the complete direct sum ¿ El:> R¡. For a fixed index i, define the sets
12. a) Let al> a2' ... ,anbe a finite set ofnonzero elements ofthe principal ideal domain
1; = {aE¿ El:> R;ja(j) = Oforj =1= i}, R sueh that a¡ and aj are relatively prime for i =1= j. If a = lem (al> a2, ... ,' an),
J¡ = {a E ¿ El:> R;ja(i) = O}. show that RI(a) ~ ¿ EB (RI(a¡».
Verify that li and J¡ are both ideals of the ring ¿ El:> R¡ and that b) Prove that if the integer n > 1 has the prime faetorization n = p~'~2 ... p~',
then Z" ~ ¿ EB Zp,"
¿ El:> R¡ = 1¡ El:> J¡.
13. Let 1 l> 12 , ... , In be a finite set of ideals of the ring R. Prove that
4. Prove that a ring R is isomorphic to a subdireet sum of rings R¡ if and only if, for a) the ideals 1¡ are pairwise eomaximal if and only if their ni! radical s JI¡ are
eaeh i" there exists a homomorphism gl of R onto R¡ sueh that if Ú =1= rE R, then pairwise eomaximal;
gl(r) =1= Ofor at least one value ofi. [Hint: Assume that the stated eondition holds. b) if the ideals 11 are pairwise eomaximal, then their produet
For fixed rE R, define f,. E L El:> R¡ by f,.(i) = g¡(r). Now, eonsider the mapping
f: R -+ L El:> 'R¡ in whieh f(r) = f,..] 1112 ", In = 11 Il 12 Il ... Il In'

5. Establish that each of the given rings has a representation as a subdireet sum of [Hint: Use induetion on n. Notiee that In is eomaximal with 11 Il .:;; Il l n-l>
the ri~gs R¡{i = 1,2, 3, ... ): sinee ',,1',0',,'

a) zi R¡ = Zpl, where P is a fixed prime.

R = Rn = n(In + l i) S; In + (Il l i) S; R
b) Z; R¡ = Zp, where PI is an odd prime. ,
e) Z.;){¡ = Z~/(2¡). (In the situation eonsidered, (2¡) = {2¡r + 21nlr E Z.; n E Z} for 1 ::;; i ::;; n - 1.]
= 2¡Z.)
d) Z;i".R¡
= Z.I(Pi)' where p¡ is an odd prime.
14. Assume that the ring R is subdireetly irreducible. Establish that thereit::~ists an
element O =1= rE R with f(r) = O for every homomorphism f on R whieh is not
6. Suppós~ that R is isomorphie to a subdireet sum of the rings R¡ under the homo- one-to·one.
morphismf We say that the subdireet sum is irredundant ir, for eaeh indexj, the I
15. Prove that any subdireetly irreducible ring has eharacteristie zero or a pdwer of a
mapping h): R -+ ¿¡"'j EB Ri defined by hk) = f(r)I¿¡'fj El:> R¡ is not one-to-one
(that is, ker h) =1= {O}. prime. In partir;ular, eonclude that Zn is subdirectly irreducible if and 'only if n
1 is a power of a prime.
Prove the equivalenee ofthe foIlowing statements:
a) the subdirect sum ¿' EB R¡ is irredundant; , 16. If R is a subdireetly irreducible ring, show that O and 1 are the only idempotents
b) ker (nj o f) ;j2 ni"') ker (n¡ e f) for eaeh indexj;
n
e) thereexists a eollection ofideals {I¡} of R sueh that (1) RI ~ Rll¡, (2) 1¡ = {O},
of R. [Hint: For an idempotent e E R, consider the principal ideals (e) and

and (3) ni"') 1¡ =1= {O} for eaeh index j.

(1 - e).]

17. a) Verify that any subdirectly irreducible Boolean ring is a field.

7. GiventhattheringR = {(a,b)la,bEZ; a - bEZ.},showthatRisanirredundant
b) Prove that a ring R is a Boolean ring if and only if R is isomorphie to a sub-
subdirect sum (hut not the direct sum) of two copies of Z.
direet sum offields Z2' [Hint: Theorenl 10-9 and part (a).]
214 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
PROBLEMS 215
PROBLEMS 8. Pro ve that an irredundant subdireet sum of a finite number of simple rings is their
In the set ofproblems below, aH rings are assumed to be eonmlUtative with identity. direet Sunl.

1. Prove each ofthe foIJowing assertions regarding the complete direet sum ¿ El:> R¡: 9. If R is a (eonmlUtative) regular ring, verify that R is isomorphie to a subdireet
a) If a and b ar~ elements of ¿ El:> R¡ sueh that n¡(a) = n¡(b) for eaeh index i, Sunl of fields.
then a = b. I
10. a) Prove that a ring Ris isomorphie to the complete direet Sunl of a finite number
b) If an element r¡ E R¡ is given for eaeh i, then there exists a unique a E ¿ El:> R¡
satisfying ¡¡Aa) = r¡.
.[ of fields if and only if (i) R eontains only a finite number of ideals and (ii)
rad R = {O}.
e) 'If R¡ =1= 0 for aIJ i, then the ith projection n¡ maps ¿ El:> R¡ onto R¡. b) Prove that a finite ring R is a direet sum offields if and only ifit has no nonzero
nilpotent elements.
2. Prove that an arbitrary funetion f from a ring R into the complete direet Sunl
¿ El:> R¡ of the rings R¡ is a homomorphism if and only if the eomposition 11. Demonstrate that the conc1usion ofTheorem 10-6 is false if an infinite numbér of
n¡ o f: R -+ R¡ is itself a homomorphism for each value of i. ideals li are allowed. [Hint: Consider the ring Z and the ideals li = (p¡), where
Pi is the ith prime.]
3. Consider the complete direct sum ¿ El:> R¡. For a fixed index i, define the sets
12. a) Let al> a2' ... ,anbe a finite set ofnonzero elements ofthe principal ideal domain
1; = {aE¿ El:> R;ja(j) = Oforj =1= i}, R sueh that a¡ and aj are relatively prime for i =1= j. If a = lem (al> a2, ... ,' an),
J¡ = {a E ¿ El:> R;ja(i) = O}. show that RI(a) ~ ¿ EB (RI(a¡».
Verify that li and J¡ are both ideals of the ring ¿ El:> R¡ and that b) Prove that if the integer n > 1 has the prime faetorization n = p~'~2 ... p~',
then Z" ~ ¿ EB Zp,"
¿ El:> R¡ = 1¡ El:> J¡.
13. Let 1 l> 12 , ... , In be a finite set of ideals of the ring R. Prove that
4. Prove that a ring R is isomorphic to a subdireet sum of rings R¡ if and only if, for a) the ideals 1¡ are pairwise eomaximal if and only if their ni! radical s JI¡ are
eaeh i" there exists a homomorphism gl of R onto R¡ sueh that if Ú =1= rE R, then pairwise eomaximal;
gl(r) =1= Ofor at least one value ofi. [Hint: Assume that the stated eondition holds. b) if the ideals 11 are pairwise eomaximal, then their produet
For fixed rE R, define f,. E L El:> R¡ by f,.(i) = g¡(r). Now, eonsider the mapping
f: R -+ L El:> 'R¡ in whieh f(r) = f,..] 1112 ", In = 11 Il 12 Il ... Il In'

5. Establish that each of the given rings has a representation as a subdireet sum of [Hint: Use induetion on n. Notiee that In is eomaximal with 11 Il .:;; Il l n-l>
the ri~gs R¡{i = 1,2, 3, ... ): sinee ',,1',0',,'

a) zi R¡ = Zpl, where P is a fixed prime.

R = Rn = n(In + l i) S; In + (Il l i) S; R
b) Z; R¡ = Zp, where PI is an odd prime. ,
e) Z.;){¡ = Z~/(2¡). (In the situation eonsidered, (2¡) = {2¡r + 21nlr E Z.; n E Z} for 1 ::;; i ::;; n - 1.]
= 2¡Z.)
d) Z;i".R¡
= Z.I(Pi)' where p¡ is an odd prime.
14. Assume that the ring R is subdireetly irreducible. Establish that thereit::~ists an
element O =1= rE R with f(r) = O for every homomorphism f on R whieh is not
6. Suppós~ that R is isomorphie to a subdireet sum of the rings R¡ under the homo- one-to·one.
morphismf We say that the subdireet sum is irredundant ir, for eaeh indexj, the I
15. Prove that any subdireetly irreducible ring has eharacteristie zero or a pdwer of a
mapping h): R -+ ¿¡"'j EB Ri defined by hk) = f(r)I¿¡'fj El:> R¡ is not one-to-one
(that is, ker h) =1= {O}. prime. In partir;ular, eonclude that Zn is subdirectly irreducible if and 'only if n
1 is a power of a prime.
Prove the equivalenee ofthe foIlowing statements:
a) the subdirect sum ¿' EB R¡ is irredundant; , 16. If R is a subdireetly irreducible ring, show that O and 1 are the only idempotents
b) ker (nj o f) ;j2 ni"') ker (n¡ e f) for eaeh indexj;
n
e) thereexists a eollection ofideals {I¡} of R sueh that (1) RI ~ Rll¡, (2) 1¡ = {O},
of R. [Hint: For an idempotent e E R, consider the principal ideals (e) and

and (3) ni"') 1¡ =1= {O} for eaeh index j.

(1 - e).]

17. a) Verify that any subdirectly irreducible Boolean ring is a field.

7. GiventhattheringR = {(a,b)la,bEZ; a - bEZ.},showthatRisanirredundant
b) Prove that a ring R is a Boolean ring if and only if R is isomorphie to a sub-
subdirect sum (hut not the direct sum) of two copies of Z.
direet sum offields Z2' [Hint: Theorenl 10-9 and part (a).]
 T
216 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS

18. Prove that a ring R is subdirectIy irreducible ir and only ir R contains an element ELEVEN
r V with the Collowing two properties:
i) the principal ideal (r V ) has nonzero intersection with every nopzero ideal oC R;
ii) ann (r V) is a maximal ideal of R. .
[Hint: Assume the conditions and let a 1= O; from (a) () (r V ) 1= {O}; deduce that
(r V ) !;; (a).] .
19. Prove that the idempotent Boolean ring oC Z. is isomorphic to the Boolean ring
of 2/1 elements, where k is the number of distinct prime divísors oC n. [Hint: Shpw .
tllat Z. has exactly 2k idempotents or that X2 == x (med n) has 2& solutions;Jor
RINGS WITH CHAIN !(ONDITIONS
k > 1 use the Chin~se Remainder TheoreÍll.] ,ir..
,~.l í ,
(~:,
. ~;:':i ~:,
.
..... ',.
'(:1 :
In pursuit of the deeper results of ideal theory, it wiÚ;:Qe necessary to limit
ourselves somewhat and hereafter study special classe.s' ófrings. Noetherian
rings, which we are about to introduce, are particY:la:tly versatile. These
satisfya certain finiteness condition, namely, that e'Jlry ideal of the ring
should be finitely generated. As will be seen pre~~ntly, an equivalent
formulation oí the Noetherian requirement is that the ideals of the ring
satisfy the so-called ascending chain condition. From this idea, we are led
in a natural way to consider a number of results relevant to rings with
descending chain condition for ideals. Our investigation culminates in a
structure theorem for semisimple Artinian' rings which dates back to
. Wedderburn. (By a ring, we shall continue to mean a commutative ring
with identity.)
The foIlowing definition serves as a convenient starting point.

Definition 11-1. A ring R satisfieS;.. the ascending chaín condition for

ideals ir, given any sequence of ideáIs 1 i, 12 , ... of R with

there exists an integer n (deperÍding on the sequence) such that 1m = In

for all m ~ n.
Definition 11-1 amounts to saying that every infinite ascending chain
of ideals of R must "break off" at sorne point; that is, equality must hold
beyond sorne inde.x. In the case 01 noncommutative rings, it should be
apparent how to define the ascending chain condition for Ieft ideal s or for
right ideaIs.
We illustrate this idea with several examples.

Example 11-1. In a trivial sense (being simple rings), every fieId and the
ring M,,(F) of matrices over a field F satisfy the ascending chain condition.
So also do the rings Zn, for they have only a finite number of ideals.
217
 T
216 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS

18. Prove that a ring R is subdirectIy irreducible ir and only ir R contains an element ELEVEN
r V with the Collowing two properties:
i) the principal ideal (r V ) has nonzero intersection with every nopzero ideal oC R;
ii) ann (r V) is a maximal ideal of R. .
[Hint: Assume the conditions and let a 1= O; from (a) () (r V ) 1= {O}; deduce that
(r V ) !;; (a).] .
19. Prove that the idempotent Boolean ring oC Z. is isomorphic to the Boolean ring
of 2/1 elements, where k is the number of distinct prime divísors oC n. [Hint: Shpw .
tllat Z. has exactly 2k idempotents or that X2 == x (med n) has 2& solutions;Jor
RINGS WITH CHAIN !(ONDITIONS
k > 1 use the Chin~se Remainder TheoreÍll.] ,ir..
,~.l í ,
(~:,
. ~;:':i ~:,
.
..... ',.
'(:1 :
In pursuit of the deeper results of ideal theory, it wiÚ;:Qe necessary to limit
ourselves somewhat and hereafter study special classe.s' ófrings. Noetherian
rings, which we are about to introduce, are particY:la:tly versatile. These
satisfya certain finiteness condition, namely, that e'Jlry ideal of the ring
should be finitely generated. As will be seen pre~~ntly, an equivalent
formulation oí the Noetherian requirement is that the ideals of the ring
satisfy the so-called ascending chain condition. From this idea, we are led
in a natural way to consider a number of results relevant to rings with
descending chain condition for ideals. Our investigation culminates in a
structure theorem for semisimple Artinian' rings which dates back to
. Wedderburn. (By a ring, we shall continue to mean a commutative ring
with identity.)
The foIlowing definition serves as a convenient starting point.

Definition 11-1. A ring R satisfieS;.. the ascending chaín condition for

ideals ir, given any sequence of ideáIs 1 i, 12 , ... of R with

there exists an integer n (deperÍding on the sequence) such that 1m = In

for all m ~ n.
Definition 11-1 amounts to saying that every infinite ascending chain
of ideals of R must "break off" at sorne point; that is, equality must hold
beyond sorne inde.x. In the case 01 noncommutative rings, it should be
apparent how to define the ascending chain condition for Ieft ideal s or for
right ideaIs.
We illustrate this idea with several examples.

Example 11-1. In a trivial sense (being simple rings), every fieId and the
ring M,,(F) of matrices over a field F satisfy the ascending chain condition.
So also do the rings Zn, for they have only a finite number of ideals.
217
218 FIRST COURS.E IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Example 11-2. In the ring of integers, the inclusion (n) S;; (m) implies that
m divides n. Since a nonzero integer can have only a finite number of
distinct divisors, the ring Z evidently satisfies Definition 11-l.
Example 11-3. As a more interesting example, let us show that the
ascending chain condition is satisfied by any principal ideal ring R. For
this purpose, consider an increasing sequence of ideal s of R,
11 S;; 12 S;; ••• S;; In S;; ••••.
It is easily checked that the set theoretic union 1 = U In is also an ideal
of R. Moreover, since R is principal, we must have 1 = (a) for suitable
a E R. Now, the element a lies in one of the ideals of the union, say the
ideal In' For m ~ n, it then fo11ows that
1 = (a) S;; In S;; 1m S;; 1,
whence 1m = In' as desired.
Example 11-4. To provide an illustration of a ring in which the ascending
chain condition fails to hold, let R denote the co11ection of a11 firiite subsets
of Z+. Then (R,.1, n).is a commutative ring without identity (in fact, R .
is an ideal of the ring of sets P(Z +)). lf In = {l, 2, ... , n}, then the reader
may verify that
P(1 1 ) e P(I2) e P(1 3) c···
forms an increasing chain of ideals of R which terminates at no point.
Our first theorem establishes several equivalent formuhttions of the
ascending chain condition. Before presenÚ'ilg this, we make one definition.
i /L'" ~~ \
Definition 11-2. The maximum conditiQ1J..(for ideal s) is said to hold in
a ring R if every nonempty set of ic!eals of R, partiaUy ordered by
inclusion, has at least one maximal elenient (that is, an ideal which is
not properly contained in any other i4~~ of the set)..
We make immediate use of this idea i1l::~~roving
.~;(,¡.
Theorem 11-1. The fo11owing statem~p.ts concerning the ideals of a
ring R are equivalent:
1) R satisfies the ascending chain condition for ideals.
2) The maximum condition holds in R.
3) Every ideal of R is finitely generated.
Proof. With an eye to proving that the ascending chain condition implies
statement (2), let Y be a nonempty co11ection of ideals of R. We sha11
suppose that Y has no maximal element and derive a contradiction. Since
y is not empty, pick an ideal 11 E Y. By assumption, 1 1 cannot be maximal
RINGS WITH CHAIN CONDITIONS 219
in Y; hence, 1 1 is properly contained in sorne ideal 12 E Y. Likewise, 12
is not maximal, so there exists an ideal 13 in Y wiÍh 12 e 13' Continuing
. , in this fashion, we obtain an infinite ascending chain of ideals of R,
11 e 12 e 13 c···,
all ofwhose inclusions are proper; this violates the ascending chain condition.
We now assume that the maximum condition holds and let 1 beany
ideal of R. If 1 = {O}, then 1 is generated by one element, namely, O.
Otherwise, choose a' nonzero element al E l. Either the principal ideal
(al) = 1 and we are through, or else there is an element a2 E 1 which does
not lie in (al); then, (al) e (al' a 2) S;; l. Again, if (a 1 ,a2)=/= 1, there exists
sorne a3 in 1 such that (al' a 2) e (al' a2, a3)' This reasoning leads to an
ascending chain of ideals of R:
(al) e (al' a 2) e (al' a 2, a 3) e ....
The maximum condition assures uS that the aboye set of ideals possesses a
maximal element, say the ideal (al' a 2, ... ,an). Were 1 =/= (al' a 2, ... , an),
we could then find sorne a E 1 with a fj (al' a 2, ... , an); accordingly, the ideal
(a, al' ... , an) would properly contain (al' a 2, ... , an), which is impossible.
Thus, 1 is generated by the n elements al' a2, ... , an0
The proof of the theorem is completed by showing that (1) is a con-
sequence of (3). For this, as sume that we ha"e an ascending chain of ideals
of R,
and let 1 = U li' TheJi) is an ideal of R which, by hypothesis, must be
finitely generated; suppb"se, for instance, that 1 = (al' a 2, ... ,ar ). Now,
each generator ak is an elénient of sorne ideal!¡k ofthe given chain. Choosing
n to be the largest of the indices ik , it fo11ows that a11 the ak lie in the ideal
In' But then, for m ~ ~> .
1 = (~i, a2 , .•• , ar ) S;; In S;; 1m S;; 1;
hence,lm = In' Our argurnent shows that every ascending chain of ideals
R terminates at sorne point.
Rings satisfying any one of the three equivalent conditions of Theorern
11-1 (hence, a11 three cohditions) are ca11ed Noetherian rings, in honor of
Ernrny Noether, who first initiated their study. The fact that, when dealing
with Noetherian rings, we can restrict our attention to finitely generated
ideals is of great advantage; the next two results should arnply illustrate
this.
Theorem 11-2. If 1 is an ideal of the Noetherian ring R, then 1 contains
sorne power of its nil radical; that is, (Ji)n S;; 1 for sorne n E Z +.
218 FIRST COURS.E IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Example 11-2. In the ring of integers, the inclusion (n) S;; (m) implies that
m divides n. Since a nonzero integer can have only a finite number of
distinct divisors, the ring Z evidently satisfies Definition 11-l.
Example 11-3. As a more interesting example, let us show that the
ascending chain condition is satisfied by any principal ideal ring R. For
this purpose, consider an increasing sequence of ideal s of R,
11 S;; 12 S;; ••• S;; In S;; ••••.
It is easily checked that the set theoretic union 1 = U In is also an ideal
of R. Moreover, since R is principal, we must have 1 = (a) for suitable
a E R. Now, the element a lies in one of the ideals of the union, say the
ideal In' For m ~ n, it then fo11ows that
1 = (a) S;; In S;; 1m S;; 1,
whence 1m = In' as desired.
Example 11-4. To provide an illustration of a ring in which the ascending
chain condition fails to hold, let R denote the co11ection of a11 firiite subsets
of Z+. Then (R,.1, n).is a commutative ring without identity (in fact, R .
is an ideal of the ring of sets P(Z +)). lf In = {l, 2, ... , n}, then the reader
may verify that
P(1 1 ) e P(I2) e P(1 3) c···
forms an increasing chain of ideals of R which terminates at no point.
Our first theorem establishes several equivalent formuhttions of the
ascending chain condition. Before presenÚ'ilg this, we make one definition.
i /L'" ~~ \
Definition 11-2. The maximum conditiQ1J..(for ideal s) is said to hold in
a ring R if every nonempty set of ic!eals of R, partiaUy ordered by
inclusion, has at least one maximal elenient (that is, an ideal which is
not properly contained in any other i4~~ of the set)..
We make immediate use of this idea i1l::~~roving
.~;(,¡.
Theorem 11-1. The fo11owing statem~p.ts concerning the ideals of a
ring R are equivalent:
1) R satisfies the ascending chain condition for ideals.
2) The maximum condition holds in R.
3) Every ideal of R is finitely generated.
Proof. With an eye to proving that the ascending chain condition implies
statement (2), let Y be a nonempty co11ection of ideals of R. We sha11
suppose that Y has no maximal element and derive a contradiction. Since
y is not empty, pick an ideal 11 E Y. By assumption, 1 1 cannot be maximal
RINGS WITH CHAIN CONDITIONS 219
in Y; hence, 1 1 is properly contained in sorne ideal 12 E Y. Likewise, 12
is not maximal, so there exists an ideal 13 in Y wiÍh 12 e 13' Continuing
. , in this fashion, we obtain an infinite ascending chain of ideals of R,
11 e 12 e 13 c···,
all ofwhose inclusions are proper; this violates the ascending chain condition.
We now assume that the maximum condition holds and let 1 beany
ideal of R. If 1 = {O}, then 1 is generated by one element, namely, O.
Otherwise, choose a' nonzero element al E l. Either the principal ideal
(al) = 1 and we are through, or else there is an element a2 E 1 which does
not lie in (al); then, (al) e (al' a 2) S;; l. Again, if (a 1 ,a2)=/= 1, there exists
sorne a3 in 1 such that (al' a 2) e (al' a2, a3)' This reasoning leads to an
ascending chain of ideals of R:
(al) e (al' a 2) e (al' a 2, a 3) e ....
The maximum condition assures uS that the aboye set of ideals possesses a
maximal element, say the ideal (al' a 2, ... ,an). Were 1 =/= (al' a 2, ... , an),
we could then find sorne a E 1 with a fj (al' a 2, ... , an); accordingly, the ideal
(a, al' ... , an) would properly contain (al' a 2, ... , an), which is impossible.
Thus, 1 is generated by the n elements al' a2, ... , an0
The proof of the theorem is completed by showing that (1) is a con-
sequence of (3). For this, as sume that we ha"e an ascending chain of ideals
of R,
and let 1 = U li' TheJi) is an ideal of R which, by hypothesis, must be
finitely generated; suppb"se, for instance, that 1 = (al' a 2, ... ,ar ). Now,
each generator ak is an elénient of sorne ideal!¡k ofthe given chain. Choosing
n to be the largest of the indices ik , it fo11ows that a11 the ak lie in the ideal
In' But then, for m ~ ~> .
1 = (~i, a2 , .•• , ar ) S;; In S;; 1m S;; 1;
hence,lm = In' Our argurnent shows that every ascending chain of ideals
R terminates at sorne point.
Rings satisfying any one of the three equivalent conditions of Theorern
11-1 (hence, a11 three cohditions) are ca11ed Noetherian rings, in honor of
Ernrny Noether, who first initiated their study. The fact that, when dealing
with Noetherian rings, we can restrict our attention to finitely generated
ideals is of great advantage; the next two results should arnply illustrate
this.
Theorem 11-2. If 1 is an ideal of the Noetherian ring R, then 1 contains
sorne power of its nil radical; that is, (Ji)n S;; 1 for sorne n E Z +.
220 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
r
I
RINGS WITH CHA1N CONDJTIONS 221

Proa! In view of Theorem 11-1, JI is a finitely generated ideal, say condition holds in R, there exists an integer n such that 1k = In for aH k ~ n.
.JI = (al' a~, ... "a m )· Since each a¡E.JI, there exist positive integers n¡ Moreover, each of the ideal s 1¡ (i = 1,2, ... , n) has a finite basis, say
for which aí' E l. Take n = n1 + n2 + ... + nm· Now, a generating system
for (.JI)n is provided by the products a1 1 a~2 ... a~,,; where k¡ E Z ' and (i = 0, 1.... , n),
n = k 1 + k 2 + ... + km' But, if
where a¡j is the leading coefficient of !;j(x), a polynomial of degree i in l.
k1 + k2 + ... + km = n1 + n2 + ... + nm, We now set ourse1ves to the prime task of proving that the mo + ... + mn
polynomials !;)x) generate l.
then we must have k¡ ~ n¡ for sorne index, i (i = 1, 2, ... ,m). This implies The ideal J = (foü .... ,JOmo, : .. ,f,,1' ... ,JnmJ is finitely generated and,
that a~' El, hence that the dement a1 1 a~2 :/:, a~m E l. Since aH the generators by our choice of the j';j(x), must be contained in l. To obtain the reverse
of (.JI)n lie in 1, it foHows that (.JI)n S; l.":'
. ~ '.-
inc1usiori and thereby complete the proof, consider an arbitrary polynomial
Corollary. Let Q be a primary ideah.of the Noetherian ring R and 1 f(x) E 1, say, of degren.:~,r .
:, :
and J be ideals with 1J S; Q. Then,:.~ither 1 S; Q or else (JJ)n S; Q f(x) ~'. b.o + b 1x +' ... + br _ 1x r - 1 + bx'.
for sorne n E Z+. ' .,','
Proa! Taking stock of Problem 24(c),¿~apter 5, the condition 1J S; Q The argument procee~rby induction on r. If r = 0, then we have f(x) =
implies that either 1 S; Q or there existS:;,a positive integer m for which bo E los; J and nothin~ needs to be prQven. Next, assume inductively that
¡m ~ Q. Since R is Noetherian, we also liiÍve (.jJ)k S; J fol' sorne k E Z+.
any polynomial of degree r - 1lying in 1 also belongs to the ideal generated
This being so,
~~k~ , '
When l' > n, the leading coefficient b E Ir = In and one may write

which is what had to be proven.

for suitable choice of CíE R. Then the polynomial
The Hilbert Basis Theorem asserts that if R is a Noetherian ring (com-
rnutative with identity), then the polynomial ring R[ x] inherits this property. f1(X) = f(x) - x r - n(C 1f,,1(X) + c2fn2(X) + ... + cmnf"m.(x))
Since any principal ideal domain and, in particular, any fie1d, is Noetherian,
Hilbert's Theorem pro vides us with a rather extensive c1a.ss of Noetherian belongs to 1 and has degree les S than r; indeed, the coefficient of x' in this
pplynomial is . .
rings. The proof is somewhat demanding, but the result so elegant, that we
mn
hope aH readers will work through the details. b - L c¡a., = O.
¡=1
Theorem 11-3. (Hilbert Basis Theorern). If R is a Noetherian ring,
then the polynomial ring R[x] is al so Noetherian. (Notice particular1y thatf1(x) differs fromf(x) by an element of J.) At this
Proo! Let 1 be an arbitrary nonzero ideal of R[x]' To prove that R[x] point, theinductive assumption can be applied to f1(X) to conc1ude that
is Noetherian, it is enough to show that 1, is finite1y generated. For each f1(X) and, in turn,f(x) lie in the ideal J.
integer k ~ 0, we first consider the set· 1k consisting of zero and those If r :s; n, a similar line of reasoning can be employed. Indeed, since
element~ rE R which appear as the leading (nonzero) coefficient of sorne bE 1" we can always find elements d 1 , d2 , ... , dm• in R such that the
polynomial
polynomial of degree k lying in 1 :
k
1~ = {r E Rla o + a1x + ... + I'X E I} U {O}.
I t is easily checked that 1k forms an ideal of the ring R with 1k S; 1k+ l' is an e1ement of 1 with degree r - 1 oro less. In either case, our argument
(The second assertion follows from the fact that if r E 1k' then r occurs as leads to the inclusion 1 S; J and the subsequént equality 1 = J.
the leading coefficient of ~+ 1 when the corresponding polynomial is multi- By induction, Hilbert's Theorem can be extended to polynomials in
plied by x; hence, r E 1k+1') Since we are assuming that the ascending chain several indeterminants.
220 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
r
I
RINGS WITH CHA1N CONDJTIONS 221

Proa! In view of Theorem 11-1, JI is a finitely generated ideal, say condition holds in R, there exists an integer n such that 1k = In for aH k ~ n.
.JI = (al' a~, ... "a m )· Since each a¡E.JI, there exist positive integers n¡ Moreover, each of the ideal s 1¡ (i = 1,2, ... , n) has a finite basis, say
for which aí' E l. Take n = n1 + n2 + ... + nm· Now, a generating system
for (.JI)n is provided by the products a1 1 a~2 ... a~,,; where k¡ E Z ' and (i = 0, 1.... , n),
n = k 1 + k 2 + ... + km' But, if
where a¡j is the leading coefficient of !;j(x), a polynomial of degree i in l.
k1 + k2 + ... + km = n1 + n2 + ... + nm, We now set ourse1ves to the prime task of proving that the mo + ... + mn
polynomials !;)x) generate l.
then we must have k¡ ~ n¡ for sorne index, i (i = 1, 2, ... ,m). This implies The ideal J = (foü .... ,JOmo, : .. ,f,,1' ... ,JnmJ is finitely generated and,
that a~' El, hence that the dement a1 1 a~2 :/:, a~m E l. Since aH the generators by our choice of the j';j(x), must be contained in l. To obtain the reverse
of (.JI)n lie in 1, it foHows that (.JI)n S; l.":'
. ~ '.-
inc1usiori and thereby complete the proof, consider an arbitrary polynomial
Corollary. Let Q be a primary ideah.of the Noetherian ring R and 1 f(x) E 1, say, of degren.:~,r .
:, :
and J be ideals with 1J S; Q. Then,:.~ither 1 S; Q or else (JJ)n S; Q f(x) ~'. b.o + b 1x +' ... + br _ 1x r - 1 + bx'.
for sorne n E Z+. ' .,','
Proa! Taking stock of Problem 24(c),¿~apter 5, the condition 1J S; Q The argument procee~rby induction on r. If r = 0, then we have f(x) =
implies that either 1 S; Q or there existS:;,a positive integer m for which bo E los; J and nothin~ needs to be prQven. Next, assume inductively that
¡m ~ Q. Since R is Noetherian, we also liiÍve (.jJ)k S; J fol' sorne k E Z+.
any polynomial of degree r - 1lying in 1 also belongs to the ideal generated
This being so,
~~k~ , '
When l' > n, the leading coefficient b E Ir = In and one may write

which is what had to be proven.

for suitable choice of CíE R. Then the polynomial
The Hilbert Basis Theorem asserts that if R is a Noetherian ring (com-
rnutative with identity), then the polynomial ring R[ x] inherits this property. f1(X) = f(x) - x r - n(C 1f,,1(X) + c2fn2(X) + ... + cmnf"m.(x))
Since any principal ideal domain and, in particular, any fie1d, is Noetherian,
Hilbert's Theorem pro vides us with a rather extensive c1a.ss of Noetherian belongs to 1 and has degree les S than r; indeed, the coefficient of x' in this
pplynomial is . .
rings. The proof is somewhat demanding, but the result so elegant, that we
mn
hope aH readers will work through the details. b - L c¡a., = O.
¡=1
Theorem 11-3. (Hilbert Basis Theorern). If R is a Noetherian ring,
then the polynomial ring R[x] is al so Noetherian. (Notice particular1y thatf1(x) differs fromf(x) by an element of J.) At this
Proo! Let 1 be an arbitrary nonzero ideal of R[x]' To prove that R[x] point, theinductive assumption can be applied to f1(X) to conc1ude that
is Noetherian, it is enough to show that 1, is finite1y generated. For each f1(X) and, in turn,f(x) lie in the ideal J.
integer k ~ 0, we first consider the set· 1k consisting of zero and those If r :s; n, a similar line of reasoning can be employed. Indeed, since
element~ rE R which appear as the leading (nonzero) coefficient of sorne bE 1" we can always find elements d 1 , d2 , ... , dm• in R such that the
polynomial
polynomial of degree k lying in 1 :
k
1~ = {r E Rla o + a1x + ... + I'X E I} U {O}.
I t is easily checked that 1k forms an ideal of the ring R with 1k S; 1k+ l' is an e1ement of 1 with degree r - 1 oro less. In either case, our argument
(The second assertion follows from the fact that if r E 1k' then r occurs as leads to the inclusion 1 S; J and the subsequént equality 1 = J.
the leading coefficient of ~+ 1 when the corresponding polynomial is multi- By induction, Hilbert's Theorem can be extended to polynomials in
plied by x; hence, r E 1k+1') Since we are assuming that the ascending chain several indeterminants.
 222 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Corollary. If R is a Noetherían ring, then so is the polynomial ring
in a finit~ number of indeterminants Xl' Xl' ••• , X •.
R[Xl' Xl' ... , X.]
We recall that an ideal 1 is nilpotent provided that there exists an integer
n for which 111 = {O}, whereas 1 is said to be a ni! ideal if every element of
1 is nilpotent. It is not hard to see that any nilpotent ideal is a nil ideal.
Levitsky proved that for Noetherian rings the converse also holds: nil ideals
are nilpótent. This fact is brought out as a corolIary to our next theorem.
Theorem 11-4. (Levitsky). In a Noetherian ring R, the prime radical
Rad R is the largest nilpotent ideal of R.
Proof. .At the outset, observe that since R is Noetherian, we can use the
maximum condition to select an ideal N of R which is maximal with respect
to being nilpotent Our contention is that N is the largest nilpotent ideal
of R (in the sense of containing a11 other nilpotent ideals). To set this in
evidence, let N 1 be an arbitrary nilpotent ideal of R, say N~ = {O}; assume
further that Ni = {O}. Tben (N + N ly+k {O}, so that the ideal N + N 1
is nilpotent. From the inclusion N S;;; N + N 1 and the maximal property
of N, it follows that N = N + NI' One is then left with Ni S;;; N, which
settles the point. Now every nilpotent ideal must also be nil and thus
N S;;; Rad R by the corollary to Theorem 8-8. To derive the reverse
inc1usion, assume that a + N is any nilpotent element of the quotient ring
RfN. Then a" + N = (a + N)" = N for some n E Z +, implying that
a" E N. Becau$e N is a nil ideal, there exists a positive integer m for which
(a"'j" ,,;. 0, and so a is nilpotent as an element of R. This being the case, we
conc1ude that the principal ideal (a) is nilpotent; hence, (a) S;;; N, by the
maximality of N. Tbe rest should be c1ear: since a E (a) S;;; N, the coset
d':+- N = N.
" Our reasoning shows that the quotient ring R/N contains no nonzero
nilpotent elements, which is to say that R/N has zero prime radical. But it
is aIready known that Rad R is the smallest ideal of R possessing a quotient
ring without prime radical (Theorem 8-12). Tberefore, Rad R S;;; N, which
yields the desired equality N = Rad R; the theorem is now established.
As corollaries we have
Corollary 1. In a Noetherian ring, any nil ideal is nilpotent.
Proo! The proof amounts to the observation that any nil ideal is contained
in the prime radical of a ringo
Corollary 2. A semisimple N oetherian ring contains no nonzero
nilpotent ideals.
The breakdown of Levitsky's Theorem is rather dramatic when one
replaces the prime radical by the Jacobson radical. The foIlowing example
RINGS WITH CHAIN CONDITIONS 223
will serve as a simple illustration: in a power series ring F[[x]] over a field
F, rad F[[x]] = (x), but
(X)" = (x") :/= {O}
ror all n E Z + (Problem 1, Chapter 7).
Let us now broaden the outlook by considering rings with the descending
chain condition.
Definition 11-3. A ring R is said to satisry the descending chain condition
ror ideals ir, given any descending chain of ideals of R,
there exists an integer n such that 1" 111+1 = 1.+2 =
As in Theorem 11-1, this definition leads to
Theorem 11-5. The following statements concerning the ideals of a
ring R are equivalent:
1) R satisfies the descending chain condition for ideals.
2) Every nonempty set of ideals of R, partial1y ordered by inclusion,
contains a mínimal element (the mínimum condítion holds).
A ring satisfying either bf these conditions is said to be Artinian (after
Emíl Artin).
It would be repetitious to prove this modified version ofTheorem 11-1
and we shall refrain from doing so. However, lest some re.ader try to obtain
the exact analog for Artinian ríngs ofTheorem 11-1, we hasten to point out
.
that every ideal in the ring Z of integers is finitely gener.~t~d, but Z is not
Artinian. Indeed, if(n) is any nonzero ideal of Z, then (2n)~ls'~ nonzero ideal
proper1y contained in (n); thus, the set of all nonzero i4e~ls of Z has no
minimal element. .
In the light of the equivalence of the ascending (descending) chain
condition with the maximum (minimum) condition, the two will be used
interchangeably. Certain results are more easily proved 'in terms of one
than the other, and convenience will be our guidé. '
Example 11-5. Tbe statement of the Hilbert Basis Tbeorem is no longer
true ir Artinian is subtituted for Noetherian. For example, if F is any field,
then
(x) ~ {X2) ~ (x 3) ~ •..
is a strictly descending chain of principal ideals oC F[x]. Thus, the
descending chain condition fails to be satisfied in F[ X J.
 222 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Corollary. If R is a Noetherían ring, then so is the polynomial ring
in a finit~ number of indeterminants Xl' Xl' ••• , X •.
R[Xl' Xl' ... , X.]
We recall that an ideal 1 is nilpotent provided that there exists an integer
n for which 111 = {O}, whereas 1 is said to be a ni! ideal if every element of
1 is nilpotent. It is not hard to see that any nilpotent ideal is a nil ideal.
Levitsky proved that for Noetherian rings the converse also holds: nil ideals
are nilpótent. This fact is brought out as a corolIary to our next theorem.
Theorem 11-4. (Levitsky). In a Noetherian ring R, the prime radical
Rad R is the largest nilpotent ideal of R.
Proof. .At the outset, observe that since R is Noetherian, we can use the
maximum condition to select an ideal N of R which is maximal with respect
to being nilpotent Our contention is that N is the largest nilpotent ideal
of R (in the sense of containing a11 other nilpotent ideals). To set this in
evidence, let N 1 be an arbitrary nilpotent ideal of R, say N~ = {O}; assume
further that Ni = {O}. Tben (N + N ly+k {O}, so that the ideal N + N 1
is nilpotent. From the inclusion N S;;; N + N 1 and the maximal property
of N, it follows that N = N + NI' One is then left with Ni S;;; N, which
settles the point. Now every nilpotent ideal must also be nil and thus
N S;;; Rad R by the corollary to Theorem 8-8. To derive the reverse
inc1usion, assume that a + N is any nilpotent element of the quotient ring
RfN. Then a" + N = (a + N)" = N for some n E Z +, implying that
a" E N. Becau$e N is a nil ideal, there exists a positive integer m for which
(a"'j" ,,;. 0, and so a is nilpotent as an element of R. This being the case, we
conc1ude that the principal ideal (a) is nilpotent; hence, (a) S;;; N, by the
maximality of N. Tbe rest should be c1ear: since a E (a) S;;; N, the coset
d':+- N = N.
" Our reasoning shows that the quotient ring R/N contains no nonzero
nilpotent elements, which is to say that R/N has zero prime radical. But it
is aIready known that Rad R is the smallest ideal of R possessing a quotient
ring without prime radical (Theorem 8-12). Tberefore, Rad R S;;; N, which
yields the desired equality N = Rad R; the theorem is now established.
As corollaries we have
Corollary 1. In a Noetherian ring, any nil ideal is nilpotent.
Proo! The proof amounts to the observation that any nil ideal is contained
in the prime radical of a ringo
Corollary 2. A semisimple N oetherian ring contains no nonzero
nilpotent ideals.
The breakdown of Levitsky's Theorem is rather dramatic when one
replaces the prime radical by the Jacobson radical. The foIlowing example
RINGS WITH CHAIN CONDITIONS 223
will serve as a simple illustration: in a power series ring F[[x]] over a field
F, rad F[[x]] = (x), but
(X)" = (x") :/= {O}
ror all n E Z + (Problem 1, Chapter 7).
Let us now broaden the outlook by considering rings with the descending
chain condition.
Definition 11-3. A ring R is said to satisry the descending chain condition
ror ideals ir, given any descending chain of ideals of R,
there exists an integer n such that 1" 111+1 = 1.+2 =
As in Theorem 11-1, this definition leads to
Theorem 11-5. The following statements concerning the ideals of a
ring R are equivalent:
1) R satisfies the descending chain condition for ideals.
2) Every nonempty set of ideals of R, partial1y ordered by inclusion,
contains a mínimal element (the mínimum condítion holds).
A ring satisfying either bf these conditions is said to be Artinian (after
Emíl Artin).
It would be repetitious to prove this modified version ofTheorem 11-1
and we shall refrain from doing so. However, lest some re.ader try to obtain
the exact analog for Artinian ríngs ofTheorem 11-1, we hasten to point out
.
that every ideal in the ring Z of integers is finitely gener.~t~d, but Z is not
Artinian. Indeed, if(n) is any nonzero ideal of Z, then (2n)~ls'~ nonzero ideal
proper1y contained in (n); thus, the set of all nonzero i4e~ls of Z has no
minimal element. .
In the light of the equivalence of the ascending (descending) chain
condition with the maximum (minimum) condition, the two will be used
interchangeably. Certain results are more easily proved 'in terms of one
than the other, and convenience will be our guidé. '
Example 11-5. Tbe statement of the Hilbert Basis Tbeorem is no longer
true ir Artinian is subtituted for Noetherian. For example, if F is any field,
then
(x) ~ {X2) ~ (x 3) ~ •..
is a strictly descending chain of principal ideals oC F[x]. Thus, the
descending chain condition fails to be satisfied in F[ X J.
 224 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS RINGS WITH CHAIN CONDITlONS 225

Example 11-6. Consider the ring R = mapR# ofreal-valued funetions on In the sequel, ther~ occur eertain results which hold for both Noetherian
R #. Given im arbitrary real number r > O, we define and Artinian rings. Where the proofs are virtually the same, our policy
will be to establish the theoremin question only in the Noetherian case.
Ir = {fE RI!(x) O for -r :5; X :5; r}. Let us first show that the chain conditions are not deStroyed by homo-
Then Ir is an ideal of R and it is not difficult to seethat morphisms. '

, ... c: 13 c:: 12 c: I1 C; I 1/ 2 c: I 1 / 3 c: .... Theorem 11-6. If R is a Noetherian (Artinian) ring, then any homo-
morphic image of R is also Noetherian (Artinian) .. ,!:
)rhe iQlplication lS that R eontains ascending and descending chains that do'
:)ot becomestationary, whenee R is neither Artinian nor Noetherian. It~'i¡ ProoJ. Let f be a homomorphism of the Noetherían ti,p.g R onto the ring ,
'ís perhaps appropriate to call attention to the ,fact that eaeh of the ideals";: R' and consider any aseending chain 1'1 s; 1; s; ... s;:J~ s; ... of ideals of
'Jr is properly contained in the maximal ideal M = {fE Rlf(O) = O}. "" R '. Put Ik = f-l(Ik), for, k = 1,2,.... Then 1 1 s;t;i. s; ... s; In S; ...
forms an ascending ehain of ideals of R which, accordil1 gto our hypothesis,
: "Example 11-7. We next give' an example oC an Artinian ring which is not':¡ must eventually be constant; that is, there is sorne index:f¡ such tha t I m = I n
,Noetherian. For this"purpose, let p be a fixed prime. Consider the group~"A
J •

for all m ~ n. Takíng stock of the fact that fis an ootó mapping, we have
p::;Z(pOO) of all rational 1'l,umbers r between O and 1 of the form r = m/P~;,:} , f(I k ) = I~. Hence, l~ = I~, whenever m ~ n, so tbat\Jhe original chain
(y..here m is an arbitrary integer and n runs through the nonnegative integers':,~:\ also stabilizes at some point. . ';'. :::
'<':'"~nder the operation of addhion modulo 1: : : ¡ \ ¡ ¡
Lettingfbe the natural mapping, we have as a co~61Iary:
Z(pOO) = {mjpnlO :s; m < pn; mEZ; n = 0,1,2, ... }. '
Corollary. If lis an ideal of the Noetherian (Artinian) ring R, then the
We make Z(pOO) into a ring (without identity) by defining the produet ab quotient ring Rj1 is Noetherian (Artiniílll).
to be zero forall a, bE Z(p""). It is important to observe that the ideals of
Further progress will be facilitated by the technical lemma below.
the resulting ring are simply the subgroups of the additive group of Z(pOO).
Now, let I be any nontrivial ideal of Z(pOO) and choose kto be the smaIlest Lernma. Ir 1, 1, and K are ideal s of a ring R such that
positive integer such that for some a, ajpk 1 I; we implicitly assume that a (1) 1 ~ K, (2) 1 n I = K nI, and (3) Jj1 = Kj1,
and p are relatively prime. Then I must contain aH the elements 0, 1jl~ 1, then 1 K. .
2jpk-1, ... ,(pk-l l)jpk~l. Our contention is that these are theonly
members of l. To support tbis, suppose to the contrary that bjpi E I, where ProoJ. EvidentIy, we need only establish the inclusion K S; 1. To this
i ¿ k and, of course, b and p are relatively prime. One can then find integers purpose, seleet any, member k of K. On the basís of (3), thereexists an
r, s for which rb + sp = 1. Sinceboth the rational numbers (reduced elementj El for whichj + 1 = k + 1, which signifies that k - j = i for
modulo 1) some choice of i in l. But, since 1 S; K, the difference k - j also líes in the
ideal K. Using eondition (2), we thus find that
and
i = k - j E 1n K = J n I,
He in I, it follows that (rb + Sp)jpk 1jpk also belongs to 1, contradicting
therninimaJity of k. Thus, the ideal 1 is finite and is given by and, in consequence, k = i +j E 1.
This faet ü¡ enough to enableus to prove a partíal converse of the last
coróllary. ' .
Representing 1 by the symbol1 k _ 1, we eonclude that the only ideals of Theorem 11-7. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. If 1 and R/ I are both
Z(pOO) are those which appear in the chain Noetherian (Artinian) rings, then R is also Noetherian (Artinian).
{O} e 11 c: 12 c: ... e 1k c: ... e Z(paJ). ProoJ. To begin, let 1 1
~ 1 2 s;;; .. , S;;; 1 n S;;; ... be any ascending chain of
ideals of R. Fromthis, we may eonstruct a chain ofideals of 1,
Therefore, Z(p"") possesses an infinite (strict1y) ascending chain of ideals, but
any descending chain is of finite length. 11 n 1 ~ 12 n 1 ~ '" s;;; ln nI S;;; ... ,
 224 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS RINGS WITH CHAIN CONDITlONS 225

Example 11-6. Consider the ring R = mapR# ofreal-valued funetions on In the sequel, ther~ occur eertain results which hold for both Noetherian
R #. Given im arbitrary real number r > O, we define and Artinian rings. Where the proofs are virtually the same, our policy
will be to establish the theoremin question only in the Noetherian case.
Ir = {fE RI!(x) O for -r :5; X :5; r}. Let us first show that the chain conditions are not deStroyed by homo-
Then Ir is an ideal of R and it is not difficult to seethat morphisms. '

, ... c: 13 c:: 12 c: I1 C; I 1/ 2 c: I 1 / 3 c: .... Theorem 11-6. If R is a Noetherian (Artinian) ring, then any homo-
morphic image of R is also Noetherian (Artinian) .. ,!:
)rhe iQlplication lS that R eontains ascending and descending chains that do'
:)ot becomestationary, whenee R is neither Artinian nor Noetherian. It~'i¡ ProoJ. Let f be a homomorphism of the Noetherían ti,p.g R onto the ring ,
'ís perhaps appropriate to call attention to the ,fact that eaeh of the ideals";: R' and consider any aseending chain 1'1 s; 1; s; ... s;:J~ s; ... of ideals of
'Jr is properly contained in the maximal ideal M = {fE Rlf(O) = O}. "" R '. Put Ik = f-l(Ik), for, k = 1,2,.... Then 1 1 s;t;i. s; ... s; In S; ...
forms an ascending ehain of ideals of R which, accordil1 gto our hypothesis,
: "Example 11-7. We next give' an example oC an Artinian ring which is not':¡ must eventually be constant; that is, there is sorne index:f¡ such tha t I m = I n
,Noetherian. For this"purpose, let p be a fixed prime. Consider the group~"A
J •

for all m ~ n. Takíng stock of the fact that fis an ootó mapping, we have
p::;Z(pOO) of all rational 1'l,umbers r between O and 1 of the form r = m/P~;,:} , f(I k ) = I~. Hence, l~ = I~, whenever m ~ n, so tbat\Jhe original chain
(y..here m is an arbitrary integer and n runs through the nonnegative integers':,~:\ also stabilizes at some point. . ';'. :::
'<':'"~nder the operation of addhion modulo 1: : : ¡ \ ¡ ¡
Lettingfbe the natural mapping, we have as a co~61Iary:
Z(pOO) = {mjpnlO :s; m < pn; mEZ; n = 0,1,2, ... }. '
Corollary. If lis an ideal of the Noetherian (Artinian) ring R, then the
We make Z(pOO) into a ring (without identity) by defining the produet ab quotient ring Rj1 is Noetherian (Artiniílll).
to be zero forall a, bE Z(p""). It is important to observe that the ideals of
Further progress will be facilitated by the technical lemma below.
the resulting ring are simply the subgroups of the additive group of Z(pOO).
Now, let I be any nontrivial ideal of Z(pOO) and choose kto be the smaIlest Lernma. Ir 1, 1, and K are ideal s of a ring R such that
positive integer such that for some a, ajpk 1 I; we implicitly assume that a (1) 1 ~ K, (2) 1 n I = K nI, and (3) Jj1 = Kj1,
and p are relatively prime. Then I must contain aH the elements 0, 1jl~ 1, then 1 K. .
2jpk-1, ... ,(pk-l l)jpk~l. Our contention is that these are theonly
members of l. To support tbis, suppose to the contrary that bjpi E I, where ProoJ. EvidentIy, we need only establish the inclusion K S; 1. To this
i ¿ k and, of course, b and p are relatively prime. One can then find integers purpose, seleet any, member k of K. On the basís of (3), thereexists an
r, s for which rb + sp = 1. Sinceboth the rational numbers (reduced elementj El for whichj + 1 = k + 1, which signifies that k - j = i for
modulo 1) some choice of i in l. But, since 1 S; K, the difference k - j also líes in the
ideal K. Using eondition (2), we thus find that
and
i = k - j E 1n K = J n I,
He in I, it follows that (rb + Sp)jpk 1jpk also belongs to 1, contradicting
therninimaJity of k. Thus, the ideal 1 is finite and is given by and, in consequence, k = i +j E 1.
This faet ü¡ enough to enableus to prove a partíal converse of the last
coróllary. ' .
Representing 1 by the symbol1 k _ 1, we eonclude that the only ideals of Theorem 11-7. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R. If 1 and R/ I are both
Z(pOO) are those which appear in the chain Noetherian (Artinian) rings, then R is also Noetherian (Artinian).
{O} e 11 c: 12 c: ... e 1k c: ... e Z(paJ). ProoJ. To begin, let 1 1
~ 1 2 s;;; .. , S;;; 1 n S;;; ... be any ascending chain of
ideals of R. Fromthis, we may eonstruct a chain ofideals of 1,
Therefore, Z(p"") possesses an infinite (strict1y) ascending chain of ideals, but
any descending chain is of finite length. 11 n 1 ~ 12 n 1 ~ '" s;;; ln nI S;;; ... ,
 226 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
as well as a chain of ideals of the quotient ring Rll,
where
Since we are told that 1 and Rll are both Noetherian, each of these chains
becomes stationary from sorne point on; say after r and s steps, respectively.
Now, take the integer n to be the larger of r and s, so that
J", nI = J n n 1 and
for alI m ~ n. This being the case, an invocation ofthe lemma is permissible;
it folIows that J m = J n whenever m ~ n, whence R comprises a Noetherian
ringo
Artinian rings are generalIy more restrictive than Noetherian rings; for
instance, the only integral domains which satisfy the descending chain
condition are fields (this 1S not to suggest, however, that Artinian rings are
without interest).
Theorem 11-8. Any Artinian domain R (integral domain and Artinian
ring) is a field.
Proof. It obviously suffices to show that each nonzero element of R has a
multiplicative in verse. Thus, suppose that a =1= O in R and consider the
descending chain of ideals
(a) ~ (a 2) ~ {a 3 ) ~ ....
By the descending chain condition, this chain must be of finite length, say
(a) ~ (a 2) ~ ... ~ (anfe:: (a n + l ) = (a n + 2) = ....
:~ .~'
Then there exists an element r E Rs~ch that an = ra n + l ; using the cancelIa-
tion law, it folIows that 1 = ra, whjch, pro ves our assertion.
Corollary. An integral domain 'with only a finite number of ideal s is a
field.
With the aid of this result, we cannow prove that in the presence of the
descending chain condition the Jacobson radical and prime radical coincide.
Theorem 11-9. If R is an Artinian ring, then every proper prime ideal
of R is a maximal ideal. . in other words, (1 - b)c = 1 for suitable e E R. We then have
Proof. Suppose that 1 is a proper prime ideal of R. Then, the quotient ring
Rll forms an integral domain which satisfies the descending chain condition
because R does. It folIows from Theorem 11-8 that Rll must be a field,
whence 1 is a maximal ideal of R.
CorolJary. In any Artinian ring R, rad R = Rad R.
RINGS WITH CHAIN CONDITIONS 227
One can say considerably more about the ideal structure of an Artinian
ring R: R has only a finite number of prime (hence, .maximal) ideals. For,
suppose that there exists an infinite sequence {P¡} of distinct proper prime
ideals of R. We would then be able to form a descending chain of ideals
PI ~ P IP 2 ~ P I P 2P 3 ~ ....
Since R is Artinian, there exists a positive integer n for which
PIP2 Pn = P I P 2 ... PnP n+ l •
...
It folIows from this that P I P 2 '" Pn S; Pn+ l , whence P k S; P n+ 1 for sorne
k ::; n. But P k is a maximal ideal of R, so that we must have P k = Pn+l'
contrary to the fact that the Pi are distinct. These observations are sum-
marized as
Theorem 11-10. Every Artinian ring has only a finite number of proper
prime ideals, each of which is maximal.
We now come to the interesting part ofthe theory; namely, the extension
of Levitsky's' Theorem to Artinian rings.
Theorem 11-11. If R is an Artinian ring, then rad R forms a nilpotent
ideal.
Proof. The descending chain condition applied to the chain
rad R ~ (rad R)2 ~ (rad R)3 ~ ...
shows that there exists an integer n for which (rad R)" = (rad R)n+r"
If we put 1 = (rad R)", then 1 S; rad R and 12 = 1. Our contention is that
1 = {O}. .
Assume-{qr. the moment that 1 =1= {O} and consider the family of alI
ideal s J of R such that (i) J S; 1 and (ii) JI =f {O}. This colIection is not
empty since jt "contains 1 and, hence, it admits a minimal member K. By
(ii), Kl =f {O},~so that al =f {O} for sorne nonzeroelement a E K. Thus,
(al)l = aJ2 = al =f {O},
with al S; K 's; 1; hence, al = K by the minimality of K. This being the
case, there exists an element bE 1 such that ab = a. But bE 1 S; rad R,
which implies that 1 - b must be an invertible element of R (Theorem 8-2);
= a(1 - b)c = (a - ab)c = O,
a
contradicting the fact that al =f {O}. This contradiction signifies that
1 = (rad R)n = {O}, as asserted.
With littIe additional effort we can learn a good de al more about nil-
potent ideals in rings with the descending chain condition.
 226 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
as well as a chain of ideals of the quotient ring Rll,
where
Since we are told that 1 and Rll are both Noetherian, each of these chains
becomes stationary from sorne point on; say after r and s steps, respectively.
Now, take the integer n to be the larger of r and s, so that
J", nI = J n n 1 and
for alI m ~ n. This being the case, an invocation ofthe lemma is permissible;
it folIows that J m = J n whenever m ~ n, whence R comprises a Noetherian
ringo
Artinian rings are generalIy more restrictive than Noetherian rings; for
instance, the only integral domains which satisfy the descending chain
condition are fields (this 1S not to suggest, however, that Artinian rings are
without interest).
Theorem 11-8. Any Artinian domain R (integral domain and Artinian
ring) is a field.
Proof. It obviously suffices to show that each nonzero element of R has a
multiplicative in verse. Thus, suppose that a =1= O in R and consider the
descending chain of ideals
(a) ~ (a 2) ~ {a 3 ) ~ ....
By the descending chain condition, this chain must be of finite length, say
(a) ~ (a 2) ~ ... ~ (anfe:: (a n + l ) = (a n + 2) = ....
:~ .~'
Then there exists an element r E Rs~ch that an = ra n + l ; using the cancelIa-
tion law, it folIows that 1 = ra, whjch, pro ves our assertion.
Corollary. An integral domain 'with only a finite number of ideal s is a
field.
With the aid of this result, we cannow prove that in the presence of the
descending chain condition the Jacobson radical and prime radical coincide.
Theorem 11-9. If R is an Artinian ring, then every proper prime ideal
of R is a maximal ideal. . in other words, (1 - b)c = 1 for suitable e E R. We then have
Proof. Suppose that 1 is a proper prime ideal of R. Then, the quotient ring
Rll forms an integral domain which satisfies the descending chain condition
because R does. It folIows from Theorem 11-8 that Rll must be a field,
whence 1 is a maximal ideal of R.
CorolJary. In any Artinian ring R, rad R = Rad R.
RINGS WITH CHAIN CONDITIONS 227
One can say considerably more about the ideal structure of an Artinian
ring R: R has only a finite number of prime (hence, .maximal) ideals. For,
suppose that there exists an infinite sequence {P¡} of distinct proper prime
ideals of R. We would then be able to form a descending chain of ideals
PI ~ P IP 2 ~ P I P 2P 3 ~ ....
Since R is Artinian, there exists a positive integer n for which
PIP2 Pn = P I P 2 ... PnP n+ l •
...
It folIows from this that P I P 2 '" Pn S; Pn+ l , whence P k S; P n+ 1 for sorne
k ::; n. But P k is a maximal ideal of R, so that we must have P k = Pn+l'
contrary to the fact that the Pi are distinct. These observations are sum-
marized as
Theorem 11-10. Every Artinian ring has only a finite number of proper
prime ideals, each of which is maximal.
We now come to the interesting part ofthe theory; namely, the extension
of Levitsky's' Theorem to Artinian rings.
Theorem 11-11. If R is an Artinian ring, then rad R forms a nilpotent
ideal.
Proof. The descending chain condition applied to the chain
rad R ~ (rad R)2 ~ (rad R)3 ~ ...
shows that there exists an integer n for which (rad R)" = (rad R)n+r"
If we put 1 = (rad R)", then 1 S; rad R and 12 = 1. Our contention is that
1 = {O}. .
Assume-{qr. the moment that 1 =1= {O} and consider the family of alI
ideal s J of R such that (i) J S; 1 and (ii) JI =f {O}. This colIection is not
empty since jt "contains 1 and, hence, it admits a minimal member K. By
(ii), Kl =f {O},~so that al =f {O} for sorne nonzeroelement a E K. Thus,
(al)l = aJ2 = al =f {O},
with al S; K 's; 1; hence, al = K by the minimality of K. This being the
case, there exists an element bE 1 such that ab = a. But bE 1 S; rad R,
which implies that 1 - b must be an invertible element of R (Theorem 8-2);
= a(1 - b)c = (a - ab)c = O,
a
contradicting the fact that al =f {O}. This contradiction signifies that
1 = (rad R)n = {O}, as asserted.
With littIe additional effort we can learn a good de al more about nil-
potent ideals in rings with the descending chain condition.

228 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IOEALS,
Corollary. In any Artinian ring R, the following hold:
1) rad R Is the largest nilpotent ideal of R.
2) Every nil ideal of R is nilpotent.
3) Rlrad R contains no nonzero nilpotent ideals.
Proa! By Theorem 8-8, any nilpotent ideal of R is contained in the prime
radical a.pd this coincides with rad R. Conceming (2), each nil ideal is
contained in Rad R = rad R, which is a nilpotent idea!. The final assertion
follows from the fact that Rlrad R is a semisimple~rtinian ringo
, ",
The next theorem is perhaps of secondary intei~st, but it affords us an
opportunity to discuss subdirectly irreducible rings'again. The reader wjll
recall that these are rings R possessing a smallest nónzero ideal R v (the heart
of R). Clearly, R v is a principal ideal generate_d byany of its elements,
other than zero. We shaIl, in the proofbeJow, let rY',designate a fixed nonzero
element of R v, so that R v = (r v ) " , ; ¡
Observe also that for any nonzero element a~;R, (a) IS a nonzero ideal
of R, and, hence, must contain R v; thus, there exists an element x in R
such that ax = rV:. The only other fact which we wiII require is tha! the
annihilator of the set of zerodivisors of Ris precisely the ideal R v = (r
Theor:em 11-12. If R is a subdirectly irreducible ring satisfying either
chain condition, then every zero divisor of R is nilpotent (that is, R is a
primary rin~).
Proa! In the first place, we take R to be Artinian. Suppose further that,
aE R is a zero divisor which is not nilpotent and consider the descending
chain of principal ideals
. ,'., ........ . .
By assumption, none of these is the zero ideal and, because of the minimum
cOridition, we must have (a n) = (a n + 1 ) for sorne n E Z+. This being the case,
a n = ra n+ 1 or a"(1 - ra) = O, with rE R. Inasmuch as a" =F O, the expres-
sion in parentheses is a zero divisor of R and, hence, lies in ann R v by
Theoreml0-9, Thus,foranynonzero elementx E R V, wehavex(l - ra) = O.
But xa =- O, since a also belongs to ann R v , and SO x = O. This contradic-
tion forces the element a to be nilpotent, as desired.
We next extend the stated result to rings with the ascending chain
condition. As in the previous paragraph, suppose that the element a is a
zero divisor of R which is oot nilpotent. Then all the powers a 2 , a 3 , .. , , an, .,.
are zero divisors and, of course, none is zero. Thus, for every power a",
there exists an element XII such that
aX 1 = a2x 2 = ... = anx" = .,. = r V =F O.
T
RINGS WITH CHAIN CONOlTlONS ' 229
Consider the ideals lk = ann (a k ); c1early, we have
Now, x" is not in In' but a(q"x n}' = ar v = 0, since a Ís a zero divisor of R.
Therefore, x n lies in ln+1 and the lk form a properly ascending ch,ain. This
contradicts the ascending ch~n condition and no such element a exists.
, I
I
Remark. Over the course oC th,e next several pages, we shall often simply
say "the set ofzero divisors':of R form anideal" when what is really meant
is "the set of zero divisors,í()gether with zero, form an ideal".
Corollary. If R is a subdirectIy irreducible ring satisfying either chain
condition, then the set,Rl,zero divisors of R form a nil ideal:
Proa! Suppose that a andp~~e both zero divisors ofR. Then ax = O = by
for sorne nonzero x, y in R:!t:Inasmuch as the principal ideals (x)and' (y)
have nonzero intersectioú;_ th~re also exist elements u, v E R such that
xu = yv =F O. But then,¡;
(a - b)xu = -bxu = -byv ,,;, O,
V
).
in consequence of which a - b is a divisor of zero. Certainly, the product
ra \viII b'e a zero divisor for any choice of r E R. The implícation is that the
set of aIl zero divisors of R constitute an ideal (indeed, this is true in any
subdirectly irreducible ring); by the theorem, such -an ideal must be ni!.
'In the líght ofthe corolIary aboye, it would appear natural to study rings
whose zero divisors form an ideal which is contained in the Jacobson radical
(we point out that this condition holds trivially in any integral domain).
Our next two results pre,sent criteria for these rings to become local rings,
Theorem 11-13. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R with 1 S; rad R. Then-
R is a local ring if and only if RIl is a local ringo
Proa! One direction is fairly obvious, since the homomorphic image of a
local ring is necessarily local. Going the other way, suppose that RII is
local and let a + 1 be any invertible element of RIl. Then ax + 1 = 1 + 1
for sorne x in R, or, equivalently, ax = 1 + r with r E 1, Since the ideal
1 S; rad R, Theorem 8-2 tells us ihat ax is an in vertible element of R., But
then a itself will possess an inverse in R
Now, let a and b be two non-in vertible elements of R. The reasoning
of the previous paragraph shows that the cosets a + J and b + 1 lack
inverses in RIl. Since the quotient ring RIl constitutes a local ring, their
sum (a + 1) + (b + 1) = a + b + 1 is again a non-in vertible element'
(Problem 8, Chapter 8). This means that a + b fails to have an in verse in
R, forcing'R to be a localring.

228 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IOEALS,
Corollary. In any Artinian ring R, the following hold:
1) rad R Is the largest nilpotent ideal of R.
2) Every nil ideal of R is nilpotent.
3) Rlrad R contains no nonzero nilpotent ideals.
Proa! By Theorem 8-8, any nilpotent ideal of R is contained in the prime
radical a.pd this coincides with rad R. Conceming (2), each nil ideal is
contained in Rad R = rad R, which is a nilpotent idea!. The final assertion
follows from the fact that Rlrad R is a semisimple~rtinian ringo
, ",
The next theorem is perhaps of secondary intei~st, but it affords us an
opportunity to discuss subdirectly irreducible rings'again. The reader wjll
recall that these are rings R possessing a smallest nónzero ideal R v (the heart
of R). Clearly, R v is a principal ideal generate_d byany of its elements,
other than zero. We shaIl, in the proofbeJow, let rY',designate a fixed nonzero
element of R v, so that R v = (r v ) " , ; ¡
Observe also that for any nonzero element a~;R, (a) IS a nonzero ideal
of R, and, hence, must contain R v; thus, there exists an element x in R
such that ax = rV:. The only other fact which we wiII require is tha! the
annihilator of the set of zerodivisors of Ris precisely the ideal R v = (r
Theor:em 11-12. If R is a subdirectly irreducible ring satisfying either
chain condition, then every zero divisor of R is nilpotent (that is, R is a
primary rin~).
Proa! In the first place, we take R to be Artinian. Suppose further that,
aE R is a zero divisor which is not nilpotent and consider the descending
chain of principal ideals
. ,'., ........ . .
By assumption, none of these is the zero ideal and, because of the minimum
cOridition, we must have (a n) = (a n + 1 ) for sorne n E Z+. This being the case,
a n = ra n+ 1 or a"(1 - ra) = O, with rE R. Inasmuch as a" =F O, the expres-
sion in parentheses is a zero divisor of R and, hence, lies in ann R v by
Theoreml0-9, Thus,foranynonzero elementx E R V, wehavex(l - ra) = O.
But xa =- O, since a also belongs to ann R v , and SO x = O. This contradic-
tion forces the element a to be nilpotent, as desired.
We next extend the stated result to rings with the ascending chain
condition. As in the previous paragraph, suppose that the element a is a
zero divisor of R which is oot nilpotent. Then all the powers a 2 , a 3 , .. , , an, .,.
are zero divisors and, of course, none is zero. Thus, for every power a",
there exists an element XII such that
aX 1 = a2x 2 = ... = anx" = .,. = r V =F O.
T
RINGS WITH CHAIN CONOlTlONS ' 229
Consider the ideals lk = ann (a k ); c1early, we have
Now, x" is not in In' but a(q"x n}' = ar v = 0, since a Ís a zero divisor of R.
Therefore, x n lies in ln+1 and the lk form a properly ascending ch,ain. This
contradicts the ascending ch~n condition and no such element a exists.
, I
I
Remark. Over the course oC th,e next several pages, we shall often simply
say "the set ofzero divisors':of R form anideal" when what is really meant
is "the set of zero divisors,í()gether with zero, form an ideal".
Corollary. If R is a subdirectIy irreducible ring satisfying either chain
condition, then the set,Rl,zero divisors of R form a nil ideal:
Proa! Suppose that a andp~~e both zero divisors ofR. Then ax = O = by
for sorne nonzero x, y in R:!t:Inasmuch as the principal ideals (x)and' (y)
have nonzero intersectioú;_ th~re also exist elements u, v E R such that
xu = yv =F O. But then,¡;
(a - b)xu = -bxu = -byv ,,;, O,
V
).
in consequence of which a - b is a divisor of zero. Certainly, the product
ra \viII b'e a zero divisor for any choice of r E R. The implícation is that the
set of aIl zero divisors of R constitute an ideal (indeed, this is true in any
subdirectly irreducible ring); by the theorem, such -an ideal must be ni!.
'In the líght ofthe corolIary aboye, it would appear natural to study rings
whose zero divisors form an ideal which is contained in the Jacobson radical
(we point out that this condition holds trivially in any integral domain).
Our next two results pre,sent criteria for these rings to become local rings,
Theorem 11-13. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring R with 1 S; rad R. Then-
R is a local ring if and only if RIl is a local ringo
Proa! One direction is fairly obvious, since the homomorphic image of a
local ring is necessarily local. Going the other way, suppose that RII is
local and let a + 1 be any invertible element of RIl. Then ax + 1 = 1 + 1
for sorne x in R, or, equivalently, ax = 1 + r with r E 1, Since the ideal
1 S; rad R, Theorem 8-2 tells us ihat ax is an in vertible element of R., But
then a itself will possess an inverse in R
Now, let a and b be two non-in vertible elements of R. The reasoning
of the previous paragraph shows that the cosets a + J and b + 1 lack
inverses in RIl. Since the quotient ring RIl constitutes a local ring, their
sum (a + 1) + (b + 1) = a + b + 1 is again a non-in vertible element'
(Problem 8, Chapter 8). This means that a + b fails to have an in verse in
R, forcing'R to be a localring.
 230 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS RINGS WITH CHAl N CONDITIONS 231

Coro]]ary. Let R be a ring in which the set of zero divisors of R forms natural mapping nat Ai,: R ..... R/Mi induces an isomorphism 1i ~ R/Mi'
an ideal D, with D S; rad R, Then R is a local ring if and only if R/D making 1i a fieldo o o
is a local ringo By virtue ofthe relation R = 1i + Mi' one can wnte, for each element
aER:
Theorem 11-14. Let R be a ring which satisfiesthe following conditions:
1) rad R is a nonzero prime ideal of R; a = Xi + Yi' Xi E1 i , YiEMi (i = 1, 2, ooo, n)o
2) al~ the ideals containing rad R are principal; Given any integer k between 1 and n,
3) the set of zero divisors D S; rad R.
Then R forms a local ringo a -.:. f
i= 1
Xi = (a - Xk) - ¿ Xi E M k,
i'f'k
Proof With reference to Problem 8, Chapter 8, it suffices to show that
rad R coincides with the set of all noninvertible elements of R. For this since a - x k = Yk E M k, while Xi E 1i S; M k for i =1= ko Thus,
purpose, let us suppose that rad R = (x) and choose an arbitrary a rj rad R; a - ¿ Xi E n M k = {O}
the strategy is to show tbat a has an inversé. Now, our hypothesis signifies
that the ideal (rad R, a)' must be principal; say (rad R, a) = (b), where and so a = ¿ xio This implies that the ring R. m~y be represented as
b rj rad R. Thus, x = by for sorne choice of y E R. Since rad R is a prime R = 1 1 + 12 + '0' + 1n ;thattheforegoingsumlsdlrectfollowsfromthe
ideal, a further deduction is that y Erad R. Knowing this, we can write fact that ¿i'f'k 1i ~ M k, whence
y = ex with e E R. But then x = by = bex, or x(1 - be) = O, which
implies that 1 - be lies in D S; rad Ro Falling back on Theorem 8-2, the 1k n (¿ 1i ) ~ 1k n M k = {O}o
i'f'k
product be and, in turn, the element b are necessarily invertible in R.
Accordingly, the ideal (rad R, a) = R. It follows that 1 - ra Erad R for It is of interest to compare Theorems 10-2 and 11-150 We have
suitable r E R, making ra an invertible element. From tbis we may conclude exchanged the subdirect sum part ofTheorem 10-2 for a direct sum (in fact,
that a itself possesses an inverse in R, as desired. a finite direct sum) in Theorem 11-15; however, Theorem 11-15 :vas
0
obtained at the cost of.an additional hypothesis: the ring must be Artlm~no
Coro]]ary. Let R be a principal ideal ring with D S; rad R. o
Then R We offer a second proof of Wedderburn's Theorem, the relatlve ments
is a local ring whenever rad R is á nonzero prime ideal. of which can be weighed by the reader; although ,othis second prooof is clearly
.~~ ! •.

Although the hypotheses of Theorem 11-14 appear somewhát formid-
able, it is worth remarking that the power series ring F[[xJ] (F a fi~l~)
satisfies the requisite conditionso ' . \¡-
Our next goal is to describe semisimple Artinian rings; crucialtd tli'e
discussion is the fact that such rings have only a finite number of max~i:nal
ideal s with zero intersectiono The theorembelow is the cornmutative veision
of Wedderburn's fundamental result (Theorem 13-3)0
Th~orem 11-15. (Wedderburn). Any semisimple Artinian ring R is;íhe
direct sum of a finite number of fieldso
Proof Since R has only a finite number of maximal ideals, we may assume
that if any one of these ideals is omitted the intersection of the others is
different from zero. (If this is not the case, a set with the desired property
may be obtained by simply deleting certain idealso) Accordingly, there exist
maximal ideals M l' M 2' ooo, M n of R such that n Mi = {O}, but the ideals
1i = nk'f'iMk =1= {O}foreveryio InasmuchasMiisniaximal,R = 1i + Mi;
moreover, 1i n Mi = {O}, so that this sum is actually directo Hence, the
less complicated than the first, it nonetheless ~elies more heavIly on the
results of the previous chapter. '.
Seeond proof ofTheorem 11-150 Let MI' M 2' ooo';!lfn be the ~axin:"al ideals
of R (there is no harm in assuming that {O} i~ ~o~ a ~axlmal lde~l, for
otherwÍse the theorem follows trivially)o The m~IJ(lmahty of these ldea~s
implies that Mi + Mj = R whenever i =1= j. :r;hus, by Theorem 10-5, lt
follows that
R = R/n Mi ~ ¿ EB> (R/M¡) (complete direct sum),
where each ofthe quotient rings R/Mi is a fiel~ (i = 1,2, o.. ,n): But, in
the finite case, the complete direct sum coincides with the usual dlfect sumo
Notice that, in carrying out the aboye argument, we have proved a
o
subresult which is interesting in its own right: If a ring R has a fimte number
of maximal ideals M. with zero intersection, then R ~ ¿ (f) (R/M¡).
There is a coroll~ry to Theorem 11-15 which is worthy of emphasiso
Coro]]ary. Any semisimple Artinian ring is Noetheriano
 230 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS RINGS WITH CHAl N CONDITIONS 231

Coro]]ary. Let R be a ring in which the set of zero divisors of R forms natural mapping nat Ai,: R ..... R/Mi induces an isomorphism 1i ~ R/Mi'
an ideal D, with D S; rad R, Then R is a local ring if and only if R/D making 1i a fieldo o o
is a local ringo By virtue ofthe relation R = 1i + Mi' one can wnte, for each element
aER:
Theorem 11-14. Let R be a ring which satisfiesthe following conditions:
1) rad R is a nonzero prime ideal of R; a = Xi + Yi' Xi E1 i , YiEMi (i = 1, 2, ooo, n)o
2) al~ the ideals containing rad R are principal; Given any integer k between 1 and n,
3) the set of zero divisors D S; rad R.
Then R forms a local ringo a -.:. f
i= 1
Xi = (a - Xk) - ¿ Xi E M k,
i'f'k
Proof With reference to Problem 8, Chapter 8, it suffices to show that
rad R coincides with the set of all noninvertible elements of R. For this since a - x k = Yk E M k, while Xi E 1i S; M k for i =1= ko Thus,
purpose, let us suppose that rad R = (x) and choose an arbitrary a rj rad R; a - ¿ Xi E n M k = {O}
the strategy is to show tbat a has an inversé. Now, our hypothesis signifies
that the ideal (rad R, a)' must be principal; say (rad R, a) = (b), where and so a = ¿ xio This implies that the ring R. m~y be represented as
b rj rad R. Thus, x = by for sorne choice of y E R. Since rad R is a prime R = 1 1 + 12 + '0' + 1n ;thattheforegoingsumlsdlrectfollowsfromthe
ideal, a further deduction is that y Erad R. Knowing this, we can write fact that ¿i'f'k 1i ~ M k, whence
y = ex with e E R. But then x = by = bex, or x(1 - be) = O, which
implies that 1 - be lies in D S; rad Ro Falling back on Theorem 8-2, the 1k n (¿ 1i ) ~ 1k n M k = {O}o
i'f'k
product be and, in turn, the element b are necessarily invertible in R.
Accordingly, the ideal (rad R, a) = R. It follows that 1 - ra Erad R for It is of interest to compare Theorems 10-2 and 11-150 We have
suitable r E R, making ra an invertible element. From tbis we may conclude exchanged the subdirect sum part ofTheorem 10-2 for a direct sum (in fact,
that a itself possesses an inverse in R, as desired. a finite direct sum) in Theorem 11-15; however, Theorem 11-15 :vas
0
obtained at the cost of.an additional hypothesis: the ring must be Artlm~no
Coro]]ary. Let R be a principal ideal ring with D S; rad R. o
Then R We offer a second proof of Wedderburn's Theorem, the relatlve ments
is a local ring whenever rad R is á nonzero prime ideal. of which can be weighed by the reader; although ,othis second prooof is clearly
.~~ ! •.

Although the hypotheses of Theorem 11-14 appear somewhát formid-
able, it is worth remarking that the power series ring F[[xJ] (F a fi~l~)
satisfies the requisite conditionso ' . \¡-
Our next goal is to describe semisimple Artinian rings; crucialtd tli'e
discussion is the fact that such rings have only a finite number of max~i:nal
ideal s with zero intersectiono The theorembelow is the cornmutative veision
of Wedderburn's fundamental result (Theorem 13-3)0
Th~orem 11-15. (Wedderburn). Any semisimple Artinian ring R is;íhe
direct sum of a finite number of fieldso
Proof Since R has only a finite number of maximal ideals, we may assume
that if any one of these ideals is omitted the intersection of the others is
different from zero. (If this is not the case, a set with the desired property
may be obtained by simply deleting certain idealso) Accordingly, there exist
maximal ideals M l' M 2' ooo, M n of R such that n Mi = {O}, but the ideals
1i = nk'f'iMk =1= {O}foreveryio InasmuchasMiisniaximal,R = 1i + Mi;
moreover, 1i n Mi = {O}, so that this sum is actually directo Hence, the
less complicated than the first, it nonetheless ~elies more heavIly on the
results of the previous chapter. '.
Seeond proof ofTheorem 11-150 Let MI' M 2' ooo';!lfn be the ~axin:"al ideals
of R (there is no harm in assuming that {O} i~ ~o~ a ~axlmal lde~l, for
otherwÍse the theorem follows trivially)o The m~IJ(lmahty of these ldea~s
implies that Mi + Mj = R whenever i =1= j. :r;hus, by Theorem 10-5, lt
follows that
R = R/n Mi ~ ¿ EB> (R/M¡) (complete direct sum),
where each ofthe quotient rings R/Mi is a fiel~ (i = 1,2, o.. ,n): But, in
the finite case, the complete direct sum coincides with the usual dlfect sumo
Notice that, in carrying out the aboye argument, we have proved a
o
subresult which is interesting in its own right: If a ring R has a fimte number
of maximal ideals M. with zero intersection, then R ~ ¿ (f) (R/M¡).
There is a coroll~ry to Theorem 11-15 which is worthy of emphasiso
Coro]]ary. Any semisimple Artinian ring is Noetheriano
232 FIRST COURSE IN RINOS AND IDEALS
Proof. In ~onjunction with Theorem 11-15, one needs only the faet that a
finite direet suin ofNoetherian rings (in this case, fields) is again Noetherian.
We shalI see later that the imposed semisiinplicity condition is unneces-
saríly stringent; indeed, the foregoing result can be sharpened to read that
everycommutative Artinian ring with identity lS Noetherian. The ring of
integers shows that the converse need not hold.
PROBLEMS
In all problems, R is, ~conm1Utative ring with identity.
l. Le! 1 be a nonzéió.ideal of !he principal ideal domaín R Prove that the quotlerit
ring R/l satisfie~' both cPain conditions.
2. Prove that everyJi,omomorphismfofa Noetberian ring R ontoitselfis necessarily
one-to-one. [lfiilfi Consider the ascending chain {O} ~ kerf~ kerf2 ~ ... of
ideals of R]" \'
3. a) Ir 1 is an ideal of the Noetherian rine; R, show that .JI/lforms a rulpotent
ideal of R/l. ' , local rings. [Hint: From Problem 11 and the fact!hat the ideals M} arecomaximal,
b) Let 1 and J be two ideals of tbe Noetherian ring R. Establish that 1" ~ J for
some integer n E 2 + if and only if.JI ~ .jI . ,
4. Prove that every id~al of a NO,etherian ringR contains a product of prinle ideals.
[Hint: If not, let S be the set of those ideals of R which do not contain a product
of prime idealsand apply ,the maximllm condition.] . a fie1d; if 1 is an ideiÚ, of R, then 1 = 11 ® ... ® In witb li an ideal of Fd
5. a)Obtain the converse of the Hilbert Basis Theorem: if R[x] is a Noetherian
, ring, then, so also ís R ' , annihilator ai:m 1 forms a prime and, hence, maxinlal, ideal of R [Hint: If
b) Verify that the power series ring R[[x]] is Noetherian if and only if R is a
Noetherian ringo [Hint: Mimic Hilbert's Theorem, now using elements of
lowest order when defining the ideals Id
e)Let R' be an extension ring of !he Noetherian ring R. For a fixed elernent
r E R', show tliat the ring
R[r] == (f(r)jf(x) e R[x]}
is Noetberian.
6. Prove that if R is a Noetherian ring, then the matrix ring M.(R) is a!so Noetherian.
[Hint " Problem 28, Chapter 2.]
7. Assuming that R is a Noetherian ring, establish that
a) Rad R is the sum of al1 the nilpotent ideals of R;
b) tbe quotient ring R/Rad R has no nonzero nilpotent ideals.
8. Let R be a ring wíth at least one non-zero-divisor. Prove that ir R is Noetherian,
then itsclassical ringofquotientsQ'I(R)is also Noetherian. [Hint: If J 1 ~ J 1 ~ ...
is an ascending chain of ideals of Qcl(R), then, by Problem 29, Chapter 4,
11 ~ 12 S .. , forms an ascending ehain of ideals of R, where 1k "" J k n R.]
PROBLEMS 233
9. Le! p be a fixed prime number and put.
Qp = {mfp~lmE2; n = 0,1,2, ... }.
In Qp, define addition lo be ordinary addition of ralional numbers and mllltiplica-
tion to be the trivial multiplication (i.e. ab = O for alI a, b E Qp). Establish that
a) Z forms an ideal ofthe resulting ring Qp;
b) the quotient ring Qp/Z is isomorphic to 2(p<X»;
. , 10. a) Prove that a finite direct sum ¿ ® R¡ js Noetheí:ian (Artinian) if and only' if
each of the component rings R¡ is Noetherian (Artinían). [Hi/lt: Ifn = 2, sáy
R = Rl E9 R 2 , then R/Rl c:: R 2 .] .
b) LetR bearinghavingllfinitenumberofidealsl¡, 12, ... , lnsuch that n li = {Ó}';
If each of the quotient rings R/I ¡ is Noetherian (Artinian), show !hat R ís also'
Noetherian (Artinian). ' ,,;;:
" 11. In an Artinían ring R, prove that the zero ideal is a prodllct of maximal ideáIs.:
, [Hint: rad R = M 1 n M 2 n ... n'M., where each Mi ís maxhllal; use Theoré~;'
11-11 and Problern 13, Chapter 10, to conclude {O} (rad R)k MfM~ .. , M~"
b~~~~ . .
;
12. Establish that an Artinian ring R is isomorphic to a finite diiect sum of Artinian
we have M~ n ... n M~ ... M~ '" M! = {O}. By Theorem 10-1, R c:: ¿ ® RIM~.
Now use Problem 5-18.] .
13. Prove that any semisinlple Artinian ring possesses only a finite number of ideals.
[Hlnt: Assume that R admits that decomposition R = F1 ® F2 ® ... ® F., F¡
<;
14. a) Let 1 be a nontrívial mínimal ideal of the Artinian ring R Show that the
a ~ ann 1, al ~ l.]
b) Assume tbat 1 is a nonzero ideal of the ring R (no chain conditions). If Pis a
maxinlal member of the eollection {ann (x)IO -+ x E 1), d~uc~ thatP is a prime
ideal. [Hlnt: Let abEP= ann(r), with a~P; then, P 5;; (P,b) ~ ann(ar).]
15. A ring R is temled divisible if every non-zero-divisor of R is invertible. Assuming
that R is a divisible ring prove the following: '
a) R is a local ring if and only jf the set D of a1l zero divisors (together with zero)
is included in a proper ideal of R; in this case, D itself becomes an ideal.
b) If 11 n 12 +. {O} for any two nonzero ideals of R, then R ís a local ringo [Hint:
Show !hat the sum pf two noninvertible elenlents of R is again noninvertible.]
, 16. Let R be a principal ideal ring which is not an integral domain. If!he set of al!
zero divisors D = rad R, verify that R is a local ring,
17. a) If R is a finite Boolean ring, prove that R is isomorphic to the direct sum of a
finite number of fields 2 2 , [Hint: See the remark following the second proof
ofTheorem 11-15.]
b) Prove that a finite Boolean ring has 2" elements for some n E Z+.
232 FIRST COURSE IN RINOS AND IDEALS
Proof. In ~onjunction with Theorem 11-15, one needs only the faet that a
finite direet suin ofNoetherian rings (in this case, fields) is again Noetherian.
We shalI see later that the imposed semisiinplicity condition is unneces-
saríly stringent; indeed, the foregoing result can be sharpened to read that
everycommutative Artinian ring with identity lS Noetherian. The ring of
integers shows that the converse need not hold.
PROBLEMS
In all problems, R is, ~conm1Utative ring with identity.
l. Le! 1 be a nonzéió.ideal of !he principal ideal domaín R Prove that the quotlerit
ring R/l satisfie~' both cPain conditions.
2. Prove that everyJi,omomorphismfofa Noetberian ring R ontoitselfis necessarily
one-to-one. [lfiilfi Consider the ascending chain {O} ~ kerf~ kerf2 ~ ... of
ideals of R]" \'
3. a) Ir 1 is an ideal of the Noetherian rine; R, show that .JI/lforms a rulpotent
ideal of R/l. ' , local rings. [Hint: From Problem 11 and the fact!hat the ideals M} arecomaximal,
b) Let 1 and J be two ideals of tbe Noetherian ring R. Establish that 1" ~ J for
some integer n E 2 + if and only if.JI ~ .jI . ,
4. Prove that every id~al of a NO,etherian ringR contains a product of prinle ideals.
[Hint: If not, let S be the set of those ideals of R which do not contain a product
of prime idealsand apply ,the maximllm condition.] . a fie1d; if 1 is an ideiÚ, of R, then 1 = 11 ® ... ® In witb li an ideal of Fd
5. a)Obtain the converse of the Hilbert Basis Theorem: if R[x] is a Noetherian
, ring, then, so also ís R ' , annihilator ai:m 1 forms a prime and, hence, maxinlal, ideal of R [Hint: If
b) Verify that the power series ring R[[x]] is Noetherian if and only if R is a
Noetherian ringo [Hint: Mimic Hilbert's Theorem, now using elements of
lowest order when defining the ideals Id
e)Let R' be an extension ring of !he Noetherian ring R. For a fixed elernent
r E R', show tliat the ring
R[r] == (f(r)jf(x) e R[x]}
is Noetberian.
6. Prove that if R is a Noetherian ring, then the matrix ring M.(R) is a!so Noetherian.
[Hint " Problem 28, Chapter 2.]
7. Assuming that R is a Noetherian ring, establish that
a) Rad R is the sum of al1 the nilpotent ideals of R;
b) tbe quotient ring R/Rad R has no nonzero nilpotent ideals.
8. Let R be a ring wíth at least one non-zero-divisor. Prove that ir R is Noetherian,
then itsclassical ringofquotientsQ'I(R)is also Noetherian. [Hint: If J 1 ~ J 1 ~ ...
is an ascending chain of ideals of Qcl(R), then, by Problem 29, Chapter 4,
11 ~ 12 S .. , forms an ascending ehain of ideals of R, where 1k "" J k n R.]
PROBLEMS 233
9. Le! p be a fixed prime number and put.
Qp = {mfp~lmE2; n = 0,1,2, ... }.
In Qp, define addition lo be ordinary addition of ralional numbers and mllltiplica-
tion to be the trivial multiplication (i.e. ab = O for alI a, b E Qp). Establish that
a) Z forms an ideal ofthe resulting ring Qp;
b) the quotient ring Qp/Z is isomorphic to 2(p<X»;
. , 10. a) Prove that a finite direct sum ¿ ® R¡ js Noetheí:ian (Artinian) if and only' if
each of the component rings R¡ is Noetherian (Artinían). [Hi/lt: Ifn = 2, sáy
R = Rl E9 R 2 , then R/Rl c:: R 2 .] .
b) LetR bearinghavingllfinitenumberofidealsl¡, 12, ... , lnsuch that n li = {Ó}';
If each of the quotient rings R/I ¡ is Noetherian (Artinian), show !hat R ís also'
Noetherian (Artinian). ' ,,;;:
" 11. In an Artinían ring R, prove that the zero ideal is a prodllct of maximal ideáIs.:
, [Hint: rad R = M 1 n M 2 n ... n'M., where each Mi ís maxhllal; use Theoré~;'
11-11 and Problern 13, Chapter 10, to conclude {O} (rad R)k MfM~ .. , M~"
b~~~~ . .
;
12. Establish that an Artinian ring R is isomorphic to a finite diiect sum of Artinian
we have M~ n ... n M~ ... M~ '" M! = {O}. By Theorem 10-1, R c:: ¿ ® RIM~.
Now use Problem 5-18.] .
13. Prove that any semisinlple Artinian ring possesses only a finite number of ideals.
[Hlnt: Assume that R admits that decomposition R = F1 ® F2 ® ... ® F., F¡
<;
14. a) Let 1 be a nontrívial mínimal ideal of the Artinian ring R Show that the
a ~ ann 1, al ~ l.]
b) Assume tbat 1 is a nonzero ideal of the ring R (no chain conditions). If Pis a
maxinlal member of the eollection {ann (x)IO -+ x E 1), d~uc~ thatP is a prime
ideal. [Hlnt: Let abEP= ann(r), with a~P; then, P 5;; (P,b) ~ ann(ar).]
15. A ring R is temled divisible if every non-zero-divisor of R is invertible. Assuming
that R is a divisible ring prove the following: '
a) R is a local ring if and only jf the set D of a1l zero divisors (together with zero)
is included in a proper ideal of R; in this case, D itself becomes an ideal.
b) If 11 n 12 +. {O} for any two nonzero ideals of R, then R ís a local ringo [Hint:
Show !hat the sum pf two noninvertible elenlents of R is again noninvertible.]
, 16. Let R be a principal ideal ring which is not an integral domain. If!he set of al!
zero divisors D = rad R, verify that R is a local ring,
17. a) If R is a finite Boolean ring, prove that R is isomorphic to the direct sum of a
finite number of fields 2 2 , [Hint: See the remark following the second proof
ofTheorem 11-15.]
b) Prove that a finite Boolean ring has 2" elements for some n E Z+.

TWELVE
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS
In the present chapter, emphasis is laid on certain aspects of ideal theory in
which the ascending chain condition píays a dominant role. Although our
treatment is rather selective, it may fairly c1aim to cover most of the high
spots, as we11 as utilize a cross-section of the previously developed material.
A special concern will be the proof of a fundamental theorem by Emmy
Noether which asserts that ev¡;:ry ideal in a Noetherian ring isthe inter-
section of primary ideals; to sorne extent, this reduces the study of arbitrary
ideals in such rings to that of primary ideals. Particular attention will also
be paid to a number of results dealing with the intersection of the powers of
an ideal in a Noetherian ringo The latter portio n of this chapter furnishes
the reader with a brief introduction to module theory (roughly speaking, a
module is a ve.ctor space over a ring rather than a ~eld); the ultima te aim
being to prove that every cornmutative Artinian ring with identity is neces-
sarily Noetherian. Underlying a11 our arguments is ·the equivalence of the
ascending chain condition for ideals and the maximum condition.
Failing any indicatioIltp the contrary, a11 rings considered are'assumed
to be commutative and h~l.\ú~ an identity element. Ofien jt is not essential
to stipulate both these hYP9theses and this will be revealed from a careful
examination of the proof:'ill question.
Let us begin our dev,elopment by showing how primary ideals fit into
the iheory of Noetherian.rings. One of the basic decomposition theorems
concerning the ring of int¡;:gers (itself a Noetherian ring) is that every ideal
cl!-n be expressed as the intersection of a finite number of primary ideals..
Indeed, if n = p11p~2 ... p~r is a factorization of the positive integer n into
distinct primes Pi' then an integer m is divisible by n if and only if m is
divisible by each p~'; in the notation of principal ideals, this amounts to
asserting that
where each of the (P~') is a primary ideal of Z.
Our immediate aim is to prove that a representation of the aboye type
(that is, as a finite intersection of primary ideals) is valid for ideals in an
234
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 235
arbitrary Noetherian ringo A convenient vehic1e for this discussion is the
notion of an irreducible ideal.
Definition 12-1. Let] be an ideal of the ring R. Then] is said to be
irreducible if it is not a finite intersection of ideals of R properly con-
taining ]; otherwise, ] is termed reducible.
As a general cornment, it is worth remarking that any prime ideal P is
always irreducible. For, suppose that there exist ideals ] and J of R
satisfying
P = ] n J, P c: ], P c: J.
We can then select elements a E] - P and bE J - P. Now, the product
ab lies in both ] and J, whencé it is a member of P. From this it fo11ows
that P cannot be a prime ideal. On the other hand, we note that there
exist (non-prime) primary ideals which are not irreducible. A simple
illustration is furnished by the polynomial ring F[x, y], where F is a field.
Here the ideal M = (x, y) is maximal, so that its square M 2 = (x 2, xy, y2)
must be priniary (see Exaniple 7-8); however, M 2 has the fo11owing
representation as an intersection ofproper ideal s of F[x, y]:
M2 = (M 2, x) n (M2, y).
Our program is somewhat lengthy and will be completed in Theorem
12-5; we prepare the way by first establishing two auxiliary results.
Lemma 1. Every ideal in a Noetherian ring R is a finite intersection of
irreducible ideals.
Proof.. Let ~ be the family of a11 ideals of R which are not finite intersections
ofirreducible ideals. Hit happens that ~ 1- 0, then Theorem 11-1 asserts
the existence of an ideal] which is maximal in the set ~ (this is where the
Noetherian hypothesis enters). Then any ideal of R properly containing ]
must b.~a finite intersection ofirreducible ideals. Since] E~, ] is not itself
irreducible. Thus, we can write ] = J n K, where J and K are ideals of
R strictly containing l. The maximal nature of ] implies that J and K
both are finite intersections of irreducible ideals; hence, ] is one also. But
this c1early contradicts the fact that ] E~. Accordingly, the set ~ is empty,
thereby proving the assertion.
To exploit this situation fu11y, we also require:
Lemma 2. In a Noetherian ring R, every irreducible ideal is primary.
Proof. Our plan is to prove that any ideal] of R which is not primary is
necessarily reducible; in other words, we will deduce the contrapositive
form of the theorem. Since] is not primary, there exist a pair of elements
a, b in R such that ab E], b rf:] a1?-d no power of a belongs to 1. Now,
]: (a) ~ ]: (a 2 ) ~ ... ~ ]: (a") ~ ...

TWELVE
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS
In the present chapter, emphasis is laid on certain aspects of ideal theory in
which the ascending chain condition píays a dominant role. Although our
treatment is rather selective, it may fairly c1aim to cover most of the high
spots, as we11 as utilize a cross-section of the previously developed material.
A special concern will be the proof of a fundamental theorem by Emmy
Noether which asserts that ev¡;:ry ideal in a Noetherian ring isthe inter-
section of primary ideals; to sorne extent, this reduces the study of arbitrary
ideals in such rings to that of primary ideals. Particular attention will also
be paid to a number of results dealing with the intersection of the powers of
an ideal in a Noetherian ringo The latter portio n of this chapter furnishes
the reader with a brief introduction to module theory (roughly speaking, a
module is a ve.ctor space over a ring rather than a ~eld); the ultima te aim
being to prove that every cornmutative Artinian ring with identity is neces-
sarily Noetherian. Underlying a11 our arguments is ·the equivalence of the
ascending chain condition for ideals and the maximum condition.
Failing any indicatioIltp the contrary, a11 rings considered are'assumed
to be commutative and h~l.\ú~ an identity element. Ofien jt is not essential
to stipulate both these hYP9theses and this will be revealed from a careful
examination of the proof:'ill question.
Let us begin our dev,elopment by showing how primary ideals fit into
the iheory of Noetherian.rings. One of the basic decomposition theorems
concerning the ring of int¡;:gers (itself a Noetherian ring) is that every ideal
cl!-n be expressed as the intersection of a finite number of primary ideals..
Indeed, if n = p11p~2 ... p~r is a factorization of the positive integer n into
distinct primes Pi' then an integer m is divisible by n if and only if m is
divisible by each p~'; in the notation of principal ideals, this amounts to
asserting that
where each of the (P~') is a primary ideal of Z.
Our immediate aim is to prove that a representation of the aboye type
(that is, as a finite intersection of primary ideals) is valid for ideals in an
234
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 235
arbitrary Noetherian ringo A convenient vehic1e for this discussion is the
notion of an irreducible ideal.
Definition 12-1. Let] be an ideal of the ring R. Then] is said to be
irreducible if it is not a finite intersection of ideals of R properly con-
taining ]; otherwise, ] is termed reducible.
As a general cornment, it is worth remarking that any prime ideal P is
always irreducible. For, suppose that there exist ideals ] and J of R
satisfying
P = ] n J, P c: ], P c: J.
We can then select elements a E] - P and bE J - P. Now, the product
ab lies in both ] and J, whencé it is a member of P. From this it fo11ows
that P cannot be a prime ideal. On the other hand, we note that there
exist (non-prime) primary ideals which are not irreducible. A simple
illustration is furnished by the polynomial ring F[x, y], where F is a field.
Here the ideal M = (x, y) is maximal, so that its square M 2 = (x 2, xy, y2)
must be priniary (see Exaniple 7-8); however, M 2 has the fo11owing
representation as an intersection ofproper ideal s of F[x, y]:
M2 = (M 2, x) n (M2, y).
Our program is somewhat lengthy and will be completed in Theorem
12-5; we prepare the way by first establishing two auxiliary results.
Lemma 1. Every ideal in a Noetherian ring R is a finite intersection of
irreducible ideals.
Proof.. Let ~ be the family of a11 ideals of R which are not finite intersections
ofirreducible ideals. Hit happens that ~ 1- 0, then Theorem 11-1 asserts
the existence of an ideal] which is maximal in the set ~ (this is where the
Noetherian hypothesis enters). Then any ideal of R properly containing ]
must b.~a finite intersection ofirreducible ideals. Since] E~, ] is not itself
irreducible. Thus, we can write ] = J n K, where J and K are ideals of
R strictly containing l. The maximal nature of ] implies that J and K
both are finite intersections of irreducible ideals; hence, ] is one also. But
this c1early contradicts the fact that ] E~. Accordingly, the set ~ is empty,
thereby proving the assertion.
To exploit this situation fu11y, we also require:
Lemma 2. In a Noetherian ring R, every irreducible ideal is primary.
Proof. Our plan is to prove that any ideal] of R which is not primary is
necessarily reducible; in other words, we will deduce the contrapositive
form of the theorem. Since] is not primary, there exist a pair of elements
a, b in R such that ab E], b rf:] a1?-d no power of a belongs to 1. Now,
]: (a) ~ ]: (a 2 ) ~ ... ~ ]: (a") ~ ...

236 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
n if .jQ¡, = .JQ¡, = ... ;= .jQ¡ , simply take Qí = Q, n Q, n ... n Q,
forms an ascending chain ofideals of R; indeed, ifran El, certainly ra + 1 E l.
Because R is taken to be Noetherian, we can therefore find an integer k
for which 1: (a k) = 1: (aH l).
The bulk of our argument consists of showing that 1 can be expressed as
1 = (1, ak ) n (1, b).
EvidentIy, each ideal on the rigbt-hand side of this equation contains 1, so
that 1 .S;;; (1, ak ) n (1, b). To obtain the opposite inc1usion, select an arbitrary
x E (1, a~ n (1, b). Then, (.:
x = i + rak = i' + r' b
for suitably chosen elements i, i' El and r, r' E R. Consecju~ntIy, the product
raHl = (i' - i)a + r'(ab) E J,
which in turn implies that rEl:(a ) = J:(a ). But~this signifies that
Hl k '."
rak E J and so the element x = i + rak lies in 1, as weWished to show.
To complete the proof, observe that 1 e (1, ak ), for our hypothesis
as sures us that ak ~ 1; furthenllore, the element b ~ 1, whence 1 e (1, b).
Inasmuch as both the ideals in equation (1) properIy contain 1, it follows
that 1 must be reducible.
These results may now be put into the form of a ~ecomposition theorem,
the so-called Primary Decomposition Theorem of Noether.
Theorem 12-1. (Noether). Every ideal of a Noetherian ring can be
represented as a finite intersection of primary ideals.
Let us call a representation of an ideal 1 in the form J- ~ n¡ Q¡, where
eacp Q¡ is a primary ideal, a primary representation of J; the individual Q¡
are said to be the primary components of the representation, while JQ¡ are
the prime ideals associated witb l. What was just pro~ed is that, in a
Noetherian ring, every ideal admits a finite primary representation.
Before announcing the next result concerning primary representations,
we wish to introduce a new idea.
Definition 12-2. A primary representation 1 = n~= 1 Q¡ will be termed
irredundant if it satisfies the following two conditions.
1) No Q¡ contains the intersection of the other primary components;
that is to say, n¡;=j Q¡ =1= n Q¡ for any j = 1,2, ... , n.
2) .jQ¡ =1= .jQj for i =1= j.
"\'
If an ideal 1 admits a finite primary representation, say 1 = n7=l Q¡,
then enough of tbe Q¡'s can be omitted to yield an irredundant representa-
tion. To make this precise, we first let Qí be the intersection of all those
primary' components which have the same associated prime ideal; that is,
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 237
By ,the corollary to Theore~ 5-13, the ideal Qí is "itself '~rimary witb
JQf = . .jQ¡k and, ofcour~e, wehave J = nQí. In this way, the components
of a pnmary representabon can be combined so that their ni! radicals are
all ~istinct. . Next, strike out one at a time those ideal s Qí which contain
the mters~ctlOn ?f the ~emaining ones. The result of removing these super-
fluous pnmary Ideals IS that conditiqn (1) of Definition 12-2 now holds.
In this manner, the given primar y representation can be transformed into
an irredundant o n e . :
Using the language of irredurid~nce, we can now state our basic
representation theorem as
Theorem 12-2. Every ideal in a ~,betherian ring has a flnite irredundant
primary representation. . -
We shall have occasion to use theJollowing lemma.
.'--.
~emma. ~et ~ be an arbitraryt'iíig and 1 an ideal ofR having a finite :/
medundant pnmary representatioil 1 = n7=l Q¡. Thén, a prime ideal
P of R contains 1 if and only if P contains sorne .j.Q¡.
Proo! The if part is trivial: .jQ¡ S; P implies that J S; Q¡ ~ P. Con-
versely, assume that there is no .JQ¡ which is contained in P. For each
in~ex, i; .we ca~ then choose an element a¡ E.JQ¡ with a¡ ~ P. There also
eXIst sUltable mtegers k¡ such that a~' E Q¡. Setting a = af'a~' ... akn it
follows that a E n7='l'Q¡ = 1 S;;; P. Now, the ptoduct n'
a~'(a~' '" a~n) E P
wi,th al ~ P and so, by the definition of prime ideal, (a~' ... a~n) E P. Repeating
thlS argument, we finally obtain a~n E P, whence an E P, which is impossible.
\
! RecaH that a prime idéal of R is said to be a mini mal prime of the ideal
I 1 if it.is minimal in t,he set of prime ideals containing l. Keeping the same
notatlOn, the foregomg lemma asserts that the minimal prime ideals of J
ar~ the ~i~im~l elements ofthe family {.jQ¡}, partiaHy ordered by inc1usion.
I WIth thls m mmd, we can now formulate . ,
Theore~ 12-3. Any ideal of a Noetherian ring has a finite number of
I
minimal prime ideals. ,
i • One of ~he tasks which is still ahead of us is the burden of showing
umqueness (m sorne sense) ofthe primary representation. Given an irredun-
dant representation 1 = n7=l Q¡ of an ideal 1 as a pnite intersection of
primar~ ideals Q¡, we .do not ~laim that these primary ideals are uniquely
determmed by 1; the I1lustratlve example below shows that this is not to
be expected, AH that can be established is that the associated prime ideals

236 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
n if .jQ¡, = .JQ¡, = ... ;= .jQ¡ , simply take Qí = Q, n Q, n ... n Q,
forms an ascending chain ofideals of R; indeed, ifran El, certainly ra + 1 E l.
Because R is taken to be Noetherian, we can therefore find an integer k
for which 1: (a k) = 1: (aH l).
The bulk of our argument consists of showing that 1 can be expressed as
1 = (1, ak ) n (1, b).
EvidentIy, each ideal on the rigbt-hand side of this equation contains 1, so
that 1 .S;;; (1, ak ) n (1, b). To obtain the opposite inc1usion, select an arbitrary
x E (1, a~ n (1, b). Then, (.:
x = i + rak = i' + r' b
for suitably chosen elements i, i' El and r, r' E R. Consecju~ntIy, the product
raHl = (i' - i)a + r'(ab) E J,
which in turn implies that rEl:(a ) = J:(a ). But~this signifies that
Hl k '."
rak E J and so the element x = i + rak lies in 1, as weWished to show.
To complete the proof, observe that 1 e (1, ak ), for our hypothesis
as sures us that ak ~ 1; furthenllore, the element b ~ 1, whence 1 e (1, b).
Inasmuch as both the ideals in equation (1) properIy contain 1, it follows
that 1 must be reducible.
These results may now be put into the form of a ~ecomposition theorem,
the so-called Primary Decomposition Theorem of Noether.
Theorem 12-1. (Noether). Every ideal of a Noetherian ring can be
represented as a finite intersection of primary ideals.
Let us call a representation of an ideal 1 in the form J- ~ n¡ Q¡, where
eacp Q¡ is a primary ideal, a primary representation of J; the individual Q¡
are said to be the primary components of the representation, while JQ¡ are
the prime ideals associated witb l. What was just pro~ed is that, in a
Noetherian ring, every ideal admits a finite primary representation.
Before announcing the next result concerning primary representations,
we wish to introduce a new idea.
Definition 12-2. A primary representation 1 = n~= 1 Q¡ will be termed
irredundant if it satisfies the following two conditions.
1) No Q¡ contains the intersection of the other primary components;
that is to say, n¡;=j Q¡ =1= n Q¡ for any j = 1,2, ... , n.
2) .jQ¡ =1= .jQj for i =1= j.
"\'
If an ideal 1 admits a finite primary representation, say 1 = n7=l Q¡,
then enough of tbe Q¡'s can be omitted to yield an irredundant representa-
tion. To make this precise, we first let Qí be the intersection of all those
primary' components which have the same associated prime ideal; that is,
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 237
By ,the corollary to Theore~ 5-13, the ideal Qí is "itself '~rimary witb
JQf = . .jQ¡k and, ofcour~e, wehave J = nQí. In this way, the components
of a pnmary representabon can be combined so that their ni! radicals are
all ~istinct. . Next, strike out one at a time those ideal s Qí which contain
the mters~ctlOn ?f the ~emaining ones. The result of removing these super-
fluous pnmary Ideals IS that conditiqn (1) of Definition 12-2 now holds.
In this manner, the given primar y representation can be transformed into
an irredundant o n e . :
Using the language of irredurid~nce, we can now state our basic
representation theorem as
Theorem 12-2. Every ideal in a ~,betherian ring has a flnite irredundant
primary representation. . -
We shall have occasion to use theJollowing lemma.
.'--.
~emma. ~et ~ be an arbitraryt'iíig and 1 an ideal ofR having a finite :/
medundant pnmary representatioil 1 = n7=l Q¡. Thén, a prime ideal
P of R contains 1 if and only if P contains sorne .j.Q¡.
Proo! The if part is trivial: .jQ¡ S; P implies that J S; Q¡ ~ P. Con-
versely, assume that there is no .JQ¡ which is contained in P. For each
in~ex, i; .we ca~ then choose an element a¡ E.JQ¡ with a¡ ~ P. There also
eXIst sUltable mtegers k¡ such that a~' E Q¡. Setting a = af'a~' ... akn it
follows that a E n7='l'Q¡ = 1 S;;; P. Now, the ptoduct n'
a~'(a~' '" a~n) E P
wi,th al ~ P and so, by the definition of prime ideal, (a~' ... a~n) E P. Repeating
thlS argument, we finally obtain a~n E P, whence an E P, which is impossible.
\
! RecaH that a prime idéal of R is said to be a mini mal prime of the ideal
I 1 if it.is minimal in t,he set of prime ideals containing l. Keeping the same
notatlOn, the foregomg lemma asserts that the minimal prime ideals of J
ar~ the ~i~im~l elements ofthe family {.jQ¡}, partiaHy ordered by inc1usion.
I WIth thls m mmd, we can now formulate . ,
Theore~ 12-3. Any ideal of a Noetherian ring has a finite number of
I
minimal prime ideals. ,
i • One of ~he tasks which is still ahead of us is the burden of showing
umqueness (m sorne sense) ofthe primary representation. Given an irredun-
dant representation 1 = n7=l Q¡ of an ideal 1 as a pnite intersection of
primar~ ideals Q¡, we .do not ~laim that these primary ideals are uniquely
determmed by 1; the I1lustratlve example below shows that this is not to
be expected, AH that can be established is that the associated prime ideals
 238 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 239

JQ¡ are unique and are the same in all irredundant primary representations Next, suppose that the product be E I: (a), but b ~.J(j¡. Then
of I; thus, it is the number of primary components that will be unique. To a(be) El:;;;; Q¡. Since Q¡ is primary and b ~.J(j¡, it follows that ac E Q¡.
veriCy this, it is enough to show that the associated prime ideals can be
characterized in terrns of the properties oC I alone, independent oC any
E
Also, ae (a) S;;; nk'l'¡ Qk' which gives ae Enk Qk = I, forcing the element
e to líe in I: (a). In other words, be El: (a) with b ~ J(I¡ implíes that
particular primary representation considered. Before proceeding to the e El: (a). Thus, all the conditions of Theorem 5-14 are satisfied and we
prooC, let us illustrate the fact that an ideal in a Noetherian ring need not may conc1ude that P = JQ¡ = JI: (a).
have a unique irredundant primary representation.
{
Going in the other direction, let the element a ~ I be such that P = .JI: (a).
Example 12-1. In the polynomial ring F[x, yJ, where F is any field, consider With níerence to Theorem 2-5,
the ideal (x2, xy). It is easy to see that (x2; xy) consists of those polynomials
which have x as a factor and which do not possess linear terms. Now, the
I: (a) = (n Q¡): (a) = n (Q¡: (a»)
i i
nonzero elements of(x2, xy, r) are precisely the polynomials each ofwhose
terms are of degree ¿2; hence the intersection (x2, xy, y2) n (x) contains
and, the intersection being finite, P = n¡
JQ¡: (a). Observe that if a E Q¡,
then JQ¡: (a) = Q¡: (a) = R. On the other band, if a ~ Q¡, reason as in
the zero polynomial together with aH polynomials of degree ¿2 which the first part ofthe proofwith I now replaced by the primary ideal Q¡; for
bave x as a factor. Th~s, we have these Q¡, we then obtain JQ¡: (a) = J(I¡. In consequence, P is the inter-
(x 2, xy) (x 2, xy, y2) n (x). section of sorne of the .J(j¡; let us say that

Besides this irredundant representation, there is yet another:

P = JQ;. n JO:;. n ... n JQ:..
Knowing this, the proof is easi1y completed; for, by Problern 30(a), Chapter
(x 2, xy) = (x2, y) n (x) 5, P must contain one of the ideals ..JQ;. and is obviously contained by
it, whence P = ..jQik'
To derive the relation above, notice that for a polynomial to He in (x 2, xy),
it is suflicient to require that the polynomial be divisible by x and that the What we are realIy after is the corollary below.
coeflicient of y be zero. As has been seen in Example 7-8, (x 2, xy, y2) and
Corollary. Let I be an ideal of the Noetherian ring R. Suppose that
(x 2, y) are both primary ideals, while (x) is prime in F[x, y] and, hence, also
I = Ql n ... n Qn = Q~ n ... n Q~ are two finite irredundant pri-
primary.
mary representations of 1. Then, n = m and the assoclated prime ideals
We next determine a characteristic ofthe primary representation which of these two representations are equal (t,bat is, with a sllÍtable renumber-
is uniquely determined by the ideal in question. , .' ing of the indices .JQ. = .Jffi
for 1 .$ ,í :s;¡ n = m).
Theorem 12-4. Suppose that an ideal I oc" the ring R has a finite Proo!. The theorem provides an intrinsic cl'laracterization of the associated
irredundant primary representation, say J ni=l Q¡, arid let P be any prime ideals in terms of I alone.
prime ideal of R. Then P .JQ.i for sorne i if and only'if there exists Example 12-2. In the polynomial ring F[x, y], the ideal (Xl, xy) has the
an element a ~ I such that P JI: (a). .
irredundant primary representation
Proo!. To start with, assume that P .JQI for a given inde,x i. We shall (Xl, xy) = (x 2, xy;y") n (x)
argue that the hypothesis (and, hence, the conc1usion) of Theorem 5-14 ;

holds. Now, the irredundancy of the representation I = nk

Qk implies that regardless of the choice of n > 1. The corresponding nil radicals (that is,
there exists an element a E nk'f i Qk' but a ~ 1. For any such element a, the associated prime ideals) are (x, y) and (x). Thus, in any irredundant
we must have represen ta tion
(x 2, xy) = Ql n Q2
I: (a) :;;;; .JQ, :; ; JI: (a).
by primary ideals Ql and Q2' we must have
The first inclusion is justified by the fact that, since a(I: (a») :;;;; I :;;;; Q¡ with
a ~ Q¡, necessari1y I: (a) :;;;;.J(j¡. To see 'tb,e second inc1usion, simply note .JQ; (x, y), JQ; = (x).
,that aQ¡ :;;;; I, whence Q¡ :;;;; I: (a). Of these, only (x) is a mínimal prime of (x 2, xy). Now, it so happens that
 238 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 239

JQ¡ are unique and are the same in all irredundant primary representations Next, suppose that the product be E I: (a), but b ~.J(j¡. Then
of I; thus, it is the number of primary components that will be unique. To a(be) El:;;;; Q¡. Since Q¡ is primary and b ~.J(j¡, it follows that ac E Q¡.
veriCy this, it is enough to show that the associated prime ideals can be
characterized in terrns of the properties oC I alone, independent oC any
E
Also, ae (a) S;;; nk'l'¡ Qk' which gives ae Enk Qk = I, forcing the element
e to líe in I: (a). In other words, be El: (a) with b ~ J(I¡ implíes that
particular primary representation considered. Before proceeding to the e El: (a). Thus, all the conditions of Theorem 5-14 are satisfied and we
prooC, let us illustrate the fact that an ideal in a Noetherian ring need not may conc1ude that P = JQ¡ = JI: (a).
have a unique irredundant primary representation.
{
Going in the other direction, let the element a ~ I be such that P = .JI: (a).
Example 12-1. In the polynomial ring F[x, yJ, where F is any field, consider With níerence to Theorem 2-5,
the ideal (x2, xy). It is easy to see that (x2; xy) consists of those polynomials
which have x as a factor and which do not possess linear terms. Now, the
I: (a) = (n Q¡): (a) = n (Q¡: (a»)
i i
nonzero elements of(x2, xy, r) are precisely the polynomials each ofwhose
terms are of degree ¿2; hence the intersection (x2, xy, y2) n (x) contains
and, the intersection being finite, P = n¡
JQ¡: (a). Observe that if a E Q¡,
then JQ¡: (a) = Q¡: (a) = R. On the other band, if a ~ Q¡, reason as in
the zero polynomial together with aH polynomials of degree ¿2 which the first part ofthe proofwith I now replaced by the primary ideal Q¡; for
bave x as a factor. Th~s, we have these Q¡, we then obtain JQ¡: (a) = J(I¡. In consequence, P is the inter-
(x 2, xy) (x 2, xy, y2) n (x). section of sorne of the .J(j¡; let us say that

Besides this irredundant representation, there is yet another:

P = JQ;. n JO:;. n ... n JQ:..
Knowing this, the proof is easi1y completed; for, by Problern 30(a), Chapter
(x 2, xy) = (x2, y) n (x) 5, P must contain one of the ideals ..JQ;. and is obviously contained by
it, whence P = ..jQik'
To derive the relation above, notice that for a polynomial to He in (x 2, xy),
it is suflicient to require that the polynomial be divisible by x and that the What we are realIy after is the corollary below.
coeflicient of y be zero. As has been seen in Example 7-8, (x 2, xy, y2) and
Corollary. Let I be an ideal of the Noetherian ring R. Suppose that
(x 2, y) are both primary ideals, while (x) is prime in F[x, y] and, hence, also
I = Ql n ... n Qn = Q~ n ... n Q~ are two finite irredundant pri-
primary.
mary representations of 1. Then, n = m and the assoclated prime ideals
We next determine a characteristic ofthe primary representation which of these two representations are equal (t,bat is, with a sllÍtable renumber-
is uniquely determined by the ideal in question. , .' ing of the indices .JQ. = .Jffi
for 1 .$ ,í :s;¡ n = m).
Theorem 12-4. Suppose that an ideal I oc" the ring R has a finite Proo!. The theorem provides an intrinsic cl'laracterization of the associated
irredundant primary representation, say J ni=l Q¡, arid let P be any prime ideals in terms of I alone.
prime ideal of R. Then P .JQ.i for sorne i if and only'if there exists Example 12-2. In the polynomial ring F[x, y], the ideal (Xl, xy) has the
an element a ~ I such that P JI: (a). .
irredundant primary representation
Proo!. To start with, assume that P .JQI for a given inde,x i. We shall (Xl, xy) = (x 2, xy;y") n (x)
argue that the hypothesis (and, hence, the conc1usion) of Theorem 5-14 ;

holds. Now, the irredundancy of the representation I = nk

Qk implies that regardless of the choice of n > 1. The corresponding nil radicals (that is,
there exists an element a E nk'f i Qk' but a ~ 1. For any such element a, the associated prime ideals) are (x, y) and (x). Thus, in any irredundant
we must have represen ta tion
(x 2, xy) = Ql n Q2
I: (a) :;;;; .JQ, :; ; JI: (a).
by primary ideals Ql and Q2' we must have
The first inclusion is justified by the fact that, since a(I: (a») :;;;; I :;;;; Q¡ with
a ~ Q¡, necessari1y I: (a) :;;;;.J(j¡. To see 'tb,e second inc1usion, simply note .JQ; (x, y), JQ; = (x).
,that aQ¡ :;;;; I, whence Q¡ :;;;; I: (a). Of these, only (x) is a mínimal prime of (x 2, xy). Now, it so happens that
 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 241
240

the nil radical-JI of an ideal l in a Noetherian ring is the intersection of the
minimal priines of 1; granting this fact, one finds that
-J(x 2 , xy) = (x).
Incidentally, our example has the added advantage of showing that -JI can
be prime without the ideal l being primary. ' finitely generated, but that R is not Noetherian. This assures that the
At this stage, it is reasonable to inquire under what circumstances (if
any at ~1I) the ideal s in;a given primary representation will turn out to be
prime ideals. The follo~ing theorem supplies an answer.
Theorem 12-5. Let'j:be an ideal ofthe ring R with a finite irredundant
primary representati<;m l = n7=l Qi' Then lis semiprime (that is,
Theorem 12-6. (Cohen). A ring R is Noetherian if and only ifevery
prime ideal of R is finitely genera ted. ,
Proo! The "only W' part'is an immediate consequence of Theorem 11-1.
'}
Passing to the less trivial assertion, assume that every prime ideal of R is
collection ff of ideals of R which are not finitely generated is nonempty.
Appealing to Zorn's lernma, ff must contain a maximall1leent, call it l.
:~,Y v!rtue of our hypothesis, l 'c~nnot be a pr~me ideal of . Consequently,
ther!'!. eXlst elements a, b of R WhlCh are not m l such t at their product
ab,~ .:J. Now, both the ideals (1, b) and 1: (b) properIy contain 1; in particular,
a e:¡.,A; (b). By the maximal nature of l in ff, these ideals are finitely generated. ,/,;(,:

F<:>,~/definiteness, let us suppose that {.;~,f

l = -JI) if and onlyif each Qi is a prime ideal of R.
Proo! We begin by a~~u'~ng that all the Q¡ in the given primary represe~~a-' <::,,':,,1. (1, b) = (el) c2 , ... , en) and 1: (b) == (d 1 , d2 , ... , dm ). l· ','.
tion of l are prime ideaJs.···1f the element a E -JI, then a" E l for sorne poslbve ;-?:.:!::;
integer n; hence, a" lies:i~ each Qi' As Q¡ is taken to be prime, this implies T~~p; C¡ = a¡ + br¡, where a¡ E l and r¡ E R (i = L 2, ... , n), so that
that a itselfbelongs to QJor every i and so a E l. Our argument shows that (1, b) = (al' a 2 , ... , a", b) .
.JI S; 1, froID which the desired equality follows. . ....
With regard'to the converse, suppose that the Ideal l comcldes wIth ltS Next, consider the ideal J generated by the elements a¡ and bd j ; in other
ni! radical. Then, usingTheorem 5-10 again, words, the ideal ' " '

l =-JI =-Jn Qi = n.JQi·

i i
J = (al' ... , a", bd l , ... , bdm)·

It is important to point out that this is actually an irredundant representation Sin ce bd j E l for every j, the inclusion J S; l certainly holds. What is not so
of las an intersection of primary (in f~ct, prime) ideals. Suppose not; there o bvious is that l S; J. To see this, let x be an'arbitrary member of 1; because
would then exist sorne positive integer j such that l = n¡ti J[. But then x E (1, b), it may be written in the forO).
l = n-JQi nQi
i'f'i
;2
iti
;2 1, (Y¡, Y E R);

which means that l = ni'f'j Qi' This, however, contradicts the hypothesis As each a¡ lies in the ideal 1, so do es by, which is simply' to assert that
that the given representation of l is irredundant. , y El: (b). Kn()wing this, we areable to find elements Z¡ sR such that
I
Next, fix the integer j and let a be any element of the ideal~. Since I y = dlz l + d2 z 2 + ... + dmz m,
nitj J[ =1= n -JQ¡, we can find sorne b E n¡~j.JQ; with b ~ 'VQj' Then
n
the product ab E J[ = l ~ Qj' whence a lS a member of Qi: .The~e­ leading directly to
fore, .J(E S; Qi' yielding the subsequent equality Qi = .J(E. ThlS lmpbes
that Qi is a prime ideal, which was what had to be proved. x = aly + ... + a"y" + b(dlz l + ... + dmz m )
With this information at our disposal, we can now state = a'lYl + ... + a"y" + (bdl)Zl + .... ~ (bdm)zm EJ.

Corollary. In a Noetherian ring, any semiprime ideal is a finite inter-
section of prime ideals.
Let us change direction now. The reader will no doubt recall that a ring
R is Noetherian if and only if every ideal of R is finitely generated (Theorem
11-1). Actually, it is enough to consider just the prime ideals of R, the proof
being due to l. S. Cohen.
I The equality l = J now follows and so one concludes that l itself is finitely
generated, an impossibility since l E ff. This contradiction completes the
proof.
Scrutiny of the preceding argument reveals a fact which is important
enough to be stated independently: Let l be an ideal of the ring R and b
an element of R; if the ideals (1, b) and 1: (b) are both finitely generated,
 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 241
240

the nil radical-JI of an ideal l in a Noetherian ring is the intersection of the
minimal priines of 1; granting this fact, one finds that
-J(x 2 , xy) = (x).
Incidentally, our example has the added advantage of showing that -JI can
be prime without the ideal l being primary. ' finitely generated, but that R is not Noetherian. This assures that the
At this stage, it is reasonable to inquire under what circumstances (if
any at ~1I) the ideal s in;a given primary representation will turn out to be
prime ideals. The follo~ing theorem supplies an answer.
Theorem 12-5. Let'j:be an ideal ofthe ring R with a finite irredundant
primary representati<;m l = n7=l Qi' Then lis semiprime (that is,
Theorem 12-6. (Cohen). A ring R is Noetherian if and only ifevery
prime ideal of R is finitely genera ted. ,
Proo! The "only W' part'is an immediate consequence of Theorem 11-1.
'}
Passing to the less trivial assertion, assume that every prime ideal of R is
collection ff of ideals of R which are not finitely generated is nonempty.
Appealing to Zorn's lernma, ff must contain a maximall1leent, call it l.
:~,Y v!rtue of our hypothesis, l 'c~nnot be a pr~me ideal of . Consequently,
ther!'!. eXlst elements a, b of R WhlCh are not m l such t at their product
ab,~ .:J. Now, both the ideals (1, b) and 1: (b) properIy contain 1; in particular,
a e:¡.,A; (b). By the maximal nature of l in ff, these ideals are finitely generated. ,/,;(,:

F<:>,~/definiteness, let us suppose that {.;~,f

l = -JI) if and onlyif each Qi is a prime ideal of R.
Proo! We begin by a~~u'~ng that all the Q¡ in the given primary represe~~a-' <::,,':,,1. (1, b) = (el) c2 , ... , en) and 1: (b) == (d 1 , d2 , ... , dm ). l· ','.
tion of l are prime ideaJs.···1f the element a E -JI, then a" E l for sorne poslbve ;-?:.:!::;
integer n; hence, a" lies:i~ each Qi' As Q¡ is taken to be prime, this implies T~~p; C¡ = a¡ + br¡, where a¡ E l and r¡ E R (i = L 2, ... , n), so that
that a itselfbelongs to QJor every i and so a E l. Our argument shows that (1, b) = (al' a 2 , ... , a", b) .
.JI S; 1, froID which the desired equality follows. . ....
With regard'to the converse, suppose that the Ideal l comcldes wIth ltS Next, consider the ideal J generated by the elements a¡ and bd j ; in other
ni! radical. Then, usingTheorem 5-10 again, words, the ideal ' " '

l =-JI =-Jn Qi = n.JQi·

i i
J = (al' ... , a", bd l , ... , bdm)·

It is important to point out that this is actually an irredundant representation Sin ce bd j E l for every j, the inclusion J S; l certainly holds. What is not so
of las an intersection of primary (in f~ct, prime) ideals. Suppose not; there o bvious is that l S; J. To see this, let x be an'arbitrary member of 1; because
would then exist sorne positive integer j such that l = n¡ti J[. But then x E (1, b), it may be written in the forO).
l = n-JQi nQi
i'f'i
;2
iti
;2 1, (Y¡, Y E R);

which means that l = ni'f'j Qi' This, however, contradicts the hypothesis As each a¡ lies in the ideal 1, so do es by, which is simply' to assert that
that the given representation of l is irredundant. , y El: (b). Kn()wing this, we areable to find elements Z¡ sR such that
I
Next, fix the integer j and let a be any element of the ideal~. Since I y = dlz l + d2 z 2 + ... + dmz m,
nitj J[ =1= n -JQ¡, we can find sorne b E n¡~j.JQ; with b ~ 'VQj' Then
n
the product ab E J[ = l ~ Qj' whence a lS a member of Qi: .The~e­ leading directly to
fore, .J(E S; Qi' yielding the subsequent equality Qi = .J(E. ThlS lmpbes
that Qi is a prime ideal, which was what had to be proved. x = aly + ... + a"y" + b(dlz l + ... + dmz m )
With this information at our disposal, we can now state = a'lYl + ... + a"y" + (bdl)Zl + .... ~ (bdm)zm EJ.

Corollary. In a Noetherian ring, any semiprime ideal is a finite inter-
section of prime ideals.
Let us change direction now. The reader will no doubt recall that a ring
R is Noetherian if and only if every ideal of R is finitely generated (Theorem
11-1). Actually, it is enough to consider just the prime ideals of R, the proof
being due to l. S. Cohen.
I The equality l = J now follows and so one concludes that l itself is finitely
generated, an impossibility since l E ff. This contradiction completes the
proof.
Scrutiny of the preceding argument reveals a fact which is important
enough to be stated independently: Let l be an ideal of the ring R and b
an element of R; if the ideals (1, b) and 1: (b) are both finitely generated,
242 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 243

then 1 is al so finitely generatedo
As an application of Cohen's Theorem, we present
Corollary. If R is a ring in which each maximal ideal is generated by
an idempotent, then R is Noetheriano
Proa! We first prove that every primary ideal of R is maximal. Suppose
otherwis~; that is, let 1 be a primary ideal which is not maximal in R. Now,
1 will be contained in sorne maximal ideal Mo By hypothesis, M has an
idempotent generator; say M = (e), where.e is an idempotent'different from
O or 1 (if e = O, R becomes a field and there is nothing to prove)o Then
e(1 - e) = O El and, since 1 is a primary ideal, it follows that
(1 :-- e)n E 1 ~ M
for sorne positive integer no This implies that 1 - e E M = (e), so that
1 E M, an obvious contradictiono
Because every primary ideal bf R is maximal, the notions of maximal,
prime, and primary ideal all agreeo In the light of our hypothesis, every
maximal ideal (hence, every prime ideal) is finitely generatedo That R is
necessarily Noetherian now follows from Cohen's result.
We next propose to take a look at several results concerning the in ter-
section ofthe powers ofan ideal in a Noetherian ringo Before any deductions
can be made, it will be convenient to establish a technicallemmao
Lemma. Let 1 and J be two ideals ofthe ring R, with 1 finitely generatedo
If IJ = 1, then there exists an element rE J such that (1 - r)l = {O}o
Proa! Supposethat 1 is generated by the elements al' a2 , an0 Let 1¡
000'
denote the ideaL(a¡;a¡+l' 000'an) and put ln+l = {O}o By induction on i,
we shall pro ve the existence of an element r¡ E J such that (1 - r¡)l !;; 1¡
(i = 1,2, n T ~); in particular, rn+l will be the element mentioned in
000'
It now suffices to take 1 - r¡+ 1 = (1 - r;)(1 - r¡ - b¡¡); clearly, ri+ 1 E J
and, as a little computation will show,
(1 - r¡+l)l = (1 - r;)(1 - r¡ - b¡Jl
!;; (1 - r i - bu )l í
This proves the lemmao
In a moment, we shall appeal to this lemma to characterize the elements
which belong to the intersection of the powers of an ideal o Let us tem-
porarily turn aside from this pursuit, however, to call attention to a note-
worthy result of Nakayamao .
Theorem 12-7. (Nakayama's Lemma)o Let 1 be a finitely generated
ideal ofthe ring R. If l(rad R) = 1, then 1 = {O}o
Proa! The foregoing lemma tells us that there exists an element r Erad R
for which (1 - r)I = {O}o If 1 - r were not invertible in R, then it would
be contained in sorne maximal ideal Mo But rE rad R ~ M, leading to
the contradiction that 1 E Mo Accordingly, 1 - r is an invertible element
of R, which forces 1 = {O}.
Remarko It is possible to prove somewhat more than is asserted aboye, for
one may replace rad R by any ideal which is contained in rad R. What is
important in the present situation is that Nakayama's Lemma holds iti any
Noetherian ringo
We now come to the theorem that was alluded to earliero
Theorem 12-8 Let 1 be a proper ideal of the Noetherian ring R. TMil"'
n In
IX)

the statement of t4e theoremo n=l

= {r E RI(1 - a)r = O for sorne a E I}o
o

When i = 1, the ideal 11 = 1 and one can simply take r 1 = 00 Using

the induction hypothesis that (1 - rJl ~ li for sorne r¡ E J, together with . Proa! For ease ofnotation, let S denote the right-hand side ofthe indicate,d,
the fact that 1 ~ 1J, we have equationo If the element r E S, so that (1 - a)r = O for suitable a E 1, we.
would necessarily have
(1 - rJl !;; (1 - r;)IJ ~ l¡Jo
Since each generator a¡ lies in 1, it follows that (1 - r;)a¡ E 1;1 and so r. = ar = a2 r = o o o = a"r =
n
The implication of these relations is that r belongs to In for every integer n
(1 - r;)a¡ = I b¡kak (b ik E 1)0
and, hence, r E nn 1" ; in other words, S ~ ln nn
k=i
n"
o

In consequence, The opposite inclusion is les s obviouso To obtain this, put J = In

and consider the irredundant primary representation of the ideal IJ:

IJ = n Qi'
i
(Qi primary)o
242 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 243

then 1 is al so finitely generatedo
As an application of Cohen's Theorem, we present
Corollary. If R is a ring in which each maximal ideal is generated by
an idempotent, then R is Noetheriano
Proa! We first prove that every primary ideal of R is maximal. Suppose
otherwis~; that is, let 1 be a primary ideal which is not maximal in R. Now,
1 will be contained in sorne maximal ideal Mo By hypothesis, M has an
idempotent generator; say M = (e), where.e is an idempotent'different from
O or 1 (if e = O, R becomes a field and there is nothing to prove)o Then
e(1 - e) = O El and, since 1 is a primary ideal, it follows that
(1 :-- e)n E 1 ~ M
for sorne positive integer no This implies that 1 - e E M = (e), so that
1 E M, an obvious contradictiono
Because every primary ideal bf R is maximal, the notions of maximal,
prime, and primary ideal all agreeo In the light of our hypothesis, every
maximal ideal (hence, every prime ideal) is finitely generatedo That R is
necessarily Noetherian now follows from Cohen's result.
We next propose to take a look at several results concerning the in ter-
section ofthe powers ofan ideal in a Noetherian ringo Before any deductions
can be made, it will be convenient to establish a technicallemmao
Lemma. Let 1 and J be two ideals ofthe ring R, with 1 finitely generatedo
If IJ = 1, then there exists an element rE J such that (1 - r)l = {O}o
Proa! Supposethat 1 is generated by the elements al' a2 , an0 Let 1¡
000'
denote the ideaL(a¡;a¡+l' 000'an) and put ln+l = {O}o By induction on i,
we shall pro ve the existence of an element r¡ E J such that (1 - r¡)l !;; 1¡
(i = 1,2, n T ~); in particular, rn+l will be the element mentioned in
000'
It now suffices to take 1 - r¡+ 1 = (1 - r;)(1 - r¡ - b¡¡); clearly, ri+ 1 E J
and, as a little computation will show,
(1 - r¡+l)l = (1 - r;)(1 - r¡ - b¡Jl
!;; (1 - r i - bu )l í
This proves the lemmao
In a moment, we shall appeal to this lemma to characterize the elements
which belong to the intersection of the powers of an ideal o Let us tem-
porarily turn aside from this pursuit, however, to call attention to a note-
worthy result of Nakayamao .
Theorem 12-7. (Nakayama's Lemma)o Let 1 be a finitely generated
ideal ofthe ring R. If l(rad R) = 1, then 1 = {O}o
Proa! The foregoing lemma tells us that there exists an element r Erad R
for which (1 - r)I = {O}o If 1 - r were not invertible in R, then it would
be contained in sorne maximal ideal Mo But rE rad R ~ M, leading to
the contradiction that 1 E Mo Accordingly, 1 - r is an invertible element
of R, which forces 1 = {O}.
Remarko It is possible to prove somewhat more than is asserted aboye, for
one may replace rad R by any ideal which is contained in rad R. What is
important in the present situation is that Nakayama's Lemma holds iti any
Noetherian ringo
We now come to the theorem that was alluded to earliero
Theorem 12-8 Let 1 be a proper ideal of the Noetherian ring R. TMil"'
n In
IX)

the statement of t4e theoremo n=l

= {r E RI(1 - a)r = O for sorne a E I}o
o

When i = 1, the ideal 11 = 1 and one can simply take r 1 = 00 Using

the induction hypothesis that (1 - rJl ~ li for sorne r¡ E J, together with . Proa! For ease ofnotation, let S denote the right-hand side ofthe indicate,d,
the fact that 1 ~ 1J, we have equationo If the element r E S, so that (1 - a)r = O for suitable a E 1, we.
would necessarily have
(1 - rJl !;; (1 - r;)IJ ~ l¡Jo
Since each generator a¡ lies in 1, it follows that (1 - r;)a¡ E 1;1 and so r. = ar = a2 r = o o o = a"r =
n
The implication of these relations is that r belongs to In for every integer n
(1 - r;)a¡ = I b¡kak (b ik E 1)0
and, hence, r E nn 1" ; in other words, S ~ ln nn
k=i
n"
o

In consequence, The opposite inclusion is les s obviouso To obtain this, put J = In

and consider the irredundant primary representation of the ideal IJ:

IJ = n Qi'
i
(Qi primary)o
 FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 245
244 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS

We .conclude the prese~t ph~se of our investigation by showing that,

We wish to establish the equality 1J = J (once this has been accomplished
. the previous Íemma can be applied). Since 1J f;; J, it will be enough to sh<;>w
for any Ideal l of a Noethenan nng, n:=l
In is equal to the intersectioñ of
certain primary components of the zero ideal. This result, which may be
that J f;; Q¡ for each index i. Now, 1J f;; Q¡, so, by the corollary to
regarded as a refinement of the Krull Inter8ection Theorem, i8 due to
Theorem 11-2, either J S; Q¡ or eIse (Ji)" S; Q¡ for some n E Z+. But if
Northcott [53].
(,JJ)v S; Q¡; then
Theorem 12-10. Let 1 be an ideal of the Noetherian ring R and let
{O} = Q1 n Q2 n ... n Qn be an irredundant primary representation
of {O}. Assume further that ..JQ¡ n¡(1 - 1) =/:; 0 for m + 1 ~ i ~ n,
In any 'event, J S; Q¡ for each value of i, whence J S; 1J and eq:u:ality follows. - but not for 1 ~ i ~ m. Then,::': ,'1'\ .
. From the lemma just proved, there exists an elementd 'i¡; 1 such that
(1 - a)J = {O}. But this amounts to asserting that J = n~.t~ is contained n 1"
"=1
co <, ;

Ql n.·Q~ n ... n Qm'

..
in the set S and thereby completes the proof.
This leads almost immediately to an important theorem. of Krull.
")
Proo! According to Theorem 12-8, i\:i~;enough to show th~t the set
S ~ {r E RI(l O for some¿'~,E l} = Ql n Q2 n '" n Qm'
Theorem 12-9.. (KrhUIntersection Theorem). Let 1 be á¡j~oper ideal of
a)r
"'¡( '".-:
. the N oetherian ring R. Then n:= 1
¡n {O} if and on.i:y:'íf no element Suppose that the elernent r E S, SO thát~t O E Q¡ for suitable X E 1 - l.
of the set 1 ~ 1 = {1 - ala E 1} is a zero divisor in R. .: '. For 1 ~ i ::;;'m, our hypothesis implies' ihat X rt ,JQ¡, whence rE Q.' this
establishes the inclusion S f;; Ql I'l Q2 n ... n Qm' "
There are, of.course, a number oC interesting consequences of this last Now, let y be an arbitrary member of the intersection Q1 n. Q2 n ...
result. Some of these are' the content of the corollaries below. n Qm ~When the integer i ;;:::: m + 1, it is possible to choose an element
Corollary 1. If l ls a proper ideal of the Noetherian domain R (in a¡ E ,JQ¡ n (1 - 1). For k sufficiently large, we. will then have .
particulár, if R is a principal ideal domain), then n:=1
l" = {O}. y(am+ 1 ... an)k E Ql n ... n Qm n ... n Qn = {O},
COfolIary 2~ In any Noetherian ring R, n:=1 (radR)" = {O}. that is to say, y(a m+ 1 ... an)k = O. Because 1 - 1 forms a multiplicatively
closed 8ubset of R, the product am + 1 ... a" El - 1 and so, by definition,
Proo! Take l ~ rad R in Krull's Theorem. By Theorem 8-2, every ele- y ES. Our argumentgives Q1 n Q2 n ... n Qm S; S, from which the desired
m.ent of 1 - radR is invertible and thus cannot be a zero divisor. equality follows. . .
COfolIary 3. In a Noetherian domain R, any prime principal ideal (a) One.could rephrase Theorem 12-10 to read as follows. Given an ideal
is a minimal prime idealof R. 1 of the Noetherian ring R, ():=¿n i8 the intersection of those primary
Proo! Suppose to the contrai:y that there eiists a prime ideal P of R components Q¡ of {O} for which ,JQ¡ n (1 - 1) = 0·
satisfying {O} c: P c: (a). Since the element a rt P, the condition ra E P We next intend to prove the following result On local rings: if a local
implies that rE P; hence, P = aP. Utilizing Corollary 1, we therefore ring R has principal maximal ideal M, with n:=l
Mil = {O}, then R must
conclude that be Noetherian. Such rings have an extremely simple ideal theory in that
P aP a2 p = ... S; n(a") =
11
n
"
(a)" = {O}, every.no~triv~al i~eal is a power of the maximal ideal. The obvious example
oC thIS sltuatlOn 18 the power series ring F[[xJ], where F is a field; by
which is impossible. This line of reasoning makes (a) a minimal .prime Theorem 7-3, we know that F[[xJ] forms a local ring with maximal ideal
I (x), in consequence of which
ideal of R.
Given a zero divisor r = 1 - a, with a E l, the element 1 - r evidently n:=l (xt = n:~l (x") = {O}.
belongs to the ideal l. In the light of this, the Intersection Theorem is often Before we consider the stated result, a lemma is required.
phrased in a slightly different form: Let l be an ideal of the Noetherian
ring R; then, n:=lIn = {O} if and only if there is no zero divisor r of R
Lemma. Let R be a local ring whose maximal ideal M is principal.
Then,
such that 1 - r E 1. .
 FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 245
244 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS

We .conclude the prese~t ph~se of our investigation by showing that,

We wish to establish the equality 1J = J (once this has been accomplished
. the previous Íemma can be applied). Since 1J f;; J, it will be enough to sh<;>w
for any Ideal l of a Noethenan nng, n:=l
In is equal to the intersectioñ of
certain primary components of the zero ideal. This result, which may be
that J f;; Q¡ for each index i. Now, 1J f;; Q¡, so, by the corollary to
regarded as a refinement of the Krull Inter8ection Theorem, i8 due to
Theorem 11-2, either J S; Q¡ or eIse (Ji)" S; Q¡ for some n E Z+. But if
Northcott [53].
(,JJ)v S; Q¡; then
Theorem 12-10. Let 1 be an ideal of the Noetherian ring R and let
{O} = Q1 n Q2 n ... n Qn be an irredundant primary representation
of {O}. Assume further that ..JQ¡ n¡(1 - 1) =/:; 0 for m + 1 ~ i ~ n,
In any 'event, J S; Q¡ for each value of i, whence J S; 1J and eq:u:ality follows. - but not for 1 ~ i ~ m. Then,::': ,'1'\ .
. From the lemma just proved, there exists an elementd 'i¡; 1 such that
(1 - a)J = {O}. But this amounts to asserting that J = n~.t~ is contained n 1"
"=1
co <, ;

Ql n.·Q~ n ... n Qm'

..
in the set S and thereby completes the proof.
This leads almost immediately to an important theorem. of Krull.
")
Proo! According to Theorem 12-8, i\:i~;enough to show th~t the set
S ~ {r E RI(l O for some¿'~,E l} = Ql n Q2 n '" n Qm'
Theorem 12-9.. (KrhUIntersection Theorem). Let 1 be á¡j~oper ideal of
a)r
"'¡( '".-:
. the N oetherian ring R. Then n:= 1
¡n {O} if and on.i:y:'íf no element Suppose that the elernent r E S, SO thát~t O E Q¡ for suitable X E 1 - l.
of the set 1 ~ 1 = {1 - ala E 1} is a zero divisor in R. .: '. For 1 ~ i ::;;'m, our hypothesis implies' ihat X rt ,JQ¡, whence rE Q.' this
establishes the inclusion S f;; Ql I'l Q2 n ... n Qm' "
There are, of.course, a number oC interesting consequences of this last Now, let y be an arbitrary member of the intersection Q1 n. Q2 n ...
result. Some of these are' the content of the corollaries below. n Qm ~When the integer i ;;:::: m + 1, it is possible to choose an element
Corollary 1. If l ls a proper ideal of the Noetherian domain R (in a¡ E ,JQ¡ n (1 - 1). For k sufficiently large, we. will then have .
particulár, if R is a principal ideal domain), then n:=1
l" = {O}. y(am+ 1 ... an)k E Ql n ... n Qm n ... n Qn = {O},
COfolIary 2~ In any Noetherian ring R, n:=1 (radR)" = {O}. that is to say, y(a m+ 1 ... an)k = O. Because 1 - 1 forms a multiplicatively
closed 8ubset of R, the product am + 1 ... a" El - 1 and so, by definition,
Proo! Take l ~ rad R in Krull's Theorem. By Theorem 8-2, every ele- y ES. Our argumentgives Q1 n Q2 n ... n Qm S; S, from which the desired
m.ent of 1 - radR is invertible and thus cannot be a zero divisor. equality follows. . .
COfolIary 3. In a Noetherian domain R, any prime principal ideal (a) One.could rephrase Theorem 12-10 to read as follows. Given an ideal
is a minimal prime idealof R. 1 of the Noetherian ring R, ():=¿n i8 the intersection of those primary
Proo! Suppose to the contrai:y that there eiists a prime ideal P of R components Q¡ of {O} for which ,JQ¡ n (1 - 1) = 0·
satisfying {O} c: P c: (a). Since the element a rt P, the condition ra E P We next intend to prove the following result On local rings: if a local
implies that rE P; hence, P = aP. Utilizing Corollary 1, we therefore ring R has principal maximal ideal M, with n:=l
Mil = {O}, then R must
conclude that be Noetherian. Such rings have an extremely simple ideal theory in that
P aP a2 p = ... S; n(a") =
11
n
"
(a)" = {O}, every.no~triv~al i~eal is a power of the maximal ideal. The obvious example
oC thIS sltuatlOn 18 the power series ring F[[xJ], where F is a field; by
which is impossible. This line of reasoning makes (a) a minimal .prime Theorem 7-3, we know that F[[xJ] forms a local ring with maximal ideal
I (x), in consequence of which
ideal of R.
Given a zero divisor r = 1 - a, with a E l, the element 1 - r evidently n:=l (xt = n:~l (x") = {O}.
belongs to the ideal l. In the light of this, the Intersection Theorem is often Before we consider the stated result, a lemma is required.
phrased in a slightly different form: Let l be an ideal of the Noetherian
ring R; then, n:=lIn = {O} if and only if there is no zero divisor r of R
Lemma. Let R be a local ring whose maximal ideal M is principal.
Then,
such that 1 - r E 1. .
 246 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
1) for nonzero a, b E M, (a) = (b) if and only if a = bu, where u is
invertible in R;
2) if M = (p) =1= {O}, then p is an irreducible element of R;
3) if O =1= a = qnu, with q E M and u in vertible, then this factorization
is essentially unique (that is, the integer n is uniquely determined by q).
Proo! If (a) = (b), then a = br and b = as for suitable r, s E R. Accord-
ingly, a '= asr or a(l - sr) = O. Suppose that one of the elements r or s
lies in M, so that the product sr E M. We observe that 1 - sr fj M, for other-·
wise 1 E M. This means that 1 - sr is an invertible element of R (recall
that M consists of all the noninvertible elements of R). Then the relation
a(l - sr) = O yields a = O, a contradiction. Thus, neither r nor s belongs
to M, which signifies that they are both invertible. The conve~se should' be
obvious.
Concerning (2), let R = ab. If the element b is not in vertible, then part
(1) forces M = (p) e (a). The inaximality of M then ensures that (a) = R,
whence a has an inverse in R.
To see the final assertion, assume that a = qnu = qmv, with m > n.
Then qnu(l - qm-nvu- 1 ) = O. By the I:).rgument of the first paragraph, this
relation implies that a = O.
Theorem 12-11. Let R be a local ring with principal maximal ideal
M = (p). Then every element O =1= a E M has a factorization in the form
a = pmu, where u is invertible, if and only if n~= 1 (pn) = {O}.
Proo! Assume that the intersection nn
(p") = {O}. If O =1= a E M, then
a = pr for sorne r in R. If it happens that r is not an invertible element,
then r E M; thus, we can .write r = ps or, upon substituting, a = p2 s. This
process must eventually termínate, for otherwisea wou1dlie in nn (pn) = {O}.
For the converse, suppose that there exists sorne 'nQi1zero element a in
n" (p"). In particular, a E (p) = M, so that a = pmu for sorne invertible U.
For any integer k > m, we then have
(pm) S;;; (a) S;;; (pk) S;;; (pm),
whence the equality (pm) = (pk). The lemma now tells us that pm = pkV,
where v is an invertible element of R.. This mean s that a = pkVU, with vu
invertible, contradicting the last assertion of the lemma.
Corollary 1. LetR bea local ring with principal maximal ideal M = (p).
Assume further that n:'=l M" = {O}. If 1 is any nontrivial ideal of R,
then 1 = M k for sorne k E Z + (hence, R is Noetherian).
Proo! Clearly, 1 S;;; M, so that each nonzero element of 1 can be written
. as pnu, with u invertible. Take k to be the least integer such that pku E l.
It then follows that 1 S;;; (pk). On the other hand, since pku E 1, so does
pk = (pkU)U- 1 ; this implies that (pk) S;;; 1 and equality follows.
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 247
Corollary 2. If R i8 a Noetherian local ring whose maximal ideal is
principal, then R is a principal ideal ringo
Our development has now reached a point where, in order to make
further progress, we need to bring in certain results that belong primarily
to the theory of modules. The concept of a module is the natural generaliza-
tion of that of a vector space; instead of requiring the "scalars" to be
elements of a field, we now allow them to lie in an arbitrary ring with identity.
The major theorem to be established is a remarkable result of Hopkins
that every commutative Artinian ring with identity is Noetherian. This
theorem does not extend to rings lacking an identity;· indeed, Z(pOO) shows
that it is possible for the descending chain condition tobe satisfied in a
ring without the ascending chain condition also holding. Apart from sorne
standard results about ideals, Hopkin's argument requires only the Jordan-
Holder Theorem for modules (including the fact that a composition series
exists if and only if both chain conditions on submodules are satisfied).
The proof will not be given immediately, but only after we assemble sorne
of the module-theoretic prerequisites. Our discussion is not entirely self-
contained in this regard and certain facts will be presented without proof.
The reader who is unfamiliar with modules would profit from working out
the details.
It is time for these somewhat vague preliminaries to give way to a more
precise definition.
Definition 12-3. Let R be a ring with identity. Bya lejt module over R
(or a left R-module), we mean a commutative group M (written additively)
together with an operation of IIlultiplication which associa~es with each
r E R and a E M a uniqueelement ra E M such that the following
conditions are satisfied:
1) (r + s)a = ra + sa,
2) (rs)a = r(sa),
3) r(a + b) = ra + rb,
4) la = a,
for all r, s E R and a, b E M. The parallel notion of a right R-module
can be defined symmetrically, -
Technically speaking, (left) module multiplication is a function
a: R x M ~ M, where a(r, a) is denoted by ra. The element ra is often
called the module product of r and a. In effect, Definition 12-3 states that a
left R-module is an ordered pair (M, a); this approach gets a little cumber-
sorne and so, when there is no possibility of confusion, we shall lapse into
saying "the left R-module M".
We pause to look at sorne typical examples of modules.
 246 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS ANO IDEALS
1) for nonzero a, b E M, (a) = (b) if and only if a = bu, where u is
invertible in R;
2) if M = (p) =1= {O}, then p is an irreducible element of R;
3) if O =1= a = qnu, with q E M and u in vertible, then this factorization
is essentially unique (that is, the integer n is uniquely determined by q).
Proo! If (a) = (b), then a = br and b = as for suitable r, s E R. Accord-
ingly, a '= asr or a(l - sr) = O. Suppose that one of the elements r or s
lies in M, so that the product sr E M. We observe that 1 - sr fj M, for other-·
wise 1 E M. This means that 1 - sr is an invertible element of R (recall
that M consists of all the noninvertible elements of R). Then the relation
a(l - sr) = O yields a = O, a contradiction. Thus, neither r nor s belongs
to M, which signifies that they are both invertible. The conve~se should' be
obvious.
Concerning (2), let R = ab. If the element b is not in vertible, then part
(1) forces M = (p) e (a). The inaximality of M then ensures that (a) = R,
whence a has an inverse in R.
To see the final assertion, assume that a = qnu = qmv, with m > n.
Then qnu(l - qm-nvu- 1 ) = O. By the I:).rgument of the first paragraph, this
relation implies that a = O.
Theorem 12-11. Let R be a local ring with principal maximal ideal
M = (p). Then every element O =1= a E M has a factorization in the form
a = pmu, where u is invertible, if and only if n~= 1 (pn) = {O}.
Proo! Assume that the intersection nn
(p") = {O}. If O =1= a E M, then
a = pr for sorne r in R. If it happens that r is not an invertible element,
then r E M; thus, we can .write r = ps or, upon substituting, a = p2 s. This
process must eventually termínate, for otherwisea wou1dlie in nn (pn) = {O}.
For the converse, suppose that there exists sorne 'nQi1zero element a in
n" (p"). In particular, a E (p) = M, so that a = pmu for sorne invertible U.
For any integer k > m, we then have
(pm) S;;; (a) S;;; (pk) S;;; (pm),
whence the equality (pm) = (pk). The lemma now tells us that pm = pkV,
where v is an invertible element of R.. This mean s that a = pkVU, with vu
invertible, contradicting the last assertion of the lemma.
Corollary 1. LetR bea local ring with principal maximal ideal M = (p).
Assume further that n:'=l M" = {O}. If 1 is any nontrivial ideal of R,
then 1 = M k for sorne k E Z + (hence, R is Noetherian).
Proo! Clearly, 1 S;;; M, so that each nonzero element of 1 can be written
. as pnu, with u invertible. Take k to be the least integer such that pku E l.
It then follows that 1 S;;; (pk). On the other hand, since pku E 1, so does
pk = (pkU)U- 1 ; this implies that (pk) S;;; 1 and equality follows.
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 247
Corollary 2. If R i8 a Noetherian local ring whose maximal ideal is
principal, then R is a principal ideal ringo
Our development has now reached a point where, in order to make
further progress, we need to bring in certain results that belong primarily
to the theory of modules. The concept of a module is the natural generaliza-
tion of that of a vector space; instead of requiring the "scalars" to be
elements of a field, we now allow them to lie in an arbitrary ring with identity.
The major theorem to be established is a remarkable result of Hopkins
that every commutative Artinian ring with identity is Noetherian. This
theorem does not extend to rings lacking an identity;· indeed, Z(pOO) shows
that it is possible for the descending chain condition tobe satisfied in a
ring without the ascending chain condition also holding. Apart from sorne
standard results about ideals, Hopkin's argument requires only the Jordan-
Holder Theorem for modules (including the fact that a composition series
exists if and only if both chain conditions on submodules are satisfied).
The proof will not be given immediately, but only after we assemble sorne
of the module-theoretic prerequisites. Our discussion is not entirely self-
contained in this regard and certain facts will be presented without proof.
The reader who is unfamiliar with modules would profit from working out
the details.
It is time for these somewhat vague preliminaries to give way to a more
precise definition.
Definition 12-3. Let R be a ring with identity. Bya lejt module over R
(or a left R-module), we mean a commutative group M (written additively)
together with an operation of IIlultiplication which associa~es with each
r E R and a E M a uniqueelement ra E M such that the following
conditions are satisfied:
1) (r + s)a = ra + sa,
2) (rs)a = r(sa),
3) r(a + b) = ra + rb,
4) la = a,
for all r, s E R and a, b E M. The parallel notion of a right R-module
can be defined symmetrically, -
Technically speaking, (left) module multiplication is a function
a: R x M ~ M, where a(r, a) is denoted by ra. The element ra is often
called the module product of r and a. In effect, Definition 12-3 states that a
left R-module is an ordered pair (M, a); this approach gets a little cumber-
sorne and so, when there is no possibility of confusion, we shall lapse into
saying "the left R-module M".
We pause to look at sorne typical examples of modules.
 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
248
Example 12-3. If R =' F, where F is any field, then a left R-module is
simply a veCtor space over F.
Example 12-4. Every cornmutative group (G, +) can be considered as a'
left Z-module in a natural way. For, given an integer n and element a E G,
na has a well-defined meaning.:
na = a + a+ ...+a (n summands).
Example 12-5. If 1 is a left ideal of a ring R with identity, then the under-
lying additive group (1, +) ofjforms a left R~module. Indeed, the definition
of left ideal insures that thedng product ra E 1 for every rE R and a El.
As a special case, any ring R'with identity I::an be viewed as a left (or right)
R-module over itself. :' ' ,
Example 12-6. Consider th~set hom G of all homomorphisms of a com-
mutative group (G, + )""into 'itsdf (that is, the set of endomorphisms of G).
It is aIread y known that (hpIp.~, +, o) constitutes a ring with identity, where
o indica tes the operation of ftiri.étional composition. To provide G with the
structure of a left module over hom G, we define the module product fa
by putting
fa = f(a) (f E hom G, a E G).
Condition (3) of Definition 12-3 is satisfied by virtue of the fact that f is a
homomorphism. . .
To avoid a proliferation of symbols, O will be used to designate the
additive identity element of the group (M, +) as well as the zero element
of R. This convention should lead to no ambiguity if the reader attends .
c10sely to the context in which the notation is employed: As with vector
spaces, we have the laws (i) Oa = rO = O, (ii) r(-a) = (-r)a = -(ra),
for all r E R and a E M.
Oile can introduce the notions of submodule, quotient module, and
module homomorphisms, all by natural definitions. These are of funda-
mental importance for our theory and from them our ultimate goal,
Hopkin's Theorem, will follow easily. In the remainder of this discussion,
we shall drop the prefix "left", so that the ter m "R-module" will always
mean "left R-module"; it should be apparent that the entire discussion
applies equally well to right R-modules. Of course, when R is acommutative
ring, any left R-module can be turned into a right R-module simply by
putting ar = ra. Modules over commuta:tive rings are essentially two-sided
and all distinction between left and right disappears (it is merely a matter
of personal preference whether one writes the ring elements on the left or
on the right).
A natural starting point is, perhaps, to .examine the concept of a sub-
module. Suppose then that M is an arbitrary module over the ring R. By
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 249
an R-submodule of M we shall mean a nonempty.subset N of M which is
. itself a module relative to the addition and module multiplication of M.
To make this idea more precise;'
Definition 12-4. A nonempty subset N of the R~module M is an R-
submodule (or simply a submodule) of M provided that ;/
1) (N, + ) is a subgroup of (M, +);
2) for~~l rE R and a E N, th~ module product ra E N.
Needl~ss,to say, the first condition.in Definition'12-4 is equivalent to
requiring;that- if a, b E N, then the difference a - bE N. Every R-module
M c1early h~s two trivial submodules, namely, {O} and M itself; a submodule
distinct from M is termed proper. Paralle~ing our discussion of rings, we
shall call,1I:n R-module M simple, if M =1= {O} and the trivial submodules are
its only sijbinodules.
It is~ell' worth noting that if M is a vector space over a field F, then any
F-su?m~du.~e is }ust a vector subspace of M. A further illustration arises by
~011s1dermga rmg R. as a module over itself; when thisjs done the (left)
ldeals of R becomes ltS R-submodules. .
The concept of a quotient structure carries over to modules as expected.
To be more concrete, let N be a submodule of a given R-module M. Since
Misa commutative group, N is automatically normal in M and we can
form the quotient group M/N. The elements of this group are just the
cosets a + N, with a E M; coset addition is given, as usual, by
(a + N) + (b + N) = a + b + N.
To equip M/N with the structure of a module, anotionof multiplication
by elements of R is introduced by writing .
r(a + N) = ra + N.
We must first satisfy ourselves that module multiplication is una~bi­
guou,sly defined, depending only on the coset a + N and element rE R.
This amounts to showing that whenever a + N = a' + N, then r(a + N) =
r(a' + N), or, rather, ra + N = ra' + N. Our aim would obviously be
achieved if we knew that
ra - ra'. = r(a - a') E N.
But this follows directlyfrom the fact that a - a' E N and that N is assumed
to be a submodule over R. Thus, the module product in M/N is independent
of coset representatives. One can easily check that M/N, with the abo ve
operations, forms an R-module (the so-caBed quotient module of M by its
submodule N).
When forming quotient rings, it became necessary to introduce a special
subsystem (namely, ideal s) in order to ensure that the operations of the
 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
248
Example 12-3. If R =' F, where F is any field, then a left R-module is
simply a veCtor space over F.
Example 12-4. Every cornmutative group (G, +) can be considered as a'
left Z-module in a natural way. For, given an integer n and element a E G,
na has a well-defined meaning.:
na = a + a+ ...+a (n summands).
Example 12-5. If 1 is a left ideal of a ring R with identity, then the under-
lying additive group (1, +) ofjforms a left R~module. Indeed, the definition
of left ideal insures that thedng product ra E 1 for every rE R and a El.
As a special case, any ring R'with identity I::an be viewed as a left (or right)
R-module over itself. :' ' ,
Example 12-6. Consider th~set hom G of all homomorphisms of a com-
mutative group (G, + )""into 'itsdf (that is, the set of endomorphisms of G).
It is aIread y known that (hpIp.~, +, o) constitutes a ring with identity, where
o indica tes the operation of ftiri.étional composition. To provide G with the
structure of a left module over hom G, we define the module product fa
by putting
fa = f(a) (f E hom G, a E G).
Condition (3) of Definition 12-3 is satisfied by virtue of the fact that f is a
homomorphism. . .
To avoid a proliferation of symbols, O will be used to designate the
additive identity element of the group (M, +) as well as the zero element
of R. This convention should lead to no ambiguity if the reader attends .
c10sely to the context in which the notation is employed: As with vector
spaces, we have the laws (i) Oa = rO = O, (ii) r(-a) = (-r)a = -(ra),
for all r E R and a E M.
Oile can introduce the notions of submodule, quotient module, and
module homomorphisms, all by natural definitions. These are of funda-
mental importance for our theory and from them our ultimate goal,
Hopkin's Theorem, will follow easily. In the remainder of this discussion,
we shall drop the prefix "left", so that the ter m "R-module" will always
mean "left R-module"; it should be apparent that the entire discussion
applies equally well to right R-modules. Of course, when R is acommutative
ring, any left R-module can be turned into a right R-module simply by
putting ar = ra. Modules over commuta:tive rings are essentially two-sided
and all distinction between left and right disappears (it is merely a matter
of personal preference whether one writes the ring elements on the left or
on the right).
A natural starting point is, perhaps, to .examine the concept of a sub-
module. Suppose then that M is an arbitrary module over the ring R. By
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 249
an R-submodule of M we shall mean a nonempty.subset N of M which is
. itself a module relative to the addition and module multiplication of M.
To make this idea more precise;'
Definition 12-4. A nonempty subset N of the R~module M is an R-
submodule (or simply a submodule) of M provided that ;/
1) (N, + ) is a subgroup of (M, +);
2) for~~l rE R and a E N, th~ module product ra E N.
Needl~ss,to say, the first condition.in Definition'12-4 is equivalent to
requiring;that- if a, b E N, then the difference a - bE N. Every R-module
M c1early h~s two trivial submodules, namely, {O} and M itself; a submodule
distinct from M is termed proper. Paralle~ing our discussion of rings, we
shall call,1I:n R-module M simple, if M =1= {O} and the trivial submodules are
its only sijbinodules.
It is~ell' worth noting that if M is a vector space over a field F, then any
F-su?m~du.~e is }ust a vector subspace of M. A further illustration arises by
~011s1dermga rmg R. as a module over itself; when thisjs done the (left)
ldeals of R becomes ltS R-submodules. .
The concept of a quotient structure carries over to modules as expected.
To be more concrete, let N be a submodule of a given R-module M. Since
Misa commutative group, N is automatically normal in M and we can
form the quotient group M/N. The elements of this group are just the
cosets a + N, with a E M; coset addition is given, as usual, by
(a + N) + (b + N) = a + b + N.
To equip M/N with the structure of a module, anotionof multiplication
by elements of R is introduced by writing .
r(a + N) = ra + N.
We must first satisfy ourselves that module multiplication is una~bi­
guou,sly defined, depending only on the coset a + N and element rE R.
This amounts to showing that whenever a + N = a' + N, then r(a + N) =
r(a' + N), or, rather, ra + N = ra' + N. Our aim would obviously be
achieved if we knew that
ra - ra'. = r(a - a') E N.
But this follows directlyfrom the fact that a - a' E N and that N is assumed
to be a submodule over R. Thus, the module product in M/N is independent
of coset representatives. One can easily check that M/N, with the abo ve
operations, forms an R-module (the so-caBed quotient module of M by its
submodule N).
When forming quotient rings, it became necessary to introduce a special
subsystem (namely, ideal s) in order to ensure that the operations of the
 ( ¡'"/
\\, )
./
, ,----'
250 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
FURTHER RESULTS bN NOETHERIAN RINGS ~··i51

quotient structure were well-defined. Let us emphasize that, in the case of

modules, no such distinguished subsystem need be defined; for each sub- condition can also be applied to R-modules, the sole difference being that,
module of an R-module M, we can construct a quotient module of M. in our earlier definitions, the term"ideal" must now be replaced by the word
The counterpart of the Correspondence Theorem remains valid for "submodule". Adapting the argument of Theorem 11-2, it is a simple
modules and will be relevant to our discussion ; we take the opportunity to matter to show that an R-niodule M satisfies the ascending (descending)
record this as t• chain condition on submodules if and only if M satisfies the maximum
(minimum) condition on submodüles; we leave the verification of this to
Theorem 12-12. Let N be a submodule ofthe R-module M. there in?n the reader.
is' a one-to-one inclusion preserving correspondence between the sub- The corning theorem indicates how the chain conditions on submodules
modules of M/N and those submodules of M which contain N. are affected by certain operations.
The notions of homomorphism and isomorphism can be defined for Theorem 12-14. 1) If the R-module M satisfies the ascending (descend-
modules in the obvious way. ing) chain condition, then so does every homomorphic image of M.
Definition 12-5. Given two R-modules M and N, a mappingf: M -> N 2) Let N be a submodule of the R-module M. Then M satisfies the
is called a module ~omomorphism or merely an (R-) homomorphism if ascending (descending) chain condition if and only if N and M/N both
satisfy it.
1) fis a gro~p homomorphism from (M, + ) into (N, +);
2) f(ra) = rf(a) for all r E R and a E M. For the most part, the stated results are merely a translation ofTheorems
11-6 and 11-7 into the language of modules. What is new in the present
Whenfis one-to-one and onto N, it is caBed an (R-) isomorphism; one situation is that any submodule N of M inherits the ascending (descending)
then says that M and N are (R-) isomorphic and writes M ~ N. chain condition. This follows from the fact that any submodule of N is
Example 12-7. If R = F, where F is an arbitrary field, the R-homomor- itself a submodule of M (a marked contrast to the behavior of ideals).
phisms are just the linear mappings (linear transformations) from M to N. Before the reader collapses under a burden of definitions, let us turn our
attention to the matter of normal and composition series.
Example 12-8. Let N be a submodule of the R-module M. The function By a normal series for an R-module M is meant a (finite) chain of R-
nat N : M -> M/N which assigns to each element a E M its coset a + N is submodules running from M to {O}:
an R-homomorphism; for, by definition,
M = Mo ;;2 M1 ;;2 ... ;;2 M n- I ;;2 Mn = {O}.
·~I,'. nat N (ra) = ra +N = r(a + N) = r nat N (a).
I
A given normal series can be lengthened or refined by the inserdon of
, ...
As in the"ring-theoretic case, we shall call nat N the natural mapping of M o',
new submodules between those already present. In technical t~r~s, a
1
onto the ,qüotient module M/N. second normal series
J
With ihe aboye definitions in view, the reader will experience no difticulty
in proving'the appropriate results. These are set out in the following omnibus is .said to be a refinement of
theorem. M = Mo ::::> M1 ::::> ... ::::> M n-1 ::::> Mn = {O}
- - - -
Theotem 12-13. Let M and N be two R-modules and f: M -> N be provided that there exists a one-to-one function f from {O, 1, ... , n} into
an R-homomorphism from M into N. Then, {O, 1, ... , m} such that Mi = N f(i)' This amounts to saying that every Mi
1) the kernel off, kerf = {a E Mlf(a) = O}, is a submodule of M; must appear as one of the N j • A refinement of a normal series is termed
2) the image of M under f,f(M) = {f(a)la E M}, is a submodule of N; proper if the refinement contains a submodule not in the original series. A
normal series which adrnits no proper refinement is called a composition
3) fis a one-to-one function if and only ifker f = {O};
series. We summarize this in the following definition.
4) Mjkerf ~ f(M).
DefinitioR 12-6. A composition series for an R-module M is a normal
At this point, it should come as no surprise that such ideas as the series (without repetitions)
ascending (descending) chain condition and the maximum (minimum)
M = Mo ::::> MI ::::> '" :;:> Mn-I ::::> M n = {O}
 ( ¡'"/
\\, )
./
, ,----'
250 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
FURTHER RESULTS bN NOETHERIAN RINGS ~··i51

quotient structure were well-defined. Let us emphasize that, in the case of

modules, no such distinguished subsystem need be defined; for each sub- condition can also be applied to R-modules, the sole difference being that,
module of an R-module M, we can construct a quotient module of M. in our earlier definitions, the term"ideal" must now be replaced by the word
The counterpart of the Correspondence Theorem remains valid for "submodule". Adapting the argument of Theorem 11-2, it is a simple
modules and will be relevant to our discussion ; we take the opportunity to matter to show that an R-niodule M satisfies the ascending (descending)
record this as t• chain condition on submodules if and only if M satisfies the maximum
(minimum) condition on submodüles; we leave the verification of this to
Theorem 12-12. Let N be a submodule ofthe R-module M. there in?n the reader.
is' a one-to-one inclusion preserving correspondence between the sub- The corning theorem indicates how the chain conditions on submodules
modules of M/N and those submodules of M which contain N. are affected by certain operations.
The notions of homomorphism and isomorphism can be defined for Theorem 12-14. 1) If the R-module M satisfies the ascending (descend-
modules in the obvious way. ing) chain condition, then so does every homomorphic image of M.
Definition 12-5. Given two R-modules M and N, a mappingf: M -> N 2) Let N be a submodule of the R-module M. Then M satisfies the
is called a module ~omomorphism or merely an (R-) homomorphism if ascending (descending) chain condition if and only if N and M/N both
satisfy it.
1) fis a gro~p homomorphism from (M, + ) into (N, +);
2) f(ra) = rf(a) for all r E R and a E M. For the most part, the stated results are merely a translation ofTheorems
11-6 and 11-7 into the language of modules. What is new in the present
Whenfis one-to-one and onto N, it is caBed an (R-) isomorphism; one situation is that any submodule N of M inherits the ascending (descending)
then says that M and N are (R-) isomorphic and writes M ~ N. chain condition. This follows from the fact that any submodule of N is
Example 12-7. If R = F, where F is an arbitrary field, the R-homomor- itself a submodule of M (a marked contrast to the behavior of ideals).
phisms are just the linear mappings (linear transformations) from M to N. Before the reader collapses under a burden of definitions, let us turn our
attention to the matter of normal and composition series.
Example 12-8. Let N be a submodule of the R-module M. The function By a normal series for an R-module M is meant a (finite) chain of R-
nat N : M -> M/N which assigns to each element a E M its coset a + N is submodules running from M to {O}:
an R-homomorphism; for, by definition,
M = Mo ;;2 M1 ;;2 ... ;;2 M n- I ;;2 Mn = {O}.
·~I,'. nat N (ra) = ra +N = r(a + N) = r nat N (a).
I
A given normal series can be lengthened or refined by the inserdon of
, ...
As in the"ring-theoretic case, we shall call nat N the natural mapping of M o',
new submodules between those already present. In technical t~r~s, a
1
onto the ,qüotient module M/N. second normal series
J
With ihe aboye definitions in view, the reader will experience no difticulty
in proving'the appropriate results. These are set out in the following omnibus is .said to be a refinement of
theorem. M = Mo ::::> M1 ::::> ... ::::> M n-1 ::::> Mn = {O}
- - - -
Theotem 12-13. Let M and N be two R-modules and f: M -> N be provided that there exists a one-to-one function f from {O, 1, ... , n} into
an R-homomorphism from M into N. Then, {O, 1, ... , m} such that Mi = N f(i)' This amounts to saying that every Mi
1) the kernel off, kerf = {a E Mlf(a) = O}, is a submodule of M; must appear as one of the N j • A refinement of a normal series is termed
2) the image of M under f,f(M) = {f(a)la E M}, is a submodule of N; proper if the refinement contains a submodule not in the original series. A
normal series which adrnits no proper refinement is called a composition
3) fis a one-to-one function if and only ifker f = {O};
series. We summarize this in the following definition.
4) Mjkerf ~ f(M).
DefinitioR 12-6. A composition series for an R-module M is a normal
At this point, it should come as no surprise that such ideas as the series (without repetitions)
ascending (descending) chain condition and the maximum (minimum)
M = Mo ::::> MI ::::> '" :;:> Mn-I ::::> M n = {O}

252 , FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
such that the quotient modules M¡/M¡+ I are all simple; in other words,
the inclusions M¡ ;2 N ;2 M¡+I' where N is a submodule of M¡,imply
that either N = Mi or N = M¡+I' The number. of submodules in a
composition series is called the length of the series.
Two normal series for the R-module M,
M = Mo :::J MI :::J .,. :::J M n - I ,:::J' M n = {O}
and'
M = No :::J NI ::::l. ••• :::J N m - I :::J N m
are termed equivalent if they have the same length (n = m) and
exists a one-to-one correspondence f between their indices such tha~:
.J.,!,
; ,
Expressed differentl'y, two normal series are equivalent iftheir associateq
quotient modules are pairwise isomorphic in sorne order.
: ........
Using these definitions, the classic Jordan-Holder Theorem assertsthilf
anytwo composition series for an R-module M are equivalent and therefore
have' the same length; this commón value is called the length of M and '
denoted by I(M). In effect, an R-module has essentially one composition
series. We omit the proof, but the details can be found, for example, in the
admirable book by Northcott [:28].
Example 12-9., In the Z-module Z24; the normal series
Z24 :::J (2) :::J (12) :::J {O}
is not a composition series, since it may be refined by inserting either of the
submodules (4) or (6). (In the situation considered, the notation (n) stands
for the cyclic subgroup generated by n.) On the other hand" ' conc1ude that I(M/Mn _ l ) = n - 1. By our induction assumption, the
Z24 :::J (2) :::J (4) :::J (8) :::J {O}
and
Z24 :::J (3) :::J (6) :::J (12) :::J {O}
both form composition series for Z24' One way to verify this is to check
the orders of the subgroups involved. For instance, to inserf a submodule
between (2) and (4) there wquld have to exist a subgroup of Z24 of order n,
6 < n < 12, such that n divides 12 and is itself divisible by 6; clearly, no
such subgroup exists.
To go still further we need a criterion for the existence of ~omposition
series,
Theorem 12-15. An R-module M has a composition series if and only
if M satisfies both chain conditions for submodules.
---------_.. _----~--,,-----------------------
T
I
FU~ THER RESUL TS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 253
Proa! Suppose that b9th chain conditions and, hence, the maximum and
minimum conditions, hold in M. Applying the maximum condition to the
set of submodules different from M, we can select a maximal submodule
MI e M. Now, either MI = {O} and the proof halts, or there exists a
submodule M 2 of MI which is maximal with respect to being proper.
Continuing in this way, we get a strict1y decreasing chain of R-submodules
ofM:
M = Mo :::::J MI :::J M 2 :::J .... ',
= {O}
th~';~, By virtue of the descending chain condition such aF~ain must eventually
terminate; thus, M n = {O} for sorne integer n and a:'ó6mposition series for
M is o btained. ' '
As regards the converse, we proceed by'inductiorÍ on the length I(M)
of M. If I(M) = 1, then M ::::l. {O} is a composition,~eries; hence, 'M is a
simple module and both chain conditions hold t'tivlally. Next, assume
;"
.., \.
inductively that all R-modules of ltmgth n - 1 sati~fy ,the two chain condi-
tions and let I(M) =:= n. Given any composition series,for M, say
1) M = Mo:::J MI :::J ... :::J M n = {O},
then,upon setting Ni = MjMn- l , the chain
2) N = No:::J NI :::J ... :::J N n -¡ = {O}
will form a normal chain for the quotient module N = M/M n _ l . Using
the first isomorphism theorem for modules (Problem 26, Chapter 12),
NjN i + 1 = (MjMn-I)/(M¡+dMn-l) ~ MjM¡+I'
This implies that the module NjN¡+1 is simple and so the chain (2) actualIy
comprises a composition series for M/Mn - I. As a result, we are able to
quotient module M/Mn - I must satisfy both the ascending ,and descending
chain conditions. Since M n - I is a simple R-module, an appeal to Theorem
12-14 is legitimate; we thus deduce that M itself satisfies both chain
conditions for submodules.
It is hardly necéssary to point out that the concepts of normal ;~ries
and compositiori series apply equally well to the ideal s (the R-subrriodules) ,
of a ring R. In what follows, whenever we speak of a composition series for
I a ring R, we shall mean a composition series for R considered as a module
over itself.
We are now ina position, having assembled the necessary mathematical
machinery, to aWick Hopkin's Theorem. To set the stage for our presenta-
tion, part of the argument is separated off as two lemmas. Hereafter, R will ,
denote a commutative ring with identity. .
--- ------~ -- - - -

252 , FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
such that the quotient modules M¡/M¡+ I are all simple; in other words,
the inclusions M¡ ;2 N ;2 M¡+I' where N is a submodule of M¡,imply
that either N = Mi or N = M¡+I' The number. of submodules in a
composition series is called the length of the series.
Two normal series for the R-module M,
M = Mo :::J MI :::J .,. :::J M n - I ,:::J' M n = {O}
and'
M = No :::J NI ::::l. ••• :::J N m - I :::J N m
are termed equivalent if they have the same length (n = m) and
exists a one-to-one correspondence f between their indices such tha~:
.J.,!,
; ,
Expressed differentl'y, two normal series are equivalent iftheir associateq
quotient modules are pairwise isomorphic in sorne order.
: ........
Using these definitions, the classic Jordan-Holder Theorem assertsthilf
anytwo composition series for an R-module M are equivalent and therefore
have' the same length; this commón value is called the length of M and '
denoted by I(M). In effect, an R-module has essentially one composition
series. We omit the proof, but the details can be found, for example, in the
admirable book by Northcott [:28].
Example 12-9., In the Z-module Z24; the normal series
Z24 :::J (2) :::J (12) :::J {O}
is not a composition series, since it may be refined by inserting either of the
submodules (4) or (6). (In the situation considered, the notation (n) stands
for the cyclic subgroup generated by n.) On the other hand" ' conc1ude that I(M/Mn _ l ) = n - 1. By our induction assumption, the
Z24 :::J (2) :::J (4) :::J (8) :::J {O}
and
Z24 :::J (3) :::J (6) :::J (12) :::J {O}
both form composition series for Z24' One way to verify this is to check
the orders of the subgroups involved. For instance, to inserf a submodule
between (2) and (4) there wquld have to exist a subgroup of Z24 of order n,
6 < n < 12, such that n divides 12 and is itself divisible by 6; clearly, no
such subgroup exists.
To go still further we need a criterion for the existence of ~omposition
series,
Theorem 12-15. An R-module M has a composition series if and only
if M satisfies both chain conditions for submodules.
---------_.. _----~--,,-----------------------
T
I
FU~ THER RESUL TS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 253
Proa! Suppose that b9th chain conditions and, hence, the maximum and
minimum conditions, hold in M. Applying the maximum condition to the
set of submodules different from M, we can select a maximal submodule
MI e M. Now, either MI = {O} and the proof halts, or there exists a
submodule M 2 of MI which is maximal with respect to being proper.
Continuing in this way, we get a strict1y decreasing chain of R-submodules
ofM:
M = Mo :::::J MI :::J M 2 :::J .... ',
= {O}
th~';~, By virtue of the descending chain condition such aF~ain must eventually
terminate; thus, M n = {O} for sorne integer n and a:'ó6mposition series for
M is o btained. ' '
As regards the converse, we proceed by'inductiorÍ on the length I(M)
of M. If I(M) = 1, then M ::::l. {O} is a composition,~eries; hence, 'M is a
simple module and both chain conditions hold t'tivlally. Next, assume
;"
.., \.
inductively that all R-modules of ltmgth n - 1 sati~fy ,the two chain condi-
tions and let I(M) =:= n. Given any composition series,for M, say
1) M = Mo:::J MI :::J ... :::J M n = {O},
then,upon setting Ni = MjMn- l , the chain
2) N = No:::J NI :::J ... :::J N n -¡ = {O}
will form a normal chain for the quotient module N = M/M n _ l . Using
the first isomorphism theorem for modules (Problem 26, Chapter 12),
NjN i + 1 = (MjMn-I)/(M¡+dMn-l) ~ MjM¡+I'
This implies that the module NjN¡+1 is simple and so the chain (2) actualIy
comprises a composition series for M/Mn - I. As a result, we are able to
quotient module M/Mn - I must satisfy both the ascending ,and descending
chain conditions. Since M n - I is a simple R-module, an appeal to Theorem
12-14 is legitimate; we thus deduce that M itself satisfies both chain
conditions for submodules.
It is hardly necéssary to point out that the concepts of normal ;~ries
and compositiori series apply equally well to the ideal s (the R-subrriodules) ,
of a ring R. In what follows, whenever we speak of a composition series for
I a ring R, we shall mean a composition series for R considered as a module
over itself.
We are now ina position, having assembled the necessary mathematical
machinery, to aWick Hopkin's Theorem. To set the stage for our presenta-
tion, part of the argument is separated off as two lemmas. Hereafter, R will ,
denote a commutative ring with identity. .
--- ------~ -- - - -

254 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Lemma l.. Suppose that in the ring R the zero ideal is a product of
maximal ideals, say {O} = M 1M 2 ••• Mil' If
(M 1M 2 ••• M¡-1)/(M 1M 2 ••• M¡)
viewed as a vector space over R/M¡is finite dimensionalfor i = 1, 2, ... , n,
then R has a composition series.
Proof. We first set Ni = M 1M 2 ••• Mi for i = 1,2, ... , n. Observe that
the quotient R-module N¡_ ¡/N i can be regarded as a vector space over the
field R/M¡. Its elements are simply the cósets x + Ni' with x E N i - l , and
scalar multiplication is defined (on the right) by
(x + N¡)(r + M¡) = xr + N¡ (r
Since N¡_¡/N¡ is annihilated by Mi' this definition makes sense; in fact, if
x - x' E N¡, where x, x.' lie in N i - l , and r - r' E Mi' we necessarily have
xr -'- x'r' = x(r - r') + (x - x')r' E Ni-1M i
Let us now consider the descending chain
R = No ;;2 Nl ;;2 N2 ;;2 ••• ;;2 N. = {O}
of R-submodules. It is well known that any finite dimensional vector space
admits a composition series [33]. This being so, our hypothesis guarantees
that N¡_¡/N i has a composition series as an R/Mi-module and, hence, ·as
an R-module. (Let us stress that, by virtue of the definition of scalar multi-
plication, the R/Mesubmodules of Ni-l/N¡ are identical with the R-sub-
modules of Ni_¡/N i .) Using Theorem 12-g a composition series can
therefore be inserted between N¡-l and Ni,~'By putting all thesé series
together, we obtain a composition series for.R.itself.
Lemma 2. If in the ring R, {O} = M1Prf~ ... M., where the Mi are
maximal ideals, then either chain condition implies the other.
'-1',"".
Proof. Again, let Ni = M 1M 2 ••• Mi for i ·~"1, 2, ... , n and consider the
quotient module N¡_l/N¡ as a vector space)wer R/M i . Now, N¡-l/N i
fórms an R-submodule of R/N¡ which, in tum; is a homomorphic image of
R; it follows that if either chain condition on ideals holds in R, then N i - ¡/N ¡
must satisfy the corresponding chain conditio'n on R-submodules (hence, on
R/M¡-subspac~s). But, in a vector space, either chain condition implies that
the space is finite dimensional [33]. From Lemma 1, the ring R thereby
admits a composition series and so, with the aid of Theorem 12-15, we
conc1ude that both chain conditions hold in R.
Here now is the main result of this chapter; our proof follows the lines
of [36].
r·
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 255
Theorem 12-16. (Akizuki-Hopkins). A ring R is Artinian if and only
if R is Noetherian and every proper prime "ideal of R is maximal.
Proof. We first suppose that R satisfies the ascending chain condition and
- that every proper prime ideal of R is maximal. By Problem 4, Chapter 11,
every ideal of R contains a product of prime ideals (the Noetherian hypo-
thesis ensures this). In particular, {O} must be a product of prime, and
therefore maximal, ideals. That R is Artinian follows immediately from
Lemma 2.
Conversely, let us now as sume that R satisfies the descending chain
condition. If Pis any proper prime ideal of R, the quotient ring R/P also
satisfies this chain condition and, of course, is an integral domain. Appealing
E R).
to Theorem 11-8, we see that R/P is in fact a field, whence P forms a maximal
ideal.
To prove that R is Noetherian, it is again enough to establish that {O}
is a product of prime (hence, maximal) ideals. We assert first that forevery
+ Ni S Ni' proper ideal l. of R there exists a prime ideal P for which l el: P. To see
this, define the family fF by
fF = {JIJ is an ideal of R; 1: J =1= R}.
fF surely is not empty, because R is a member of fF. Use the minimum
condition to select an ideal J' which is minimal in this collection. Then,
P = 1: J' forms a prime ideal of R. If not, there would exist elements a, b
not in P such that their product ab E P. Therefore,
P e P: (a) e R.
That is to say, 1: J' e l :,J'a =1= R, whence J'a e J'. Since this contradicts
the minimal nature of J':'in $', P must indeed be a prime ideal. Now, the
quotient ideal 1: P ;;2 1; inasmuch as 1: P ;;2 J, which is not contained in
1, it follows that l e 1: Pand our assertion is proved. (IncidentaUy, this
argument proves the existtmce of prime ideals in R.)
For the final stage of,the proof, let K be minimal in the set of those ideal s
of R which are products 0fiprime ideals. If K =1= {O}, then the ideal l = O: K
is different from R, for 1 fft l. By the last paragraph, there is a prime ideal
P of R such that l el: P; in other words, O: K e O: KP. This implies
that the ideal KP e K and contradicts the minimality of K. In consequence,
K = {O}, so that {O} is a product of prime (maximal) ideals. Lemnia 2
now completes our task.
.Corollary. Any commutative Artinian ring with identity is Noetherian.
Having come this far, it might be useful to pro ve Fitting's Lemma, a
result which requires both chain conditions on submodules. First, we pause
to establish a fact of independent interest. .

254 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Lemma l.. Suppose that in the ring R the zero ideal is a product of
maximal ideals, say {O} = M 1M 2 ••• Mil' If
(M 1M 2 ••• M¡-1)/(M 1M 2 ••• M¡)
viewed as a vector space over R/M¡is finite dimensionalfor i = 1, 2, ... , n,
then R has a composition series.
Proof. We first set Ni = M 1M 2 ••• Mi for i = 1,2, ... , n. Observe that
the quotient R-module N¡_ ¡/N i can be regarded as a vector space over the
field R/M¡. Its elements are simply the cósets x + Ni' with x E N i - l , and
scalar multiplication is defined (on the right) by
(x + N¡)(r + M¡) = xr + N¡ (r
Since N¡_¡/N¡ is annihilated by Mi' this definition makes sense; in fact, if
x - x' E N¡, where x, x.' lie in N i - l , and r - r' E Mi' we necessarily have
xr -'- x'r' = x(r - r') + (x - x')r' E Ni-1M i
Let us now consider the descending chain
R = No ;;2 Nl ;;2 N2 ;;2 ••• ;;2 N. = {O}
of R-submodules. It is well known that any finite dimensional vector space
admits a composition series [33]. This being so, our hypothesis guarantees
that N¡_¡/N i has a composition series as an R/Mi-module and, hence, ·as
an R-module. (Let us stress that, by virtue of the definition of scalar multi-
plication, the R/Mesubmodules of Ni-l/N¡ are identical with the R-sub-
modules of Ni_¡/N i .) Using Theorem 12-g a composition series can
therefore be inserted between N¡-l and Ni,~'By putting all thesé series
together, we obtain a composition series for.R.itself.
Lemma 2. If in the ring R, {O} = M1Prf~ ... M., where the Mi are
maximal ideals, then either chain condition implies the other.
'-1',"".
Proof. Again, let Ni = M 1M 2 ••• Mi for i ·~"1, 2, ... , n and consider the
quotient module N¡_l/N¡ as a vector space)wer R/M i . Now, N¡-l/N i
fórms an R-submodule of R/N¡ which, in tum; is a homomorphic image of
R; it follows that if either chain condition on ideals holds in R, then N i - ¡/N ¡
must satisfy the corresponding chain conditio'n on R-submodules (hence, on
R/M¡-subspac~s). But, in a vector space, either chain condition implies that
the space is finite dimensional [33]. From Lemma 1, the ring R thereby
admits a composition series and so, with the aid of Theorem 12-15, we
conc1ude that both chain conditions hold in R.
Here now is the main result of this chapter; our proof follows the lines
of [36].
r·
FURTHER RESULTS ON NOETHERIAN RINGS 255
Theorem 12-16. (Akizuki-Hopkins). A ring R is Artinian if and only
if R is Noetherian and every proper prime "ideal of R is maximal.
Proof. We first suppose that R satisfies the ascending chain condition and
- that every proper prime ideal of R is maximal. By Problem 4, Chapter 11,
every ideal of R contains a product of prime ideals (the Noetherian hypo-
thesis ensures this). In particular, {O} must be a product of prime, and
therefore maximal, ideals. That R is Artinian follows immediately from
Lemma 2.
Conversely, let us now as sume that R satisfies the descending chain
condition. If Pis any proper prime ideal of R, the quotient ring R/P also
satisfies this chain condition and, of course, is an integral domain. Appealing
E R).
to Theorem 11-8, we see that R/P is in fact a field, whence P forms a maximal
ideal.
To prove that R is Noetherian, it is again enough to establish that {O}
is a product of prime (hence, maximal) ideals. We assert first that forevery
+ Ni S Ni' proper ideal l. of R there exists a prime ideal P for which l el: P. To see
this, define the family fF by
fF = {JIJ is an ideal of R; 1: J =1= R}.
fF surely is not empty, because R is a member of fF. Use the minimum
condition to select an ideal J' which is minimal in this collection. Then,
P = 1: J' forms a prime ideal of R. If not, there would exist elements a, b
not in P such that their product ab E P. Therefore,
P e P: (a) e R.
That is to say, 1: J' e l :,J'a =1= R, whence J'a e J'. Since this contradicts
the minimal nature of J':'in $', P must indeed be a prime ideal. Now, the
quotient ideal 1: P ;;2 1; inasmuch as 1: P ;;2 J, which is not contained in
1, it follows that l e 1: Pand our assertion is proved. (IncidentaUy, this
argument proves the existtmce of prime ideals in R.)
For the final stage of,the proof, let K be minimal in the set of those ideal s
of R which are products 0fiprime ideals. If K =1= {O}, then the ideal l = O: K
is different from R, for 1 fft l. By the last paragraph, there is a prime ideal
P of R such that l el: P; in other words, O: K e O: KP. This implies
that the ideal KP e K and contradicts the minimality of K. In consequence,
K = {O}, so that {O} is a product of prime (maximal) ideals. Lemnia 2
now completes our task.
.Corollary. Any commutative Artinian ring with identity is Noetherian.
Having come this far, it might be useful to pro ve Fitting's Lemma, a
result which requires both chain conditions on submodules. First, we pause
to establish a fact of independent interest. .
 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
PROBLEMS 257
256
Lemma. Let M be an R-module satisfying both chain conditions and exists somey E M withjn(x) = pn(y). Thus,f"(X f"(y») O, or, equiva-
let f: M- M be an R-homomorphism. Then f is a one-to-one lently, x - f"(y) E ker f". As a result,
function if and only iffmaps onto M. x = f"(y) + (x - f"(y») E f"(M) + ker f",
Proa! To start, suppose that f is one-to-one and consider the chain of which forces R = f"(M) + ker 1".
R-submodules .
M 2. f(M) 2. f2(M) 2. .... As we noted eartier, any finite dimens~onal vector space satisfies both
I .
chain conditions (on subspaces). This being the case, Fítting's Lemma can
Since M satisfies the descending chain:conditiori, this chain will termínate be interpreted in v,~ctorspace terminology as asserting
after a finite number of steps, say n steps; then ¡n(M} = ¡n+ ¡(M). Given
an arbitrary x E M, ¡n(x) = ¡n+ ¡(y) for' suitable y in M. As f is assumed Corollary. Lta(V be a finite dimensional vector space and let f: V - V
to be a one-to-one function,¡n also enjoys this property, whence x = f(y}· be a linear tEtinsformation. Then V = W¡ (El W2,· where, W¡ and Wz
are both inv<i.FÍ<lnt subspaces under J, fl W¡ is nonsingular, and fl Wz is
The implication is that M = f(M) andso fmaps onto M. .
Next, letf carry the, set Monto itself: NQtice that we have the following nilpotent. .i<
ascending chain of R-sQbmodules:, .. Proa! Take Wi: =:= f"(V) and Wz = ker f", . as indícated aboye. By the
{~} ~ kerf ~."t¿erp
::'. -
~ .
~"'. lemma to Theo~eni~12-17, the restríction flW¡ being an onto mapping is
also one-to-one;'hence, a ve~tor space isomorphistn (to put it another way,
By hypothésis, there exists an integet m for which kerfm = kerfm+l. fl W¡ is a nonsingular transfoÍmation),
Select any XE M wÍthf(x} = O. Inasmuch asfmaps onto M, so also must
fm. Thus, it is possible to choose an element y E M s:uch that fm(y) = x. PROBLEMS
Butthen¡m+l(y) =f(x} = O,implyingthaty.Ekerfm+l = kerfm, Accord-
ingly,x = fm(y} = O and, hence, ker f 7= {O}. This makes f a one-to-one Unles8 indicated to the contrary, all rings considered are assumed to be commutative
with identity, .
function and we are done.
1. Let 1 be a semiprime ideal of the ring R; Prove that 1 is a prime ideal if and only .
. The result which we have in mind is stated below. ifit is irreducible. [Hint: If1 is irreducible, but not prime, then there exist elements
Theorem 12-17. (Fitting's Lemma}.Let the R-module M satisfy both a, b ~ 1 with ab El; argue tha! -JT:2 (1, a) n (J, b) ~ 1.J
chain conditions. Given an R-homomorphismf: M - M, there exists 2. a) In the polynomial ring F[xJ, where F is a field, show thatthe ideal (x 2 , 2x, 4)
sorne n. E Z + such that Is primary, but reducible. [Hint: (X2, 2x, 4) = (X2, 2) n (x, 4).]
M = ¡n(M) (El ker ¡no b) Express the ideal (x 2 , xy, 3) as an intersection ofprimary ideals in F[x, y].
3. Let R be a Noetherian ring, and 1 and J two ideals of R with JS;;; 1. If 1 = ni=
1 Q¡
Proa! As observea in the proof of the lemma, we have two chains of R- is an irredundant primary representation of 1, establish that .
submodules at our disposal: . a) 1/1 = n7=¡ (QJJ) is an irredundant primary representation of the ideal 1/1

in R/J;
M2. f(M) 2. P(M) 2. ... ,
b) .J(QJJ) =JQJJ are the associated prime ideals of J/J.
{O} ~ kerf ~ kerf2 ~ ... , 4. Find an irredundant primary representation for the ideal (x 2 ,2xy) in F[x, y J, F
Because both chain conditions hold, each of these chains ultimately stops, a field.; detemúne the asso.ciated prime ideals of (x?, 2xy), as well as its mínima!
for instance, after r and s steps, respectively. The theorem now follows on primes. [Hint: (x A, 2xy) (x 2 , xy, yA) n (x) n (x A,2x, 4).J

taking n to be the larger of r and S. 5. Let 1 be an ideal of the Noetherian ring R. Without recourse to Problem 20
For, suppose that x E¡n(M) (\ ker!"; then f"(y) = x for sorne y E M, Chapter 8, prove the statements below: . . '.
while ¡n{x) O. Therefóre, pn(y) = f"(x) = O, so that y lies in ker pn = al .JI is the intersection of the mínimal prime ideals of 1. [Hint: If 1 has the
ker 1". But this means that x = ¡n(y) = O, . whence the intersectíon irredundant, primary representation 1 = ni=¡ Q¡, then.JI ni=¡ .JQ¡.]
¡n(M) (\ ker ¡n = {O}. b) The set of nllpotent elements of R í8 the intersection of the mínimal prime ideals
Now, pick any element x E M. Since ¡n(x) E ¡n(M) = P"(M), there of R.

I~
,'¡
1:
 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
PROBLEMS 257
256
Lemma. Let M be an R-module satisfying both chain conditions and exists somey E M withjn(x) = pn(y). Thus,f"(X f"(y») O, or, equiva-
let f: M- M be an R-homomorphism. Then f is a one-to-one lently, x - f"(y) E ker f". As a result,
function if and only iffmaps onto M. x = f"(y) + (x - f"(y») E f"(M) + ker f",
Proa! To start, suppose that f is one-to-one and consider the chain of which forces R = f"(M) + ker 1".
R-submodules .
M 2. f(M) 2. f2(M) 2. .... As we noted eartier, any finite dimens~onal vector space satisfies both
I .
chain conditions (on subspaces). This being the case, Fítting's Lemma can
Since M satisfies the descending chain:conditiori, this chain will termínate be interpreted in v,~ctorspace terminology as asserting
after a finite number of steps, say n steps; then ¡n(M} = ¡n+ ¡(M). Given
an arbitrary x E M, ¡n(x) = ¡n+ ¡(y) for' suitable y in M. As f is assumed Corollary. Lta(V be a finite dimensional vector space and let f: V - V
to be a one-to-one function,¡n also enjoys this property, whence x = f(y}· be a linear tEtinsformation. Then V = W¡ (El W2,· where, W¡ and Wz
are both inv<i.FÍ<lnt subspaces under J, fl W¡ is nonsingular, and fl Wz is
The implication is that M = f(M) andso fmaps onto M. .
Next, letf carry the, set Monto itself: NQtice that we have the following nilpotent. .i<
ascending chain of R-sQbmodules:, .. Proa! Take Wi: =:= f"(V) and Wz = ker f", . as indícated aboye. By the
{~} ~ kerf ~."t¿erp
::'. -
~ .
~"'. lemma to Theo~eni~12-17, the restríction flW¡ being an onto mapping is
also one-to-one;'hence, a ve~tor space isomorphistn (to put it another way,
By hypothésis, there exists an integet m for which kerfm = kerfm+l. fl W¡ is a nonsingular transfoÍmation),
Select any XE M wÍthf(x} = O. Inasmuch asfmaps onto M, so also must
fm. Thus, it is possible to choose an element y E M s:uch that fm(y) = x. PROBLEMS
Butthen¡m+l(y) =f(x} = O,implyingthaty.Ekerfm+l = kerfm, Accord-
ingly,x = fm(y} = O and, hence, ker f 7= {O}. This makes f a one-to-one Unles8 indicated to the contrary, all rings considered are assumed to be commutative
with identity, .
function and we are done.
1. Let 1 be a semiprime ideal of the ring R; Prove that 1 is a prime ideal if and only .
. The result which we have in mind is stated below. ifit is irreducible. [Hint: If1 is irreducible, but not prime, then there exist elements
Theorem 12-17. (Fitting's Lemma}.Let the R-module M satisfy both a, b ~ 1 with ab El; argue tha! -JT:2 (1, a) n (J, b) ~ 1.J
chain conditions. Given an R-homomorphismf: M - M, there exists 2. a) In the polynomial ring F[xJ, where F is a field, show thatthe ideal (x 2 , 2x, 4)
sorne n. E Z + such that Is primary, but reducible. [Hint: (X2, 2x, 4) = (X2, 2) n (x, 4).]
M = ¡n(M) (El ker ¡no b) Express the ideal (x 2 , xy, 3) as an intersection ofprimary ideals in F[x, y].
3. Let R be a Noetherian ring, and 1 and J two ideals of R with JS;;; 1. If 1 = ni=
1 Q¡
Proa! As observea in the proof of the lemma, we have two chains of R- is an irredundant primary representation of 1, establish that .
submodules at our disposal: . a) 1/1 = n7=¡ (QJJ) is an irredundant primary representation of the ideal 1/1

in R/J;
M2. f(M) 2. P(M) 2. ... ,
b) .J(QJJ) =JQJJ are the associated prime ideals of J/J.
{O} ~ kerf ~ kerf2 ~ ... , 4. Find an irredundant primary representation for the ideal (x 2 ,2xy) in F[x, y J, F
Because both chain conditions hold, each of these chains ultimately stops, a field.; detemúne the asso.ciated prime ideals of (x?, 2xy), as well as its mínima!
for instance, after r and s steps, respectively. The theorem now follows on primes. [Hint: (x A, 2xy) (x 2 , xy, yA) n (x) n (x A,2x, 4).J

taking n to be the larger of r and S. 5. Let 1 be an ideal of the Noetherian ring R. Without recourse to Problem 20
For, suppose that x E¡n(M) (\ ker!"; then f"(y) = x for sorne y E M, Chapter 8, prove the statements below: . . '.
while ¡n{x) O. Therefóre, pn(y) = f"(x) = O, so that y lies in ker pn = al .JI is the intersection of the mínimal prime ideals of 1. [Hint: If 1 has the
ker 1". But this means that x = ¡n(y) = O, . whence the intersectíon irredundant, primary representation 1 = ni=¡ Q¡, then.JI ni=¡ .JQ¡.]
¡n(M) (\ ker ¡n = {O}. b) The set of nllpotent elements of R í8 the intersection of the mínimal prime ideals
Now, pick any element x E M. Since ¡n(x) E ¡n(M) = P"(M), there of R.

I~
,'¡
1:
 258 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
e).JI is a prime ideal if and only if 1 has a single minimal prime.
d) If Pis a minimal prinle ideal of 1, then the primary eomponent eorresponding
to P is the same for all irredundant primary representations of l.
6. Let 1 be an ideal of a Noetherian ring R in whieh every nontrivial prime ideal is
maxima!. Show that 1 is a produet of primary ideals. [Hint: If 1 = ni Qi' then
the ideals .jQ¡ are pairwise eomaximal when non trivial ; now use Problem 13,
Chapter 1O.J
7. Let R be a Noetherian ring, and 1 and J two ideals of R with 1 f K Prove that
Assume that 1 = ni Q¡, Qi prinlary. If J *
l:J = 1 if and only if J is eontained in no assoeiated prime ideal of l. [Hint:
.jQ; for all i, then, by Problem 24(a),
Chapter 5, Q¡:J = Q¡. Conversely, let l:J = l. If J s .jQ;., then Jn s (.jQ,Jn S
Qk for some n; whenee 1 = 1:J" = ni (Qi :J") = ni'/'k (Qi :J") 2 ni'/'k Q¡ 2 J.J
8. Given that R is a Noetherian ring, prove thilt
a) An element a belongs to some associated prime ideal of the ideal 1 if and only
if there exists some b ~ 1 for whieh ab E l. [Hint: Apply Problem 7 to the ideal
J = (a).J
b) The set of all zero divisors of R together with zero is the union of the associated
prime ideals of {O}. [Hint: Part (a) with 1 = {O}.J
e) An ideal 1 of R eonsists entirely of zero divisor s (along with O) if and only if 1
is eontained in some assoeiated prime ideal of {O}. [Hint: Part (b) and
Theorem 5-16.J
9. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring KAn element a E R is said to be related to 1 if there
exists some r ~ 1 su eh that ar E 1. Prove eaeh of the assertions below:
a) An elemerit ti E R is related to 1 if and only if the quotiellt ideal 1 :(a) f l.
b) An element a E R is related to 1 if and only if the eoset a + 1 is either zero or a
divisor of zero in R/l.
e) Every elemen t of the ni! radical .jI is related to l.
d) If R is Noetherian and 1.= .nr=¡ Q¡ is an irredundant primary representation
of 1, then an element a E R is related to 1 if and only if a E Ui .jQ¡. [Hint:
Problem 8(a).]
10. Assume that R is a principal ideal ring with zero prinle radica!. Deduce that the
.. zero ideal is the interseetion of a finite number of prinle ideals.
11. Given that 1 is an ideal of the Noetherian ring R, establish the following:
a) If 1 S rad R, then n:=l 1" = {O}.
b) n:..¡
(1 + (rad R)n) = 1. [Hint: Apply part (a) to R/l.J
e) If 1 + radR = R, then 1 = K [Hint: R = Rn = n:=¡ (1 + radRf S n:..¡
{l + (rad R)n) = 1.J
12. Let R be a Noetherian local ring with maximal ideal M.
a) Verify that the interseetion n:..¡ Mn = {O}.
b) If 1 is any ideal of R for whieh M = 1 + M 2 , prove that 1 = M. [Hint: From
2 3
M = 1 + M = 1 + M(I + M 2 ) = 1 + M = "', deduce that M = ¡n:=
(I + Mn) = 1.J
PROBLEMS 259
13. a) Derive the Krull Interseetion Theorem from Theorem 12-10. [Hint: Problem
8(b).J . .
b) Show that the set-theoretie eondition .jQ; n (1 - l·) = 0 appearmg In
Theorem 12-10 is equivalent to requiring that .jQi + 1 f K
14. Let 1 be a proper ideal of the integral domain K Assume further that, for any
ideal J of R, there exists an integer k for whieh lk n J S IJ (when R is a
Noetherian domain, every ideal! has this property [33J). Prove that the interseetion
n:..¡ 1" = {O}. [Hint: Takea E n:= ¡ In and eonsider the prineipalidealJ = (a).J
15. Suppose that R is a local ring whose maxinlal ideal M is principal, say M = (p).
If M is a ni! ideal of R, pro ve that
a) M is a nilpotent ideal of K
b) For any proper ideal 1 of R, 1 = ann (ann 1). [Hint: By Theorem 12-11,
1 = (p~ for sorne integer k.J
16. Let R be a ring possessing an ideal M whieh is both maximill and ni!. Verify that
R is a local ring with unique maximal ideal M. [Hint: Ifthe element a ~ M, show
that a is invertible by expanding (ab - l)n.J
In Problems 17-26, the term R-module means left R-module.
17. Prove the following statements coneerning submodules of the R-modules M:
a) A nonempty subset N !;;; M forms a submodule of M if and only if (i) x, y E N
imply x + yE N and (ii) XE N, r E R imply that rx E N ..
b) If S is a subring ofthe ring R, then every R-submodule of M can also be regarded
as an S-submodule.
e) If 1 is an ideal of R and x a fixed element of M, then the set N:x; = {rxlx E l}
forms a submodule of M.
18. a) Verify that the submodule [SJ of ~e R-module M genetat~d by a nonempty
subset S S;;; M eonsists. of all finite R-linear eombinations''Of elements of S;
that is,
[SJ = U:: rix;jri E R, Xi E S}.
. .,~. ~
b) Let j; g: M -> N be two R-homomorphisms of the R-IÍl~dule M into the
R-module N. Iff(x) = g(x) for every x in a nonempty subs~t $ !;;; M, show that
f and 9 agree on the submodule [S]. .,
19. An element x of an R-module Mis said to be a torsion element'if there exists sorne
r f O in R for whieh rx = O. Show that the set T of torsion elements of M forms
a submoduleof M and that the quotient module M/T is torsion-free (in other
words, M/T has no nonzero torsion elements).
20. Let f: M -> N be an R-homomorphism of the sinlple R-module M into the R-
module N. Establish thatf(M) is a simple submodule of N and thatfis one-to-one
whenever f(M) f {O}.
21. Let MI> M 2 , ... , M n be submodules ofthe R-module M. We eall M the (internal)
direct sum of MI> M 2 , ... , M n and write M = MI ® M 2 ® ... E9 M n if
i) M.= MI + M 2 + ... + M n = {Xl + X2 + ... + XnIXkEMd, and
 258 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
e).JI is a prime ideal if and only if 1 has a single minimal prime.
d) If Pis a minimal prinle ideal of 1, then the primary eomponent eorresponding
to P is the same for all irredundant primary representations of l.
6. Let 1 be an ideal of a Noetherian ring R in whieh every nontrivial prime ideal is
maxima!. Show that 1 is a produet of primary ideals. [Hint: If 1 = ni Qi' then
the ideals .jQ¡ are pairwise eomaximal when non trivial ; now use Problem 13,
Chapter 1O.J
7. Let R be a Noetherian ring, and 1 and J two ideals of R with 1 f K Prove that
Assume that 1 = ni Q¡, Qi prinlary. If J *
l:J = 1 if and only if J is eontained in no assoeiated prime ideal of l. [Hint:
.jQ; for all i, then, by Problem 24(a),
Chapter 5, Q¡:J = Q¡. Conversely, let l:J = l. If J s .jQ;., then Jn s (.jQ,Jn S
Qk for some n; whenee 1 = 1:J" = ni (Qi :J") = ni'/'k (Qi :J") 2 ni'/'k Q¡ 2 J.J
8. Given that R is a Noetherian ring, prove thilt
a) An element a belongs to some associated prime ideal of the ideal 1 if and only
if there exists some b ~ 1 for whieh ab E l. [Hint: Apply Problem 7 to the ideal
J = (a).J
b) The set of all zero divisors of R together with zero is the union of the associated
prime ideals of {O}. [Hint: Part (a) with 1 = {O}.J
e) An ideal 1 of R eonsists entirely of zero divisor s (along with O) if and only if 1
is eontained in some assoeiated prime ideal of {O}. [Hint: Part (b) and
Theorem 5-16.J
9. Let 1 be an ideal of the ring KAn element a E R is said to be related to 1 if there
exists some r ~ 1 su eh that ar E 1. Prove eaeh of the assertions below:
a) An elemerit ti E R is related to 1 if and only if the quotiellt ideal 1 :(a) f l.
b) An element a E R is related to 1 if and only if the eoset a + 1 is either zero or a
divisor of zero in R/l.
e) Every elemen t of the ni! radical .jI is related to l.
d) If R is Noetherian and 1.= .nr=¡ Q¡ is an irredundant primary representation
of 1, then an element a E R is related to 1 if and only if a E Ui .jQ¡. [Hint:
Problem 8(a).]
10. Assume that R is a principal ideal ring with zero prinle radica!. Deduce that the
.. zero ideal is the interseetion of a finite number of prinle ideals.
11. Given that 1 is an ideal of the Noetherian ring R, establish the following:
a) If 1 S rad R, then n:=l 1" = {O}.
b) n:..¡
(1 + (rad R)n) = 1. [Hint: Apply part (a) to R/l.J
e) If 1 + radR = R, then 1 = K [Hint: R = Rn = n:=¡ (1 + radRf S n:..¡
{l + (rad R)n) = 1.J
12. Let R be a Noetherian local ring with maximal ideal M.
a) Verify that the interseetion n:..¡ Mn = {O}.
b) If 1 is any ideal of R for whieh M = 1 + M 2 , prove that 1 = M. [Hint: From
2 3
M = 1 + M = 1 + M(I + M 2 ) = 1 + M = "', deduce that M = ¡n:=
(I + Mn) = 1.J
PROBLEMS 259
13. a) Derive the Krull Interseetion Theorem from Theorem 12-10. [Hint: Problem
8(b).J . .
b) Show that the set-theoretie eondition .jQ; n (1 - l·) = 0 appearmg In
Theorem 12-10 is equivalent to requiring that .jQi + 1 f K
14. Let 1 be a proper ideal of the integral domain K Assume further that, for any
ideal J of R, there exists an integer k for whieh lk n J S IJ (when R is a
Noetherian domain, every ideal! has this property [33J). Prove that the interseetion
n:..¡ 1" = {O}. [Hint: Takea E n:= ¡ In and eonsider the prineipalidealJ = (a).J
15. Suppose that R is a local ring whose maxinlal ideal M is principal, say M = (p).
If M is a ni! ideal of R, pro ve that
a) M is a nilpotent ideal of K
b) For any proper ideal 1 of R, 1 = ann (ann 1). [Hint: By Theorem 12-11,
1 = (p~ for sorne integer k.J
16. Let R be a ring possessing an ideal M whieh is both maximill and ni!. Verify that
R is a local ring with unique maximal ideal M. [Hint: Ifthe element a ~ M, show
that a is invertible by expanding (ab - l)n.J
In Problems 17-26, the term R-module means left R-module.
17. Prove the following statements coneerning submodules of the R-modules M:
a) A nonempty subset N !;;; M forms a submodule of M if and only if (i) x, y E N
imply x + yE N and (ii) XE N, r E R imply that rx E N ..
b) If S is a subring ofthe ring R, then every R-submodule of M can also be regarded
as an S-submodule.
e) If 1 is an ideal of R and x a fixed element of M, then the set N:x; = {rxlx E l}
forms a submodule of M.
18. a) Verify that the submodule [SJ of ~e R-module M genetat~d by a nonempty
subset S S;;; M eonsists. of all finite R-linear eombinations''Of elements of S;
that is,
[SJ = U:: rix;jri E R, Xi E S}.
. .,~. ~
b) Let j; g: M -> N be two R-homomorphisms of the R-IÍl~dule M into the
R-module N. Iff(x) = g(x) for every x in a nonempty subs~t $ !;;; M, show that
f and 9 agree on the submodule [S]. .,
19. An element x of an R-module Mis said to be a torsion element'if there exists sorne
r f O in R for whieh rx = O. Show that the set T of torsion elements of M forms
a submoduleof M and that the quotient module M/T is torsion-free (in other
words, M/T has no nonzero torsion elements).
20. Let f: M -> N be an R-homomorphism of the sinlple R-module M into the R-
module N. Establish thatf(M) is a simple submodule of N and thatfis one-to-one
whenever f(M) f {O}.
21. Let MI> M 2 , ... , M n be submodules ofthe R-module M. We eall M the (internal)
direct sum of MI> M 2 , ... , M n and write M = MI ® M 2 ® ... E9 M n if
i) M.= MI + M 2 + ... + M n = {Xl + X2 + ... + XnIXkEMd, and
 260 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 261
ii) M k n (MI + ... + M k- I + Mk+1 + ... + M.) = {O} b) TR is an ideal of homRR;
for all k. 'Prove that M is the direct sum of M ¡, M 2' ••• , M. if and only if each e) ,the mapping f(a) =' T;. determines a (ring) homomorphism of R onto Tn ;
x E M can be expressed uniquely as a finite sum ,d) if for each O 1= a E R, there exists an element b E R such that ab 1= O, then
. R z TR (hence, R can be imbedded as an ideal in a ring with identity);
x= XI + x2 + ... + x. . e) whenever R has a multiplicative identity, then TR = homRR.
22 .. Suppose that M is an R-module with submodules M ¡, M 2' ..... M n such that
M = M¡ ffi M 2 ffi ... ffi M •. For each k, let N,. be a submodule of M k and set
N = NI + N 2 + .. , + N •. Verify that
a) N = NI ffi N 2 ffi ... ffi N.;
.;; b) M/N ~ M¡jN I ® M 2 /N 2 Et> ..• ® M.IN., as R-modules.
" í· ~ ,:~.1;. ,,\
'::23. Let M be an R-module. Pro ve the assertions below: , ",,}
i::.\ a) The set A(M) = {r E Rlrx = O for aH X EM} is an ideal of R, known as the ¡'\
,-;:', . annihi/ator Df M. . ., .
,';\ b) M beeomes an.R/A(M)-module on defining the module product by,' .;1.(

;;','C: (r + A(M»)x = rX",where rE R, X E M. ',:' ,"

.h:)1'?; e) Viewed as an R/A(M)-module, M has zero annihilator.

';;S¿y d) A nonempty subset N ~ M is an R-submodule of M if and .orily if it is
R/A(M)-submodule of M.
e) The length of M as an R-module is the same as its length when eonsidered as
an R/A(M)-module.
24. Given an R-module M 1= {O}, establish that
a) ,M is a simple module if and only if Rx = M for each O 1= X E M; here the set
Rx = {rxlrER}; "
b) if N¡, N 2 are submodules of M, with N¡ simple, and if N¡ n N 2 1= {O}, then
N¡ ~ N 2 ,

25. Derive tbe Second Isomorphism Theorem for Modules: If N ¡ and N 2 are two
submodules of the R-module M, then N¡/(N¡ n N;) '" (N¡-j- N 2 )/N 2 . [Hint:
Mimic the argument ofTheorem 3-10.]

26. Derive the First lsomorphism Theorem for Modules: lf NI and N 2 are two
submodules of an R-module' M with N¡ ~ N 2 , then N 2 /Nl' is a submodule of
M/N¡ and
(M/N¡)/(Nz/N¡) z M/N 2 •
[Hint: Mimic the argument ofTbeorem 3-9.J
27. An R-module is said to be indecomposable if it is not the direct sum of two nonzero
submodules. Let M satisfy both chain conditions on submodules and let f be
an R-homoinorpbism of M into itself. Prove that M is indecomposable if and
only iffis either nilpotent or an automorphism. [Hint: Use Fitting's Lemma.].
28. Let R be a eommutative ring (not necessarily with identity) and let homRR be the
s~t of aH R-homomorphisms or tbe additive group of R into itself. For each a E R,
define T;.: R -> R by setting T;.(x) = ax. lf Tn denotes the set of all such functions,
prove !he foHowing:
a) homRR forms a ring with identity, where multiplication is taken to be fUllctional
composition;
 260 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS PROBLEMS 261
ii) M k n (MI + ... + M k- I + Mk+1 + ... + M.) = {O} b) TR is an ideal of homRR;
for all k. 'Prove that M is the direct sum of M ¡, M 2' ••• , M. if and only if each e) ,the mapping f(a) =' T;. determines a (ring) homomorphism of R onto Tn ;
x E M can be expressed uniquely as a finite sum ,d) if for each O 1= a E R, there exists an element b E R such that ab 1= O, then
. R z TR (hence, R can be imbedded as an ideal in a ring with identity);
x= XI + x2 + ... + x. . e) whenever R has a multiplicative identity, then TR = homRR.
22 .. Suppose that M is an R-module with submodules M ¡, M 2' ..... M n such that
M = M¡ ffi M 2 ffi ... ffi M •. For each k, let N,. be a submodule of M k and set
N = NI + N 2 + .. , + N •. Verify that
a) N = NI ffi N 2 ffi ... ffi N.;
.;; b) M/N ~ M¡jN I ® M 2 /N 2 Et> ..• ® M.IN., as R-modules.
" í· ~ ,:~.1;. ,,\
'::23. Let M be an R-module. Pro ve the assertions below: , ",,}
i::.\ a) The set A(M) = {r E Rlrx = O for aH X EM} is an ideal of R, known as the ¡'\
,-;:', . annihi/ator Df M. . ., .
,';\ b) M beeomes an.R/A(M)-module on defining the module product by,' .;1.(

;;','C: (r + A(M»)x = rX",where rE R, X E M. ',:' ,"

.h:)1'?; e) Viewed as an R/A(M)-module, M has zero annihilator.

';;S¿y d) A nonempty subset N ~ M is an R-submodule of M if and .orily if it is
R/A(M)-submodule of M.
e) The length of M as an R-module is the same as its length when eonsidered as
an R/A(M)-module.
24. Given an R-module M 1= {O}, establish that
a) ,M is a simple module if and only if Rx = M for each O 1= X E M; here the set
Rx = {rxlrER}; "
b) if N¡, N 2 are submodules of M, with N¡ simple, and if N¡ n N 2 1= {O}, then
N¡ ~ N 2 ,

25. Derive tbe Second Isomorphism Theorem for Modules: If N ¡ and N 2 are two
submodules of the R-module M, then N¡/(N¡ n N;) '" (N¡-j- N 2 )/N 2 . [Hint:
Mimic the argument ofTheorem 3-10.]

26. Derive the First lsomorphism Theorem for Modules: lf NI and N 2 are two
submodules of an R-module' M with N¡ ~ N 2 , then N 2 /Nl' is a submodule of
M/N¡ and
(M/N¡)/(Nz/N¡) z M/N 2 •
[Hint: Mimic the argument ofTbeorem 3-9.J
27. An R-module is said to be indecomposable if it is not the direct sum of two nonzero
submodules. Let M satisfy both chain conditions on submodules and let f be
an R-homoinorpbism of M into itself. Prove that M is indecomposable if and
only iffis either nilpotent or an automorphism. [Hint: Use Fitting's Lemma.].
28. Let R be a eommutative ring (not necessarily with identity) and let homRR be the
s~t of aH R-homomorphisms or tbe additive group of R into itself. For each a E R,
define T;.: R -> R by setting T;.(x) = ax. lf Tn denotes the set of all such functions,
prove !he foHowing:
a) homRR forms a ring with identity, where multiplication is taken to be fUllctional
composition;

THIRTEEN
SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY
This, our concluding chapter, is designed primarily for the reader who
wishes to know somet,rnng about noncommutative ideal theory. It is not
our intention to treat this subject in any exhaustive manner; rather, we have
concentrated on those major results which could be fitted into a concise
development and which do not require many specialized preliminaries (even
with this restraint, some of the theorems are fairly sophisticated). Particular
effort is devoted to provingthe far-reaching Wedderburn Structure Theorems
for nil-semisimple rings satisfying the descending chain condition on right
ideals. These and other related results make intriguing use of the g~neral
theory of idempotents, as developed in the present chapter.
From this point onward, R will denote a ring with identity element,
not necessarily commutative (for most of our work the assumption of an
identity is not i:eally essential).
In the previous chapters, consider,able progress was made after imposing
a chain condition on the ideals oftll.e, ring; this was an entirely natural
procedure and it is equally expedie~~:~o do so here. To have a concise
statement, we shall can a ring R rig~t\ {1rtinian if it satisfies the descending
chain condition on right ideals. This chain condition adniits the usual
equivalent formulation: every nonempty set of right ideals of R possesses a
minimal member. An important t~~rem of Brauer, which requires only
the hypothesis that R be right ArtiniáJ;l. is that each nonnilpotent right ideal
of R contains an idempotent element'é We choose to begin our discussion
with a proof of this result.
Theorem 13-1. (Brauer). In a right Artinian ring R, every nonnilpotent
right ideal I contains a nonzero idempotent elemento
Proof. The collection of nonnilpotent right ideals of R which are contained
in 1 is not empty, for 1 itself is such an ideaL By the minimum condition on
right ideals (equivalent to the assumed chain condition), there exists a
mínimal member 11 of this collection. In particular, any right ideal of R
properly included in 1 1 must be nilpotent. Since li forros a nonnilpotent
lt
right ideal contained in 1 1, it follows that = 1 l'
262
SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEOR y 263
Now, consider the family of all right ideals J of R with the proper~ies
(i) Jl 1 =fo {O} and (H) J 5 1 1 , Such ideals certainly exist, for we have Just
seen that 1 1 satisfies the indicated conditions. From among these ideals, a
mínimal one can be obtained, call it J l' Using (i), there exists an element
u =fo O in J 1 such that ul1 =fo {O}. Since u/ 1 is a right ideal of R contained
in 1 1, with
(ul 1 )/ 1 = ulf = u/ 1 =fo {O},
the minimality of JI inÍplies that ul 1 = J l' As a result, it is possible to
find an element a E 1 1 5 I for which ua = u. Hence,
u=ua=ua 2
or u = ua" for all n. The conclusion is that a is not nilpotent and, in
consequence, 1 cannot be a nil right ideal.
The key to constructing the required idempotent is to consider the
right annihilator of u in / 1 , defined by
A(u) = {r E 11 1ur O}.
Notice that A(u) is a right ideal of R which is properly contained in JI'
since ul 1 = JI =fo {O}. By the minimalíty of / 1 , A(u) must be a nilpotent
right ideal. Inasmuch as the product u(a 2 - a) = O. a2 - a líes in A(u),
and, hence, is a nilpotent element of R.
For the final stage of the proof, we propose to show that there exists a
polynomialf(x), with integral coefficients, such that e = afea) is a nonzero
idempotent in 1. To this purpose, suppose that (al a)" O. Then,
upon expanding, one obtains a" = a"+lg(a) for a suitable polynomial
g(x) E Z[x]. Itf0Hows that an. = a(a"g(a») = a" + 2g(a)2. Continuing, this
process eventuaUy' leads tO,a" = a 2"g(a)". If we now set e = a"g(a)", then
surely e belongst6 1, and furthermore satisfies the equation
e2 == a 2"g(a)2n = (a 2"g(a)")g(a)" = a"g(a)n e.
Were e = 0, this would mean that an == a 2ng(af = a"e = O, a palpable
contradiction (a,being non-nilpotent from the first paragraph). Therefore,
e serves as the desired nonzero idempotent in 1, which proves the theorem.
The attentive reader will ha ve noticed that by proving Brauer's Theorem
we have actually obtained a criterion for a right ideal to be nHpotent.
Corollary. Let R be a right Artinian ringo Then a right ideal 1 of R is
nilpotent if and only if every element of 1 is nilpotent (that is to say, J
is a nH ideal).
Proof. Necessity follows from the definition of nilpotent ideal. That the
stated condition is also sufficient is a direct consequence of the theorem and
the observation that a nonzero idempotent cannot be nilpotent.

THIRTEEN
SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY
This, our concluding chapter, is designed primarily for the reader who
wishes to know somet,rnng about noncommutative ideal theory. It is not
our intention to treat this subject in any exhaustive manner; rather, we have
concentrated on those major results which could be fitted into a concise
development and which do not require many specialized preliminaries (even
with this restraint, some of the theorems are fairly sophisticated). Particular
effort is devoted to provingthe far-reaching Wedderburn Structure Theorems
for nil-semisimple rings satisfying the descending chain condition on right
ideals. These and other related results make intriguing use of the g~neral
theory of idempotents, as developed in the present chapter.
From this point onward, R will denote a ring with identity element,
not necessarily commutative (for most of our work the assumption of an
identity is not i:eally essential).
In the previous chapters, consider,able progress was made after imposing
a chain condition on the ideals oftll.e, ring; this was an entirely natural
procedure and it is equally expedie~~:~o do so here. To have a concise
statement, we shall can a ring R rig~t\ {1rtinian if it satisfies the descending
chain condition on right ideals. This chain condition adniits the usual
equivalent formulation: every nonempty set of right ideals of R possesses a
minimal member. An important t~~rem of Brauer, which requires only
the hypothesis that R be right ArtiniáJ;l. is that each nonnilpotent right ideal
of R contains an idempotent element'é We choose to begin our discussion
with a proof of this result.
Theorem 13-1. (Brauer). In a right Artinian ring R, every nonnilpotent
right ideal I contains a nonzero idempotent elemento
Proof. The collection of nonnilpotent right ideals of R which are contained
in 1 is not empty, for 1 itself is such an ideaL By the minimum condition on
right ideals (equivalent to the assumed chain condition), there exists a
mínimal member 11 of this collection. In particular, any right ideal of R
properly included in 1 1 must be nilpotent. Since li forros a nonnilpotent
lt
right ideal contained in 1 1, it follows that = 1 l'
262
SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEOR y 263
Now, consider the family of all right ideals J of R with the proper~ies
(i) Jl 1 =fo {O} and (H) J 5 1 1 , Such ideals certainly exist, for we have Just
seen that 1 1 satisfies the indicated conditions. From among these ideals, a
mínimal one can be obtained, call it J l' Using (i), there exists an element
u =fo O in J 1 such that ul1 =fo {O}. Since u/ 1 is a right ideal of R contained
in 1 1, with
(ul 1 )/ 1 = ulf = u/ 1 =fo {O},
the minimality of JI inÍplies that ul 1 = J l' As a result, it is possible to
find an element a E 1 1 5 I for which ua = u. Hence,
u=ua=ua 2
or u = ua" for all n. The conclusion is that a is not nilpotent and, in
consequence, 1 cannot be a nil right ideal.
The key to constructing the required idempotent is to consider the
right annihilator of u in / 1 , defined by
A(u) = {r E 11 1ur O}.
Notice that A(u) is a right ideal of R which is properly contained in JI'
since ul 1 = JI =fo {O}. By the minimalíty of / 1 , A(u) must be a nilpotent
right ideal. Inasmuch as the product u(a 2 - a) = O. a2 - a líes in A(u),
and, hence, is a nilpotent element of R.
For the final stage of the proof, we propose to show that there exists a
polynomialf(x), with integral coefficients, such that e = afea) is a nonzero
idempotent in 1. To this purpose, suppose that (al a)" O. Then,
upon expanding, one obtains a" = a"+lg(a) for a suitable polynomial
g(x) E Z[x]. Itf0Hows that an. = a(a"g(a») = a" + 2g(a)2. Continuing, this
process eventuaUy' leads tO,a" = a 2"g(a)". If we now set e = a"g(a)", then
surely e belongst6 1, and furthermore satisfies the equation
e2 == a 2"g(a)2n = (a 2"g(a)")g(a)" = a"g(a)n e.
Were e = 0, this would mean that an == a 2ng(af = a"e = O, a palpable
contradiction (a,being non-nilpotent from the first paragraph). Therefore,
e serves as the desired nonzero idempotent in 1, which proves the theorem.
The attentive reader will ha ve noticed that by proving Brauer's Theorem
we have actually obtained a criterion for a right ideal to be nHpotent.
Corollary. Let R be a right Artinian ringo Then a right ideal 1 of R is
nilpotent if and only if every element of 1 is nilpotent (that is to say, J
is a nH ideal).
Proof. Necessity follows from the definition of nilpotent ideal. That the
stated condition is also sufficient is a direct consequence of the theorem and
the observation that a nonzero idempotent cannot be nilpotent.
264 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND. IDEALS
Before progressing further, we need the following fact about nilpotent
ideals, imporlant in itself.
Lemma. Let R be a ring which has no nilpotent two-sided ideals,
except the zero ideal. TheI1 R possesses no nonzero nilpotent right
(left) ideals.
Proa! We take l to be any nilpotent right ideal of R, say 1" = {O}. Since
lis a right ideal, so also is Rl; at the same time, R being a left ideal implies
that RÍ forms one too. More simply put, the,~et Rl comprises a two-sided
ideal of R. Now, (Rl)" can be written as ' The preceding inclusion)s necessarily proper, for ee l = O, while
(Rl)" = R(IR)(IR) ... (IR)]":'.
',"1
;,= R(IR)"-l l ~ R1"-U', ~ Rl" = {O},
so that Rl is a nilpotenÚdeal in its own righ(Íf Rl =1= {O}, a contradiction
obviously ensues. Hence, we necessarily hayeRl == {O} ~ l, making l a
two-sided ideal of R. Because l is nilpoteiú;'i our hypothesis guarantees
that l = {O}, which proves the contention.
This lemma prompts us to make a definition. A ring R will be called
nil-semisimple when it has no nilpotent ideals different from zero. By what
was just proved, every nil-sernisimple ring contains no nilpotent one-sided
ideals, other than {O}.
A word of caution: Many authors apply the term "semisimph," (standing
alone) to any ring R such that (i) R satisfies the descending chain condition
on right ideal s and (ii) R has no nonzero nilpotent ideals. The use 'of this
nomenclature is justified by the fact that every such ring is the direct sum
of finitely many simple rings (Theorem 13-3). Unfortunately, the term
would cause difficulty in thepresent text, where semisimple has another
meaning.
We now restrict the scope of our discussion to nil-semisimple right
Artinian rings. Rings satisfying these hypotheses turn out to be qf great
importance in the noncommutative theory and the rest ofthe sectior{ centers
around their study, Let us also abandon, for the present, the assumption
that all rings under consideration must possess a multiplicative identity.
(It will be demonstrated shortly that any nil-semisimple right Artinian ring
actually does have an identity element.)
The coming theorem shows that idempotent element,s occur as an
unavoidable part of our theory; in fact, every right ideal is principal, with
an idempotent generator.
Theorem 13-2. Let R be a nil-semisimple right Artinian ringo Then
any nonzero right ideal l of R is generated by an idempotent element,
that is, 1 = eR for sorne idempotent e in R.
SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY 265
Proof By Brauer's Theorem, l contains nonzero idempotent elements. For
each such idempotent e, we obtain a right ideal
A(e) = {x E llex = O}
of R. Use the minimum condition to select an idempotent O =1= e El such
that A(e)is minimal in this collection. If A(e) =1= {O}, then it has at least
one nonzero idempotent, say el' Next, set e~ = e + el - ele. Then
e 2 E l and is itselfan idempotent element, since ee l = O (el being a member
of A(e)). Furthermore,,:ee2 = e 2 = e, which signifies that A(e 2 ) ~ A(e).
e 2 e l = ée1 + ei - el(ee l ) = ei = el =1= O;
, in particular, we conc1~,cle that e2 =1= O. This leads to a contradjction to
the rninimal nature of A(e), thereby forcing A(e) = {O}. 'Now, for any
element x E l, the producl e(x - ex) = Oand so x - ex E A(e) '= {O}. It
follows that x = ex for~a~l x in l, and consequently, l = el. But then
,"
l = el ~ eR ~ l,
which yields the subsequent equality l = eRo
Remark. Notice that the idempotent e acts as a left identity for the right
= eRo Indeed, if x E l, then x = ey for sorne y E R; therefore, '
ideal l
ex = e2 y = ey = X.
The foregoing theorem allows us to gather more detailed information
concerning the idempotents of R.
Corollary 1. Let R be a nil-sernisimple right Artinian ringo If l is any
nonzero 'two-sided ideal of R, then l = eR = Re for sorne unique
idempotent e =1= O lying in the center of R.
Proof By the theorem, we already know that l is idempotent generated as
a right ideal; for the sake of argument, suppose that l = eR, e 2 = e =1= O.
Now consider the set
J = {x - xelx E I}.
Then J is a leftideal ofR, with J2 ~ JI = J(eR) = fO}. Sin ce R contains
no nilpotent left ideal s other than the zero ideal, it follows that J = {O}.
As a result, we must have x = xe for all x in l, or, what amounts to the
same thing, l = le. Reasoning as in the theorem, this entails that l = Re.
. To confirm that e E cent R, simply observe that for each choice of r E R the
elements er and re both belong to l; therefore
re = erre) = (er)e = ero
Finally, if e' is any other idempotent generator of l, then e = ee' = e'.
264 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND. IDEALS
Before progressing further, we need the following fact about nilpotent
ideals, imporlant in itself.
Lemma. Let R be a ring which has no nilpotent two-sided ideals,
except the zero ideal. TheI1 R possesses no nonzero nilpotent right
(left) ideals.
Proa! We take l to be any nilpotent right ideal of R, say 1" = {O}. Since
lis a right ideal, so also is Rl; at the same time, R being a left ideal implies
that RÍ forms one too. More simply put, the,~et Rl comprises a two-sided
ideal of R. Now, (Rl)" can be written as ' The preceding inclusion)s necessarily proper, for ee l = O, while
(Rl)" = R(IR)(IR) ... (IR)]":'.
',"1
;,= R(IR)"-l l ~ R1"-U', ~ Rl" = {O},
so that Rl is a nilpotenÚdeal in its own righ(Íf Rl =1= {O}, a contradiction
obviously ensues. Hence, we necessarily hayeRl == {O} ~ l, making l a
two-sided ideal of R. Because l is nilpoteiú;'i our hypothesis guarantees
that l = {O}, which proves the contention.
This lemma prompts us to make a definition. A ring R will be called
nil-semisimple when it has no nilpotent ideals different from zero. By what
was just proved, every nil-sernisimple ring contains no nilpotent one-sided
ideals, other than {O}.
A word of caution: Many authors apply the term "semisimph," (standing
alone) to any ring R such that (i) R satisfies the descending chain condition
on right ideal s and (ii) R has no nonzero nilpotent ideals. The use 'of this
nomenclature is justified by the fact that every such ring is the direct sum
of finitely many simple rings (Theorem 13-3). Unfortunately, the term
would cause difficulty in thepresent text, where semisimple has another
meaning.
We now restrict the scope of our discussion to nil-semisimple right
Artinian rings. Rings satisfying these hypotheses turn out to be qf great
importance in the noncommutative theory and the rest ofthe sectior{ centers
around their study, Let us also abandon, for the present, the assumption
that all rings under consideration must possess a multiplicative identity.
(It will be demonstrated shortly that any nil-semisimple right Artinian ring
actually does have an identity element.)
The coming theorem shows that idempotent element,s occur as an
unavoidable part of our theory; in fact, every right ideal is principal, with
an idempotent generator.
Theorem 13-2. Let R be a nil-semisimple right Artinian ringo Then
any nonzero right ideal l of R is generated by an idempotent element,
that is, 1 = eR for sorne idempotent e in R.
SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY 265
Proof By Brauer's Theorem, l contains nonzero idempotent elements. For
each such idempotent e, we obtain a right ideal
A(e) = {x E llex = O}
of R. Use the minimum condition to select an idempotent O =1= e El such
that A(e)is minimal in this collection. If A(e) =1= {O}, then it has at least
one nonzero idempotent, say el' Next, set e~ = e + el - ele. Then
e 2 E l and is itselfan idempotent element, since ee l = O (el being a member
of A(e)). Furthermore,,:ee2 = e 2 = e, which signifies that A(e 2 ) ~ A(e).
e 2 e l = ée1 + ei - el(ee l ) = ei = el =1= O;
, in particular, we conc1~,cle that e2 =1= O. This leads to a contradjction to
the rninimal nature of A(e), thereby forcing A(e) = {O}. 'Now, for any
element x E l, the producl e(x - ex) = Oand so x - ex E A(e) '= {O}. It
follows that x = ex for~a~l x in l, and consequently, l = el. But then
,"
l = el ~ eR ~ l,
which yields the subsequent equality l = eRo
Remark. Notice that the idempotent e acts as a left identity for the right
= eRo Indeed, if x E l, then x = ey for sorne y E R; therefore, '
ideal l
ex = e2 y = ey = X.
The foregoing theorem allows us to gather more detailed information
concerning the idempotents of R.
Corollary 1. Let R be a nil-sernisimple right Artinian ringo If l is any
nonzero 'two-sided ideal of R, then l = eR = Re for sorne unique
idempotent e =1= O lying in the center of R.
Proof By the theorem, we already know that l is idempotent generated as
a right ideal; for the sake of argument, suppose that l = eR, e 2 = e =1= O.
Now consider the set
J = {x - xelx E I}.
Then J is a leftideal ofR, with J2 ~ JI = J(eR) = fO}. Sin ce R contains
no nilpotent left ideal s other than the zero ideal, it follows that J = {O}.
As a result, we must have x = xe for all x in l, or, what amounts to the
same thing, l = le. Reasoning as in the theorem, this entails that l = Re.
. To confirm that e E cent R, simply observe that for each choice of r E R the
elements er and re both belong to l; therefore
re = erre) = (er)e = ero
Finally, if e' is any other idempotent generator of l, then e = ee' = e'.
266 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Another way of phrasing Corollary 1 is to say that any two-sided ideal
of R has a multiplicative identity, namely, the generating idempotent. In
the light of the fact that the entire ring R is itself an ideal, we can deduce
the fairly remarkable result that R must possess an identityo
Corollary 2. A nil-semisimple righ t Artinian ring has an iden tity element.
We contipue a little further in this vein by proving
LeltIma. LetRbeanil-semisimplerightArtinianringand1 = eR = Re
be an ideal of R, e an idempotent. Then any right {left, two-sided)
ideal of 1 is also a right (left, two-sided) ideal of R.
Proof. Suppose that J is an arbitrary right ideal of 1, considered as a ringo
Since J 5;. Re, each element a E J can be written in the form a = re, with
rE R; but then
a= re = (re)e = ae EJe,
leading to the equality J = Jeo Knowing this, one finds that
JR = (Je)R = J(eR) = JI 5; J,
which makes J a right ideal of R.
This last lemma is considerably deeper than it first appearso For most
purposes, its value lies in the corollary belowo
Corollary. Let R be a nil-semisimple right Artinian ringo Viewed as
rings,
1) each ideal of R is itself a nil-semisimple right ,Artinian ring, and
2) any minimal ideal of R is a simple ringo
This preparation brings us to a profound result, the First Wedderburn
Structure Theoremo As in the commutative case, the ultimate .aim ls 'to
characterize those rings under consideration as a direct sum of certain iings
of known typeo ~'
Theorem 13-3. (Wedderburn)o Let R be a nil-semisimple right Artinian
ringo Then R is the (finite) direct sum of its minimal two-sided ideals,
each of which is a simple right Artinian ringo
Proof. Since the minimum condition on right ideal s holds in R, it is possible
to find a minimal two-sided ideal 1 1 =1= {O} (simply apply the condition to
the collection of aIl nonzero two-sided ideal s of R). With reference to
Theorem 13-2, we know that 1 1 = e 1R = Re 1, el being a suitably chosen
idempotent in the center of R. Then 1 - el E cent R, from which it follows
that JI = (1 - e 1 )R forms an ideal of R. Now, any element x E R can be
written as x = e 1 x + (1 - e1 )x, whence the relation R = 1 1 + JI holdso
SOME NONCOMMUTA TIVE· THEOR y 267
To see that this sum is actually direct, .select an arbitrary x in 1 1 n JI. On
the one hand, x = (1 - e 1 )r, so that e 1 x = O, and, on the other hand,
x = e l 8., implying that e1x = ets = e1s = x; thus, the element x = O, or
equivalently, 1 1 n JI = {O}o In consequence, R = 1 1 EB JI is the direct
sum of th~ ideals 1 1 and J lo Furthermore, the ideal 1 1 is simple when
regarded as a ring (Corollary 2 aboye).
The heart of our argument is the observation that the ideal JI' being
an ideal of a nil-semisimple right Artinian ring, inherits these properties (as
a ring)o Therefore, if JI =1= {O},the technique of the preceding paragraph
may be repeated with JI now replacing R. This yields the decomposition
JI = 12 EB J 2' with J 2 an ideal contained in J lo Repeating the process, we
arrive at
where each 1i = eiR is a simple, idempotent-generated, minimal ideal of R.
Since JI ;2 J 2 ;2 J 3 ;2 o.. , the descending chain condition on right ideals
implies that J. = {O} for sorne n. That is to say, at sorne point R is exhibited
as the direct sum
R = 1 1 EB 12 EB o.. EB 1.0
To complete the proof, it remains only to show that the 1i include aIl
the minimal two-sided ideal s of R. Pursuing this aim, let 1 =1= {O} be any
minimal ideal of R. Since R admits the direct sum decomposition
R = 1 1 Ei112 EB oo. EB l., we thus have
1 = R1 = 1 11 EB 121 EB ... ~ 1.1.
Now, each 1) is an ideal of R which is contained:hdi . By the minimality
of 1i , either 1;1 = {O} or else 1i1 = 1. However, if it happened that
1;1 = {O} for every i (i = 1,2, ... ,n), then we would necessarily have
1 = {O}, which is nonsenseo The implication is that 1;1 = 1i for sorne
choice of i. But then 1i = 1i1 5; 1 and so the minimal nature of 1 forces
1i = 1, as asserted. This reasoning also allows ustQ concIude that the direct
sum decomposition of R is unique, up to the order of occurrence of the
summandso Our assertions are now verified.
Since the ideals 1i = eiR (i = 1,2, ... ,n) are the only (two-sided)
minimal ideals of R, we concIude that any nil-semisimple right Artinian
ring R has a finite number of minimal ideals. This observation can be
sharpened to a statement regarding the number of ideals of R, minimal or
otherwise.
Corollary. A nil-semisimple rjght Artinian ring R has 2· ideals for
sorne nEZ+o
266 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Another way of phrasing Corollary 1 is to say that any two-sided ideal
of R has a multiplicative identity, namely, the generating idempotent. In
the light of the fact that the entire ring R is itself an ideal, we can deduce
the fairly remarkable result that R must possess an identityo
Corollary 2. A nil-semisimple righ t Artinian ring has an iden tity element.
We contipue a little further in this vein by proving
LeltIma. LetRbeanil-semisimplerightArtinianringand1 = eR = Re
be an ideal of R, e an idempotent. Then any right {left, two-sided)
ideal of 1 is also a right (left, two-sided) ideal of R.
Proof. Suppose that J is an arbitrary right ideal of 1, considered as a ringo
Since J 5;. Re, each element a E J can be written in the form a = re, with
rE R; but then
a= re = (re)e = ae EJe,
leading to the equality J = Jeo Knowing this, one finds that
JR = (Je)R = J(eR) = JI 5; J,
which makes J a right ideal of R.
This last lemma is considerably deeper than it first appearso For most
purposes, its value lies in the corollary belowo
Corollary. Let R be a nil-semisimple right Artinian ringo Viewed as
rings,
1) each ideal of R is itself a nil-semisimple right ,Artinian ring, and
2) any minimal ideal of R is a simple ringo
This preparation brings us to a profound result, the First Wedderburn
Structure Theoremo As in the commutative case, the ultimate .aim ls 'to
characterize those rings under consideration as a direct sum of certain iings
of known typeo ~'
Theorem 13-3. (Wedderburn)o Let R be a nil-semisimple right Artinian
ringo Then R is the (finite) direct sum of its minimal two-sided ideals,
each of which is a simple right Artinian ringo
Proof. Since the minimum condition on right ideal s holds in R, it is possible
to find a minimal two-sided ideal 1 1 =1= {O} (simply apply the condition to
the collection of aIl nonzero two-sided ideal s of R). With reference to
Theorem 13-2, we know that 1 1 = e 1R = Re 1, el being a suitably chosen
idempotent in the center of R. Then 1 - el E cent R, from which it follows
that JI = (1 - e 1 )R forms an ideal of R. Now, any element x E R can be
written as x = e 1 x + (1 - e1 )x, whence the relation R = 1 1 + JI holdso
SOME NONCOMMUTA TIVE· THEOR y 267
To see that this sum is actually direct, .select an arbitrary x in 1 1 n JI. On
the one hand, x = (1 - e 1 )r, so that e 1 x = O, and, on the other hand,
x = e l 8., implying that e1x = ets = e1s = x; thus, the element x = O, or
equivalently, 1 1 n JI = {O}o In consequence, R = 1 1 EB JI is the direct
sum of th~ ideals 1 1 and J lo Furthermore, the ideal 1 1 is simple when
regarded as a ring (Corollary 2 aboye).
The heart of our argument is the observation that the ideal JI' being
an ideal of a nil-semisimple right Artinian ring, inherits these properties (as
a ring)o Therefore, if JI =1= {O},the technique of the preceding paragraph
may be repeated with JI now replacing R. This yields the decomposition
JI = 12 EB J 2' with J 2 an ideal contained in J lo Repeating the process, we
arrive at
where each 1i = eiR is a simple, idempotent-generated, minimal ideal of R.
Since JI ;2 J 2 ;2 J 3 ;2 o.. , the descending chain condition on right ideals
implies that J. = {O} for sorne n. That is to say, at sorne point R is exhibited
as the direct sum
R = 1 1 EB 12 EB o.. EB 1.0
To complete the proof, it remains only to show that the 1i include aIl
the minimal two-sided ideal s of R. Pursuing this aim, let 1 =1= {O} be any
minimal ideal of R. Since R admits the direct sum decomposition
R = 1 1 Ei112 EB oo. EB l., we thus have
1 = R1 = 1 11 EB 121 EB ... ~ 1.1.
Now, each 1) is an ideal of R which is contained:hdi . By the minimality
of 1i , either 1;1 = {O} or else 1i1 = 1. However, if it happened that
1;1 = {O} for every i (i = 1,2, ... ,n), then we would necessarily have
1 = {O}, which is nonsenseo The implication is that 1;1 = 1i for sorne
choice of i. But then 1i = 1i1 5; 1 and so the minimal nature of 1 forces
1i = 1, as asserted. This reasoning also allows ustQ concIude that the direct
sum decomposition of R is unique, up to the order of occurrence of the
summandso Our assertions are now verified.
Since the ideals 1i = eiR (i = 1,2, ... ,n) are the only (two-sided)
minimal ideals of R, we concIude that any nil-semisimple right Artinian
ring R has a finite number of minimal ideals. This observation can be
sharpened to a statement regarding the number of ideals of R, minimal or
otherwise.
Corollary. A nil-semisimple rjght Artinian ring R has 2· ideals for
sorne nEZ+o
 268 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Proo! Accordingtothe.theorem,R = 1 1 @1 2 @ '" @ln ,whereeachl¡
forms a miniinal ideal of R. If 1 is an arbitrary ideal of R, then
1 = IR = l¡I EB 1 2 1 @ ... EB lJ
As before, !he ideal lJ is contained in 1¡, so that either JJ = {O} or
lJ = 1¡. In other words, we can express 1 as
1 = 1¡! + l¡z + ... + l¡k'
where '{i 1,":!2' ... , ik} is a set of distinct integers between 1 and n. It follows
that ther~:are exactIy 2n ideal s in R, namely, the ideals 1¡! + 1¡2 + .;. + l¡k'
In th~,'toreg?irig structure theorem, we obtained a decomposition
;.":.. '
R
e1R EB e2R EB .. , EB enR,
=
where e~b1i; e· is a nonz~ro idempotent element of R. Let us ne~t show that
the e¡ f9Óii' ~n orthogo~al set of idempotents, in the sense that e¡ ej = O
whenevér);+ j. This depends on the observation that the intersection of
two simple ideals is a two-sided ideal and so must be zero. In the case at
hand, we have
. (e¡R)(ejR) S e¡R ("'\ ejR = {O}, for i 9= j,
which, of course, gives e¡ej = O. Now, let 1 E R be written as
. .
(r¡.E R).
Multiplyirig this equation by e¡, it folIows that e'¡ = e'fr¡
identity element can be expressed more succinctIy as
1 = el + e2 + ... + en'
Remark. Theorem 13-3 Could be used to establish that any nil-semisimple
right Artinian ring R necessarily has an identity element, viz., the idempotent
e = el + e2 + ... + en' (In the absence of an identity, the notation
(1 - e 1)R occurring in the structure theorem must be interpreted as mean-
ing the set {r - e1rlr E R}.) The reasoning proceeds along the following
Hnes. Since R = e1R EB e2R EB ... EB enR, each element l' E R can be
represented as l' = e 1r 1 + e2r 2 + ... + enr n for suitable r¡ in R. Thus, the
equation
= eir 1 + e~r2 +
= e 1 r 1 + e2 r2 +
holds, making e a left identity for R. On the other hand, consider the left
ideal 1 = {r - reir E R}. Because R = eR, we have
(1' - re)R = (1' - re)eR = r(e - e2)R = {O},
--- -_._------------ ----------------
SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY 269
from which it follows that IR = {O}. Thus, 1 forms a two-sided ideal of R,
with 1 2 S IR = {O}. But R is hypothesized to be a nil-semisimple ring,
whence 1 ,; {O}. The implication is that e also serves as a right identity
for R and so a two-sided identity.
We pause to summarize what has been proved so far.
Theorem 13-4. For any nil-semisimple right Artinian ring' R, there
exists a decomposition
,"i, ,t.
into minimal two-sided ideals. The ideals 1 1,1 2 , .... , In are.generated
by orthogonal idempotents; that is, ' ,.
where
and these are such that 1 = el + e2 + ... + en' Furthermore, the
direct sum decomposition is unique apart from the order of the
summands. '
Knowing that any nil-semisimple right Artinian ring can be represented .
as a direct sum of simple right Artinian rings, our problem is thus reduced
to determining a satisfactory structure theory for simple rings in which the
= e¡r¡; hence, the descending chain condition on right ideals holds. It wi11 be found in due
course that such rings are isomorphic to the ring of all linear transformations
on a suitably defined vector space. For the present, we content ourselves
with the observation that any simple ring R for which R 2 9= {O} is auto-
maticalIy nil-semisimple. Indeed, if 1 is any nilpotent two-sided ideal of R,
then either 1 = {O} or 1= R. Inasmuch as 1 is nilpotent, the latter
possibility implies that Rn = {O} for some n; but this is ruled out by the
fact that R 2 = R (since R 2 is an ideal with R 2 9= {O}, necessarily R 2 = R).
Hence, the ideal 1 = {O}, as required. .
To set the stage for our principal theorem, we next draw attention to
certain relations between the structure of eR and that of eRe. One result
which we have in mind is the foIlowing.
Theorem 13-5. Let R be a nil-semisimple ring (no chain conditions) and
let e 9= O be an idempotent element of R. Then eR is a minimal right
ideal of R if and only if eRe is a division ringo
Proo! Before embarking on the proof proper, we note that the set eRe
forms a nonzero subring of R with identity element e. Suppose first that
eR is a minimal right ideal of R. To show that eRe comprises a division
ring, it is enough to find an inverse for each nonzero elemerit. If O 9= ere E eRe,
------ ----- - ---- - - -
 268 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Proo! Accordingtothe.theorem,R = 1 1 @1 2 @ '" @ln ,whereeachl¡
forms a miniinal ideal of R. If 1 is an arbitrary ideal of R, then
1 = IR = l¡I EB 1 2 1 @ ... EB lJ
As before, !he ideal lJ is contained in 1¡, so that either JJ = {O} or
lJ = 1¡. In other words, we can express 1 as
1 = 1¡! + l¡z + ... + l¡k'
where '{i 1,":!2' ... , ik} is a set of distinct integers between 1 and n. It follows
that ther~:are exactIy 2n ideal s in R, namely, the ideals 1¡! + 1¡2 + .;. + l¡k'
In th~,'toreg?irig structure theorem, we obtained a decomposition
;.":.. '
R
e1R EB e2R EB .. , EB enR,
=
where e~b1i; e· is a nonz~ro idempotent element of R. Let us ne~t show that
the e¡ f9Óii' ~n orthogo~al set of idempotents, in the sense that e¡ ej = O
whenevér);+ j. This depends on the observation that the intersection of
two simple ideals is a two-sided ideal and so must be zero. In the case at
hand, we have
. (e¡R)(ejR) S e¡R ("'\ ejR = {O}, for i 9= j,
which, of course, gives e¡ej = O. Now, let 1 E R be written as
. .
(r¡.E R).
Multiplyirig this equation by e¡, it folIows that e'¡ = e'fr¡
identity element can be expressed more succinctIy as
1 = el + e2 + ... + en'
Remark. Theorem 13-3 Could be used to establish that any nil-semisimple
right Artinian ring R necessarily has an identity element, viz., the idempotent
e = el + e2 + ... + en' (In the absence of an identity, the notation
(1 - e 1)R occurring in the structure theorem must be interpreted as mean-
ing the set {r - e1rlr E R}.) The reasoning proceeds along the following
Hnes. Since R = e1R EB e2R EB ... EB enR, each element l' E R can be
represented as l' = e 1r 1 + e2r 2 + ... + enr n for suitable r¡ in R. Thus, the
equation
= eir 1 + e~r2 +
= e 1 r 1 + e2 r2 +
holds, making e a left identity for R. On the other hand, consider the left
ideal 1 = {r - reir E R}. Because R = eR, we have
(1' - re)R = (1' - re)eR = r(e - e2)R = {O},
--- -_._------------ ----------------
SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY 269
from which it follows that IR = {O}. Thus, 1 forms a two-sided ideal of R,
with 1 2 S IR = {O}. But R is hypothesized to be a nil-semisimple ring,
whence 1 ,; {O}. The implication is that e also serves as a right identity
for R and so a two-sided identity.
We pause to summarize what has been proved so far.
Theorem 13-4. For any nil-semisimple right Artinian ring' R, there
exists a decomposition
,"i, ,t.
into minimal two-sided ideals. The ideals 1 1,1 2 , .... , In are.generated
by orthogonal idempotents; that is, ' ,.
where
and these are such that 1 = el + e2 + ... + en' Furthermore, the
direct sum decomposition is unique apart from the order of the
summands. '
Knowing that any nil-semisimple right Artinian ring can be represented .
as a direct sum of simple right Artinian rings, our problem is thus reduced
to determining a satisfactory structure theory for simple rings in which the
= e¡r¡; hence, the descending chain condition on right ideals holds. It wi11 be found in due
course that such rings are isomorphic to the ring of all linear transformations
on a suitably defined vector space. For the present, we content ourselves
with the observation that any simple ring R for which R 2 9= {O} is auto-
maticalIy nil-semisimple. Indeed, if 1 is any nilpotent two-sided ideal of R,
then either 1 = {O} or 1= R. Inasmuch as 1 is nilpotent, the latter
possibility implies that Rn = {O} for some n; but this is ruled out by the
fact that R 2 = R (since R 2 is an ideal with R 2 9= {O}, necessarily R 2 = R).
Hence, the ideal 1 = {O}, as required. .
To set the stage for our principal theorem, we next draw attention to
certain relations between the structure of eR and that of eRe. One result
which we have in mind is the foIlowing.
Theorem 13-5. Let R be a nil-semisimple ring (no chain conditions) and
let e 9= O be an idempotent element of R. Then eR is a minimal right
ideal of R if and only if eRe is a division ringo
Proo! Before embarking on the proof proper, we note that the set eRe
forms a nonzero subring of R with identity element e. Suppose first that
eR is a minimal right ideal of R. To show that eRe comprises a division
ring, it is enough to find an inverse for each nonzero elemerit. If O 9= ere E eRe,
------ ----- - ---- - - -
 270 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
then ereR is _a nonzero right ideal of R contained in eRo Since eR is a
minima! right ideal, we must have ereR = eRo Therefore,
(ere)(eRe) = (ereR)e = eRe.
This relation implies that we can find an element x E eRe for which
(ere)x = e. Thus, every nonzero element in eRe has a right inverse with
respect t? the identity e. In particular, there is sorne y E eRe satisfying
x(ere)y = e; but then
e = x(ere)y = xe(ere)y = x[(ere)x](ere)y
= x(ere)[x(ere)y] = x(ere)e = x(ere).
This enables us to conc1ude .that each right inverse is also a left inverse,
yielding the desired outcome.
As regards the con~t'(rse, as sume that eRe constitutes a division ring and
let 1 =1= {O} be any right ideal of R contained in eRo This gives el = l.
Notice also that le =1= {O}; in the contrary case, 12 ~ leR = {O}, which
conflicts with our hypothesis that R has no nonzero nilpotent ideals.
°
Accordingly, there exists an element r E 1 such that re =1= and, :¡;ince 1 = el,
we must have ere = re =1= O. Because eRe is taken to be a division ring, ere
possesses an inverse s E eRe. But, ere El; hence, e = (ere)s E l. This forces
eR ~ 1 and the equality 1 = eR follows.
The above theorem is evidentally true with "right" replaced by "left"
throughout; this symmetry allows us to add
°
CoroIlary. Let R be a nil-semisimple ring andlet =1= e E R be idem-
potent. Then.eR is a minimal right ideal if and only if Re is a minimal
left ideal. l.: '~,,'
It is reasonable to ask ~h~ther the statement of Theorem 1.3-5 could be
improved upon by the stipuliltion of a chain condition. In pursuit of an
answer, we make the follQwing definition. An idempotent =1= e E R is°
called primitive if e is not t4~'sum of two orthogonal nonzero idempotents
of R; that is, it is not pos§jble to write e = u + v, where u 2 = U =1= 0,
2
°
v = v =1= and uv = vu ~(O.
We can characterize wlÍen an idempotent element of R is primitive in
terms of the idempotents of the ring eRe. To be precise:
°
Lernrna. An idempotent =1= e E R is primitive if and only if e is the
only nonzero idempotent in the ring eRe.
Proof. Let e be primitive and assume that ere is idempotent for sorne r E R.
Then the element e - ere is also idempotent:
(e - ere)2 = e2 - e2re - ere 2 + (ere)2
= -e - ere - ere + ere = e - ere.
SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY 271
At the same time, ere (e - ere) = (e - ere)ere = O. Thus, we have
e = ere + (e - ere), where both ere and e - ere are idempotent and
orthogonal. From the primitivity of e, it may be conc1uded that one of
°
these is zero; that is, either ere = or ere = e.
Conversely, if e is not primitive, then we may write e = u + v, where
uand varenonzeroorthogonalidempotents. Hence,u =1= eandeu = ue = u,
which implies that the element u = eue is in eRe.
We put the finishing touches on our theory of idempotent generated
minimal ideals with
Theorern 13-6. Let R be a nil-semisimple right Artinian ringo Then
an idempotent O =1= e E R is primitive if and only if eR is a minimal
right ideal of R.
Proof. We begin by supposing that eR is not a minimal right ideal. Then
eR properly contains a right ideal 1 =1= {O} of R, which is of the form
1 = uR, u a nonzero idempotent. Since u E eR, it follows that u = er for
sorne rE R, whence u = e2r = eu. Now, set v = ue and w = e - ue. An
easy calculation shows that e = v + w, where v and w are orthogonal
idempotents:
v2 = (ue)2 = u(eu)e = u2e = ue = v, .
w2 = (e - ue)2 e2 - eue - ue 2 + (ue)2
= = e - ue - ue + ue = w,
vw = ue(e - ue) = ue 2 - (ue)2 ,;,. ue - ue = 0,
wv = (e - ue)ue ~ eue - (ue)2 = ue - ue = O.
It is :also important to observe that v and w are both nonzero. Indeed,
were¡) = 0, we would obtain the contradiction
u = u2 = u(eu) = (ue)u = vu = O.
On the.other hand, suppose that w = 0, so that e = ue. Then the right
ideal 1 = uR will contain the element e; this implies that 1 = eR, which is
impossible. Having thus represented e as the sum of two orthogonal non-
zero i'dempotents, we infer that e is not primitive.
Going in the opposite direction, we as sume that the idempotent e is not
primitive. Then e can be expressed as e = u + v, a sum of orthogonal
nonzero idempotents. Now, u = eu = ue, whence the right ideal uR =
euR ~ eRo This irtc1usion is proper, since the idempotent e E eR, while
e fj uRo In fact, if e = ur for a suitable element r of R, then v = ve = vur = 0,
an obvious contradiction. Therefore, {O} =1= uR c: eR, so that eR cannot
be a minimal right ideal of R. This completes the proof.
The two prece<;ling theorems, taken together, yield a single result:
 270 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
then ereR is _a nonzero right ideal of R contained in eRo Since eR is a
minima! right ideal, we must have ereR = eRo Therefore,
(ere)(eRe) = (ereR)e = eRe.
This relation implies that we can find an element x E eRe for which
(ere)x = e. Thus, every nonzero element in eRe has a right inverse with
respect t? the identity e. In particular, there is sorne y E eRe satisfying
x(ere)y = e; but then
e = x(ere)y = xe(ere)y = x[(ere)x](ere)y
= x(ere)[x(ere)y] = x(ere)e = x(ere).
This enables us to conc1ude .that each right inverse is also a left inverse,
yielding the desired outcome.
As regards the con~t'(rse, as sume that eRe constitutes a division ring and
let 1 =1= {O} be any right ideal of R contained in eRo This gives el = l.
Notice also that le =1= {O}; in the contrary case, 12 ~ leR = {O}, which
conflicts with our hypothesis that R has no nonzero nilpotent ideals.
°
Accordingly, there exists an element r E 1 such that re =1= and, :¡;ince 1 = el,
we must have ere = re =1= O. Because eRe is taken to be a division ring, ere
possesses an inverse s E eRe. But, ere El; hence, e = (ere)s E l. This forces
eR ~ 1 and the equality 1 = eR follows.
The above theorem is evidentally true with "right" replaced by "left"
throughout; this symmetry allows us to add
°
CoroIlary. Let R be a nil-semisimple ring andlet =1= e E R be idem-
potent. Then.eR is a minimal right ideal if and only if Re is a minimal
left ideal. l.: '~,,'
It is reasonable to ask ~h~ther the statement of Theorem 1.3-5 could be
improved upon by the stipuliltion of a chain condition. In pursuit of an
answer, we make the follQwing definition. An idempotent =1= e E R is°
called primitive if e is not t4~'sum of two orthogonal nonzero idempotents
of R; that is, it is not pos§jble to write e = u + v, where u 2 = U =1= 0,
2
°
v = v =1= and uv = vu ~(O.
We can characterize wlÍen an idempotent element of R is primitive in
terms of the idempotents of the ring eRe. To be precise:
°
Lernrna. An idempotent =1= e E R is primitive if and only if e is the
only nonzero idempotent in the ring eRe.
Proof. Let e be primitive and assume that ere is idempotent for sorne r E R.
Then the element e - ere is also idempotent:
(e - ere)2 = e2 - e2re - ere 2 + (ere)2
= -e - ere - ere + ere = e - ere.
SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY 271
At the same time, ere (e - ere) = (e - ere)ere = O. Thus, we have
e = ere + (e - ere), where both ere and e - ere are idempotent and
orthogonal. From the primitivity of e, it may be conc1uded that one of
°
these is zero; that is, either ere = or ere = e.
Conversely, if e is not primitive, then we may write e = u + v, where
uand varenonzeroorthogonalidempotents. Hence,u =1= eandeu = ue = u,
which implies that the element u = eue is in eRe.
We put the finishing touches on our theory of idempotent generated
minimal ideals with
Theorern 13-6. Let R be a nil-semisimple right Artinian ringo Then
an idempotent O =1= e E R is primitive if and only if eR is a minimal
right ideal of R.
Proof. We begin by supposing that eR is not a minimal right ideal. Then
eR properly contains a right ideal 1 =1= {O} of R, which is of the form
1 = uR, u a nonzero idempotent. Since u E eR, it follows that u = er for
sorne rE R, whence u = e2r = eu. Now, set v = ue and w = e - ue. An
easy calculation shows that e = v + w, where v and w are orthogonal
idempotents:
v2 = (ue)2 = u(eu)e = u2e = ue = v, .
w2 = (e - ue)2 e2 - eue - ue 2 + (ue)2
= = e - ue - ue + ue = w,
vw = ue(e - ue) = ue 2 - (ue)2 ,;,. ue - ue = 0,
wv = (e - ue)ue ~ eue - (ue)2 = ue - ue = O.
It is :also important to observe that v and w are both nonzero. Indeed,
were¡) = 0, we would obtain the contradiction
u = u2 = u(eu) = (ue)u = vu = O.
On the.other hand, suppose that w = 0, so that e = ue. Then the right
ideal 1 = uR will contain the element e; this implies that 1 = eR, which is
impossible. Having thus represented e as the sum of two orthogonal non-
zero i'dempotents, we infer that e is not primitive.
Going in the opposite direction, we as sume that the idempotent e is not
primitive. Then e can be expressed as e = u + v, a sum of orthogonal
nonzero idempotents. Now, u = eu = ue, whence the right ideal uR =
euR ~ eRo This irtc1usion is proper, since the idempotent e E eR, while
e fj uRo In fact, if e = ur for a suitable element r of R, then v = ve = vur = 0,
an obvious contradiction. Therefore, {O} =1= uR c: eR, so that eR cannot
be a minimal right ideal of R. This completes the proof.
The two prece<;ling theorems, taken together, yield a single result:
272 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND ,IDEALS
SOME NONco;MMUTA TIVE THEOR y 273
Tbeorem 13-7. In a nil-semisimple rigbt Artinian ring R, an idem- Witb this definition, one finds that bomR(M, M) (regarded merely as a
potent e' =1= O is primitive if and only if eRe forms a division ringo commutative group) becomes a rigbt R-module. Clearly, fr isan additive
We continue our development after a few preparatory remarks about bomomorpbism from M into M. Moreover, for any S-E R,
modules. Let M, N be nonzero rigbt R-modules, wbere R is any ringo (fr)(xs) = f(xs)r f(x)sr = f(x)rs = (fr)(x)s.
(The reader is reniinded that, wbenever tbere is reference to a' ring R, it is
tacitly assumed tbat R possesses an identity elem~t.) We shall bereafter use Here, rs = sr, because R is taken to be cornmutative. Tbus, fr actually
the notation bomR(M, N) to denote the set of all R-bomomorpbisms from does form ap R-endomorpbism. To recapitulate; in tbe cornmutative
M into N; in other words, tbe set of all mappin~s, f: M -+ N sucb tbat case, bomR(M, M),is botb ~:ring and an R-module, with ring multiplication
~ .. ~.
and module mu1tiplication)~nked by tbe relation
f{x + y) = f(x) + f(y), f(xr) = f(x)r'::,;; (x, y E M ; r' E R). (f o g)r = f o (gr) ;:(fr) o 9 (1, 9 E bomR(M, M); rE R).
Under tbe usual pointwise addition of functio'rls, bomR(M, N) forms, a In p~ticular, when M =tR,: a clear distinction must be made between tbe
subgroup of tbe commutative group bom (M;,!,,). EqualIy important .is R-homomorpbisms of R(cbhsidered as module over itself) and its bomo-
tbe observation that bomR(M, M) turns out td"h~ a subring (witb identity) morpbisms as a ringo >,t~ .
oftbe ring hom (M, M):ring multiplication being::pomposition of mappings. Before turning to the¡-,~~xt tbeorem, it is necessary to recalI that any
. In fact, for arbitrary 1, 9 E bomR(M, M), x E M,'~d r E R, right ideal 1 of tbe ring :RJs:a r1gbt R-module; the module product being
(f - g)(xr) = f(xr) - g(xr)'" :' given by the ,ordinary ringo multiplication xr, where x E 1 and rE R.

= f(x)r g(x)r Tbeorem 13-8. Let R be a simple ring witb minimal rigbt ideal 1 eR,
e =1= O an idempotent. Then bomR(I, 1) ::::: eRe, viewed as, rings.
= (j{x) - g(x»)r .;" (f g)(x)r,
Proof As remarked aboye, we consider 1 as a right R-module. Thus,
wbence f - 9 E bomR(M, M). It ls just as routine that fE bomR(I, 1) implies tbat
(f o g)(xr) = f(g(xr») fea + b) = fía) +.f(b), f(ar) = f(a)r (a, bE 1; rE R).
= f(g(x)r) = f(g(x»)r (f o g)(x)r, The first task is to characteríze tbesé R-endomorphisms in sorne convenient
way. We handle tbis problem as folIows. LetfE bomR(I, 1) and tbe element
and so f o 9 aIso lies in bomR (M, M).
a E 1 = eR, saya = ero Then fea) = f(er) = f(e)r, so tbat tbe function
One ca/Is bomR(M, M) tbe ring of R-endomorphisms of M, or sometimes
f is completely determined once tbe value fíe) is known. Since e is an
tbe centralizer of tbe R-module M. The reason for tbis latter cboice of
idempotent of R, we bave fíe) f(e Z):= f(e)e. But fíe) E eR, whence
terminology is that tbe elements of bomR(M, M) are precisely tbose additive
fíe) = es for sorne choice of s in R, and so fíe) = f(e)e = ese. It readily
endomorpbisms f of M wbicb cornmute witb tbe rigbt multiplications folIows that
determined by elements of R. Indeed, with every elemimt r ER there is
assoCÍated a mapping T,. of M into itself given by T,.x = xr (as an irnmediate fea) = f(e)r = (ese)r (ese 2 )r = (ese)er ~ (ese)a._
consequence of its definition, T,. E homR(M, M)). Tben the condition In brief, f acts on the elements of 1 as left multiplication by ese, wbere
f(xr) = f(x)r can be reformulated as f(e) = ese. We shall utilize this information presently.
(f o T,.)(x) = (T,. o f)(x) (x E M), Now, defin~ a mapping cp; homR(I, 1) -+ eRe by means of the rule
cp(f¡' = fíe). It is iminediately apparent that
or, equivalently, as f o T,. T,. o f
It is natural to ask whetber homR(M, M) can be turned into an R- cp(f + g) = (f + g)(e) fíe) + g(e) = cp(f) + CP(g).
module. In answering this question, let us suppose for tbe moment that R If f is caused by a left multíplication by tbe eIement ese and g is a left
is a commutative ring and that f belongs to homR (M, M). Given a fixed muHiplícation by ete, then cp enjoys the further property
r in R, define fr by means of
cp(f o g) = (f o g)(e) = j(g(e») = f(ete)
(fr)(x) f(x)r (x EM).
= esete = (ese)(ete) = f(e)g(e) = CP(f)CP(g).
272 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND ,IDEALS
SOME NONco;MMUTA TIVE THEOR y 273
Tbeorem 13-7. In a nil-semisimple rigbt Artinian ring R, an idem- Witb this definition, one finds that bomR(M, M) (regarded merely as a
potent e' =1= O is primitive if and only if eRe forms a division ringo commutative group) becomes a rigbt R-module. Clearly, fr isan additive
We continue our development after a few preparatory remarks about bomomorpbism from M into M. Moreover, for any S-E R,
modules. Let M, N be nonzero rigbt R-modules, wbere R is any ringo (fr)(xs) = f(xs)r f(x)sr = f(x)rs = (fr)(x)s.
(The reader is reniinded that, wbenever tbere is reference to a' ring R, it is
tacitly assumed tbat R possesses an identity elem~t.) We shall bereafter use Here, rs = sr, because R is taken to be cornmutative. Tbus, fr actually
the notation bomR(M, N) to denote the set of all R-bomomorpbisms from does form ap R-endomorpbism. To recapitulate; in tbe cornmutative
M into N; in other words, tbe set of all mappin~s, f: M -+ N sucb tbat case, bomR(M, M),is botb ~:ring and an R-module, with ring multiplication
~ .. ~.
and module mu1tiplication)~nked by tbe relation
f{x + y) = f(x) + f(y), f(xr) = f(x)r'::,;; (x, y E M ; r' E R). (f o g)r = f o (gr) ;:(fr) o 9 (1, 9 E bomR(M, M); rE R).
Under tbe usual pointwise addition of functio'rls, bomR(M, N) forms, a In p~ticular, when M =tR,: a clear distinction must be made between tbe
subgroup of tbe commutative group bom (M;,!,,). EqualIy important .is R-homomorpbisms of R(cbhsidered as module over itself) and its bomo-
tbe observation that bomR(M, M) turns out td"h~ a subring (witb identity) morpbisms as a ringo >,t~ .
oftbe ring hom (M, M):ring multiplication being::pomposition of mappings. Before turning to the¡-,~~xt tbeorem, it is necessary to recalI that any
. In fact, for arbitrary 1, 9 E bomR(M, M), x E M,'~d r E R, right ideal 1 of tbe ring :RJs:a r1gbt R-module; the module product being
(f - g)(xr) = f(xr) - g(xr)'" :' given by the ,ordinary ringo multiplication xr, where x E 1 and rE R.

= f(x)r g(x)r Tbeorem 13-8. Let R be a simple ring witb minimal rigbt ideal 1 eR,
e =1= O an idempotent. Then bomR(I, 1) ::::: eRe, viewed as, rings.
= (j{x) - g(x»)r .;" (f g)(x)r,
Proof As remarked aboye, we consider 1 as a right R-module. Thus,
wbence f - 9 E bomR(M, M). It ls just as routine that fE bomR(I, 1) implies tbat
(f o g)(xr) = f(g(xr») fea + b) = fía) +.f(b), f(ar) = f(a)r (a, bE 1; rE R).
= f(g(x)r) = f(g(x»)r (f o g)(x)r, The first task is to characteríze tbesé R-endomorphisms in sorne convenient
way. We handle tbis problem as folIows. LetfE bomR(I, 1) and tbe element
and so f o 9 aIso lies in bomR (M, M).
a E 1 = eR, saya = ero Then fea) = f(er) = f(e)r, so tbat tbe function
One ca/Is bomR(M, M) tbe ring of R-endomorphisms of M, or sometimes
f is completely determined once tbe value fíe) is known. Since e is an
tbe centralizer of tbe R-module M. The reason for tbis latter cboice of
idempotent of R, we bave fíe) f(e Z):= f(e)e. But fíe) E eR, whence
terminology is that tbe elements of bomR(M, M) are precisely tbose additive
fíe) = es for sorne choice of s in R, and so fíe) = f(e)e = ese. It readily
endomorpbisms f of M wbicb cornmute witb tbe rigbt multiplications folIows that
determined by elements of R. Indeed, with every elemimt r ER there is
assoCÍated a mapping T,. of M into itself given by T,.x = xr (as an irnmediate fea) = f(e)r = (ese)r (ese 2 )r = (ese)er ~ (ese)a._
consequence of its definition, T,. E homR(M, M)). Tben the condition In brief, f acts on the elements of 1 as left multiplication by ese, wbere
f(xr) = f(x)r can be reformulated as f(e) = ese. We shall utilize this information presently.
(f o T,.)(x) = (T,. o f)(x) (x E M), Now, defin~ a mapping cp; homR(I, 1) -+ eRe by means of the rule
cp(f¡' = fíe). It is iminediately apparent that
or, equivalently, as f o T,. T,. o f
It is natural to ask whetber homR(M, M) can be turned into an R- cp(f + g) = (f + g)(e) fíe) + g(e) = cp(f) + CP(g).
module. In answering this question, let us suppose for tbe moment that R If f is caused by a left multíplication by tbe eIement ese and g is a left
is a commutative ring and that f belongs to homR (M, M). Given a fixed muHiplícation by ete, then cp enjoys the further property
r in R, define fr by means of
cp(f o g) = (f o g)(e) = j(g(e») = f(ete)
(fr)(x) f(x)r (x EM).
= esete = (ese)(ete) = f(e)g(e) = CP(f)CP(g).
 SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEOR y 275
274 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS

This perinits us to conclude that cp, at the very least, is a homomorphism
from the ring homR(l, 1) into the ring eRe.
We next proceed to show that ker cp {O}. If cpU) = O, then f(e) = O,
which can be applied to yield
fea) = f(er) f(e)r =O
for any a E 1 = eRo This of course mean s tbat f O, making cp a one-to-
one fundion. Finally, we select an arbitrary x in eRe (for instance, x = ere)
and define the endomorphism hE homR(I, 1) by setting h(a) xa = (ere)a,
where a E 1. Then we will ba ve
cp(h) = h(e) = (ere)e ere x,
so that cp maps onto eRe. The proof that cp serves as a ring isomorphlsm
between homR(l, 1) and eRe is now complete.
In combination with'Theorem 13-5, one obtains as a corollary
CoroJlary. If R is a simple ring with minimal right ideal 1, then
homR(I,1) forms a division ringo
The foregoing corollary is a special case of a much wider theorem due
to Schur. In accordance with the terminology of Section 12, we shaJl call
an R-module simple provided it is nonzero and has no nontrivial submodules.
Tbeorem 13-9. (Schur's Lemma). If M is a simple R-module, then
homR(M, M) forms a division ringo
Proo! What we must pro ve is that any nonzerO element homR(M, M)
has an inverse in homR(M, M). Since the image f(M) is a nQnzero sub-
module of M, it folJows that f(M) = M (M being a simple module by
hypothesis) and therefore f maps onto M. In addition, f is.~e.cessarily a
one-to-one function. For ker f is certainly a submodule of M'·a:nd cannot
equal M, becausef =1= O; the implication i8 tbat kerf = {O}.''Áll told, the
inverse f-1: M --+ M exists. The reader is left the task of éerifying that
f -1 is actuaHy an R-homomorphism. ' ...
This might be the proper place to characterize aH simpie. R-modules
of a given ring R. To this end, observe that if 1 is a right ideal of R, then
we can certainly form the quotient group R/l; that is, R/l is the additive
group whose elements are the cosets x + 1, x E R, with addition defined by
(x + 1) + (y + 1) = x + y + l.
We can, however, do more than this. For, setting
(x + l)r = xr + 1 (r E R),
R/l carries a well-defined structure as a right R-module. Indeed, the veri-
fication tbat the module moms are satisfied presents no problem and will
therefore be omitted. The reader may also conftrm that the submodules of
R/l are of the form J/l, where J is a right ideal of R and J ;;;2 l. These
remarks lead us to a precise identification of aH simple R-modules.
Theorem 13-10. A right R-module M is simple if and only if it is R-
isomorphic to a quotient module R/l for some maximal right ideal 1
of R.
Proo! Assume that M is a simple R-module. For a fixed nonzero element
x E M, define the right ideal 1 by 1 = {a E Rlxa = O}. To see that 1 is
maximal, take J to be any right ideal of R satisfying 1 e J S;;; R. Now,
the set xJ forros a nonzero submodule of M. From the supposition that
M is simple, it follows that xJ = M = xR. (Actually, any element
O =1= y E M is cyclic in the sense tbat yR = M.) Thus, for arbitrary rE R,
there exists some bE J such that xb xr. But then, x(r - b) = O, giving
r - b E 1 S;;; J; this says that rE J, whence the equality J = R, and 1 is a
maximal right ideal of R. Next, consider the module homomorphism
f: R --+ M in whichf(a) xa. The elements of the kernel off are precisely
the elements of l. Furthermore, the condition xR = M assures us that f
maps onto M and so, invoking Theorem 12-13, there is induced an R-
isomorphism R/l ;::: M. The other direction of the theorem relies on the
fact that R/l is a simple right R-module if and only if 1 is a maximal right
ideal of R; the reader may supply the necessary details.
If M is a right R-module, then the set
A(M) = {r E RIMr {O}}
is called the annihilator of the module M.As is easily verified, A(M) forms
a two-sided ideal of R. We shall refer to Mas afaithful R-module or speak
of Ras acting faithful1y on M whenever A(M) {O}; tbat is to say, when-
ever Mr = {O} implies that r = O. Since.the ring R is assumed to pqssess
an identity element, R is evidently Caithfulas a module over itself.
To round out our studies, let us introdüce a notíon of radical which is
meaningful for general rings and which agrees with the previously defined
. Jacobson radical in the event that the ringJs conuilUtative. The definition
we give is phrased in terms of annihilators oC modules.
Definition 13-1. The radical of the. ring R is the set J(R) = fl A(M),
where the intersection varies over all simple right R-modules M; if
there are no simple right R-modules, put J(R) = R.
In short, the radical of a ring R may be described as the annihilator of
all simple right R-modules. Notice, too, tbat J(R), being the intersection of
two-sided ideals oC R, itself is an ideal of R. A final point to which attention
should be drawn is that if R happens to have a faithful simple right R-
 SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEOR y 275
274 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS

This perinits us to conclude that cp, at the very least, is a homomorphism
from the ring homR(l, 1) into the ring eRe.
We next proceed to show that ker cp {O}. If cpU) = O, then f(e) = O,
which can be applied to yield
fea) = f(er) f(e)r =O
for any a E 1 = eRo This of course mean s tbat f O, making cp a one-to-
one fundion. Finally, we select an arbitrary x in eRe (for instance, x = ere)
and define the endomorphism hE homR(I, 1) by setting h(a) xa = (ere)a,
where a E 1. Then we will ba ve
cp(h) = h(e) = (ere)e ere x,
so that cp maps onto eRe. The proof that cp serves as a ring isomorphlsm
between homR(l, 1) and eRe is now complete.
In combination with'Theorem 13-5, one obtains as a corollary
CoroJlary. If R is a simple ring with minimal right ideal 1, then
homR(I,1) forms a division ringo
The foregoing corollary is a special case of a much wider theorem due
to Schur. In accordance with the terminology of Section 12, we shaJl call
an R-module simple provided it is nonzero and has no nontrivial submodules.
Tbeorem 13-9. (Schur's Lemma). If M is a simple R-module, then
homR(M, M) forms a division ringo
Proo! What we must pro ve is that any nonzerO element homR(M, M)
has an inverse in homR(M, M). Since the image f(M) is a nQnzero sub-
module of M, it folJows that f(M) = M (M being a simple module by
hypothesis) and therefore f maps onto M. In addition, f is.~e.cessarily a
one-to-one function. For ker f is certainly a submodule of M'·a:nd cannot
equal M, becausef =1= O; the implication i8 tbat kerf = {O}.''Áll told, the
inverse f-1: M --+ M exists. The reader is left the task of éerifying that
f -1 is actuaHy an R-homomorphism. ' ...
This might be the proper place to characterize aH simpie. R-modules
of a given ring R. To this end, observe that if 1 is a right ideal of R, then
we can certainly form the quotient group R/l; that is, R/l is the additive
group whose elements are the cosets x + 1, x E R, with addition defined by
(x + 1) + (y + 1) = x + y + l.
We can, however, do more than this. For, setting
(x + l)r = xr + 1 (r E R),
R/l carries a well-defined structure as a right R-module. Indeed, the veri-
fication tbat the module moms are satisfied presents no problem and will
therefore be omitted. The reader may also conftrm that the submodules of
R/l are of the form J/l, where J is a right ideal of R and J ;;;2 l. These
remarks lead us to a precise identification of aH simple R-modules.
Theorem 13-10. A right R-module M is simple if and only if it is R-
isomorphic to a quotient module R/l for some maximal right ideal 1
of R.
Proo! Assume that M is a simple R-module. For a fixed nonzero element
x E M, define the right ideal 1 by 1 = {a E Rlxa = O}. To see that 1 is
maximal, take J to be any right ideal of R satisfying 1 e J S;;; R. Now,
the set xJ forros a nonzero submodule of M. From the supposition that
M is simple, it follows that xJ = M = xR. (Actually, any element
O =1= y E M is cyclic in the sense tbat yR = M.) Thus, for arbitrary rE R,
there exists some bE J such that xb xr. But then, x(r - b) = O, giving
r - b E 1 S;;; J; this says that rE J, whence the equality J = R, and 1 is a
maximal right ideal of R. Next, consider the module homomorphism
f: R --+ M in whichf(a) xa. The elements of the kernel off are precisely
the elements of l. Furthermore, the condition xR = M assures us that f
maps onto M and so, invoking Theorem 12-13, there is induced an R-
isomorphism R/l ;::: M. The other direction of the theorem relies on the
fact that R/l is a simple right R-module if and only if 1 is a maximal right
ideal of R; the reader may supply the necessary details.
If M is a right R-module, then the set
A(M) = {r E RIMr {O}}
is called the annihilator of the module M.As is easily verified, A(M) forms
a two-sided ideal of R. We shall refer to Mas afaithful R-module or speak
of Ras acting faithful1y on M whenever A(M) {O}; tbat is to say, when-
ever Mr = {O} implies that r = O. Since.the ring R is assumed to pqssess
an identity element, R is evidently Caithfulas a module over itself.
To round out our studies, let us introdüce a notíon of radical which is
meaningful for general rings and which agrees with the previously defined
. Jacobson radical in the event that the ringJs conuilUtative. The definition
we give is phrased in terms of annihilators oC modules.
Definition 13-1. The radical of the. ring R is the set J(R) = fl A(M),
where the intersection varies over all simple right R-modules M; if
there are no simple right R-modules, put J(R) = R.
In short, the radical of a ring R may be described as the annihilator of
all simple right R-modules. Notice, too, tbat J(R), being the intersection of
two-sided ideals oC R, itself is an ideal of R. A final point to which attention
should be drawn is that if R happens to have a faithful simple right R-
 276 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS 'AND IDEALS
module, then J(R) = {O}. ,(This observation is made in preparation for
Theorem 13':'13.)
The relevance of J(R) to sorne of our éarlier investigations is clarified
by the next theorem. What one can prove is
Tbeorem 13-11.. In a ring R with identity,
J(R) = (I{IIJ is a maximal right ideal of R}.
Proo!, If the elernent rE /(R), then r annihilates every simple right. R-
module. In particular, fo(any maxirnal right ideal J of R, the quohent
module RJJ forms a simple'R-module (we remark that maximal right ideals
exist by Zorn's Lernma).J;Ience, (RJJ)r = {O} or, in other terms, Rr c:;::; J.
Since R possesses an ideritity element, it may be inferred that.r = Ir E J.
Thus r Hes in every maxiInal right ideal of R and (with self-explanatory
nota~ion) J(R) c:;::; Í I J. \;'",
For proof of the oppósite inclusion, let r E K = Í I J, where J runs
through aH maximal right:ideals of R. We contend that the right ideal
(1 - r)R = R. In the contrary case, (1 - r)R would be contained in sorne
maximal right ideal I' of R; frorn r E K c:;::; I' foHows 1 '7 (1 - r) + rE I',
which is irnpossible. The next step is to consider any simple right R-module
°
M. If Mr 1 {O}, then xr 1 for a suitable element x of M. Since xK is
a submodule of M, this yields xK. = M. Accordingly, there exists an ele-
ment s E K for which xs = x: As was pointed out a moment ago, s E K
secures that (1 -. s)R = R; hence, (1 - s)t = - s for sorne t in R. This
relation gives
.° :00 x(s + t - st) = xs + xt - xst = x + xt -:- xt = x,
leaving us with a contradi<;:tion, The implicatioll is that Mr = {O} for
every simple R-module M. Thus, the element r E J(R), which settles the
proof...
Remark, For the reader's guidance, it needs to be' statedthat, when R lacks
an identity element, the analog of Theorem 13..,.11 asserts that J(R) is the
intersection of the modular maximal right ideals of R. (Of course, in a
ring with identity, a1l ideals aretriviaHy modular.) Furthermore, the inter-
section of the modular maximal right ideals of R always coincides with the
intersection of aH modular maxirnalleft ideals [10].
In order to extend Schur's Lemma, we introduce a further concept,
which, to begin with, may appear unrelated. Let (G, +) be a commutative
group having more than one element and let E(G) denote the collection of
endomorphisms of G. (Remember that by an endomorphism of G is meant
a homomorphisrn of G into itself.) Dnder the operations of pointwise
addition and functional composition, E(G) forms a ring with identity. Any
SOME NONCOMMUTATlVE THEORY 277
subring S of the ring E(G) is called a 'primitive ring of endomorphisms of.G
if for aH x, y E G, with x 1 0, there exists sorne fES such that f(x) = y.
As regards notation, we shaH hereafter write C(S) for the centralizer of S
in E(G); that is, C(S) consists of those endomorphisms of G which cornmute,
under composition, with every member of S. It is readily verified that C(S)
is a subring of E(G) containing the identity endomórphism.
We;are now ready to prove the following theorem.
Theorem 13-12. Let G be a commutative group with more than one
element.· Ir S is' a prirnitive ring of endomorphisms of G, then the
centralizer C(S) forms a division ringo
'.' ¡
° . ,
Proop'.Given that 1 fE C(S), let the element x E G be such thatf(x) 1 o.
For e#h y E G, the prirnitivity' of S assures us that there exists an endo-
.
morphi~m g E S satisfying g(J(x») = y; hence,
f(g(x») = g(J(x») = y. ,-,o'
As this'holds ·for arbitrary y in G, we conclude thatfmaps G onto itself. o,,:}:
Now, assume thatf(x 1 ) = f(x 2 ), where Xl' x 2 E G, so thatf(x 1 - x 2 ) = O.
If the element Xl - X2 1 0, then for any y E. G we can choose sorne h in S
with h(x 1 - x 2 ) = y. (Once again, this is possible by the primitivity of S.)
But then, .
f(y) = f(h(x 1 - x 2 ») = h(J(x 1 - h») = h(O) = O,.
which means' thatf = 0, an óbvious contradiction. In other words, we must
have Xl - 'x 2 = 0, or, rather, Xl = Xl' ensuring that the mapping f is a
one-to-one function. As a result, there exists a well-defined multiplicative
inversef-l: G ....;. G, which is also an endomorphism of G. For any g E S,
f- 1 0(g°f)of- 1 =f- 10 (f0g)of-1,
leaving us with f-l ° g = g ° f- 1 ; therefore, f- 1 E C(S) and aH is proved.
Note that this theorem actually does generalize the one due to Schur.
For, let M be any simple right R-module. In the ring E(M) of endomor-
phisms of the additive group of M, consider the subring S of rightmulti-
plication functions induced by elements of R :
S ={T,:lr E R; T,:(x) = xrfor x E M}.
As was seen earlier, the centralizer of S in E(M)is exactIy the ring homR (M, M)
of R-endomorphisms of M. We contend further that S is a primitive ring
of endomorphisms of the module M. Indeed, if x, y E M, where X 1 0,
·then the set {T,:xlr E.R} forms a nonzero submodule of M and so .must be
M itself; this guarantees that T,x = y for sorne choice of l' E R. As the
conditions ofTheorem 13-12 hold, we find that homR(M, M) = C(S) is a
division ringo
 276 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS 'AND IDEALS
module, then J(R) = {O}. ,(This observation is made in preparation for
Theorem 13':'13.)
The relevance of J(R) to sorne of our éarlier investigations is clarified
by the next theorem. What one can prove is
Tbeorem 13-11.. In a ring R with identity,
J(R) = (I{IIJ is a maximal right ideal of R}.
Proo!, If the elernent rE /(R), then r annihilates every simple right. R-
module. In particular, fo(any maxirnal right ideal J of R, the quohent
module RJJ forms a simple'R-module (we remark that maximal right ideals
exist by Zorn's Lernma).J;Ience, (RJJ)r = {O} or, in other terms, Rr c:;::; J.
Since R possesses an ideritity element, it may be inferred that.r = Ir E J.
Thus r Hes in every maxiInal right ideal of R and (with self-explanatory
nota~ion) J(R) c:;::; Í I J. \;'",
For proof of the oppósite inclusion, let r E K = Í I J, where J runs
through aH maximal right:ideals of R. We contend that the right ideal
(1 - r)R = R. In the contrary case, (1 - r)R would be contained in sorne
maximal right ideal I' of R; frorn r E K c:;::; I' foHows 1 '7 (1 - r) + rE I',
which is irnpossible. The next step is to consider any simple right R-module
°
M. If Mr 1 {O}, then xr 1 for a suitable element x of M. Since xK is
a submodule of M, this yields xK. = M. Accordingly, there exists an ele-
ment s E K for which xs = x: As was pointed out a moment ago, s E K
secures that (1 -. s)R = R; hence, (1 - s)t = - s for sorne t in R. This
relation gives
.° :00 x(s + t - st) = xs + xt - xst = x + xt -:- xt = x,
leaving us with a contradi<;:tion, The implicatioll is that Mr = {O} for
every simple R-module M. Thus, the element r E J(R), which settles the
proof...
Remark, For the reader's guidance, it needs to be' statedthat, when R lacks
an identity element, the analog of Theorem 13..,.11 asserts that J(R) is the
intersection of the modular maximal right ideals of R. (Of course, in a
ring with identity, a1l ideals aretriviaHy modular.) Furthermore, the inter-
section of the modular maximal right ideals of R always coincides with the
intersection of aH modular maxirnalleft ideals [10].
In order to extend Schur's Lemma, we introduce a further concept,
which, to begin with, may appear unrelated. Let (G, +) be a commutative
group having more than one element and let E(G) denote the collection of
endomorphisms of G. (Remember that by an endomorphism of G is meant
a homomorphisrn of G into itself.) Dnder the operations of pointwise
addition and functional composition, E(G) forms a ring with identity. Any
SOME NONCOMMUTATlVE THEORY 277
subring S of the ring E(G) is called a 'primitive ring of endomorphisms of.G
if for aH x, y E G, with x 1 0, there exists sorne fES such that f(x) = y.
As regards notation, we shaH hereafter write C(S) for the centralizer of S
in E(G); that is, C(S) consists of those endomorphisms of G which cornmute,
under composition, with every member of S. It is readily verified that C(S)
is a subring of E(G) containing the identity endomórphism.
We;are now ready to prove the following theorem.
Theorem 13-12. Let G be a commutative group with more than one
element.· Ir S is' a prirnitive ring of endomorphisms of G, then the
centralizer C(S) forms a division ringo
'.' ¡
° . ,
Proop'.Given that 1 fE C(S), let the element x E G be such thatf(x) 1 o.
For e#h y E G, the prirnitivity' of S assures us that there exists an endo-
.
morphi~m g E S satisfying g(J(x») = y; hence,
f(g(x») = g(J(x») = y. ,-,o'
As this'holds ·for arbitrary y in G, we conclude thatfmaps G onto itself. o,,:}:
Now, assume thatf(x 1 ) = f(x 2 ), where Xl' x 2 E G, so thatf(x 1 - x 2 ) = O.
If the element Xl - X2 1 0, then for any y E. G we can choose sorne h in S
with h(x 1 - x 2 ) = y. (Once again, this is possible by the primitivity of S.)
But then, .
f(y) = f(h(x 1 - x 2 ») = h(J(x 1 - h») = h(O) = O,.
which means' thatf = 0, an óbvious contradiction. In other words, we must
have Xl - 'x 2 = 0, or, rather, Xl = Xl' ensuring that the mapping f is a
one-to-one function. As a result, there exists a well-defined multiplicative
inversef-l: G ....;. G, which is also an endomorphism of G. For any g E S,
f- 1 0(g°f)of- 1 =f- 10 (f0g)of-1,
leaving us with f-l ° g = g ° f- 1 ; therefore, f- 1 E C(S) and aH is proved.
Note that this theorem actually does generalize the one due to Schur.
For, let M be any simple right R-module. In the ring E(M) of endomor-
phisms of the additive group of M, consider the subring S of rightmulti-
plication functions induced by elements of R :
S ={T,:lr E R; T,:(x) = xrfor x E M}.
As was seen earlier, the centralizer of S in E(M)is exactIy the ring homR (M, M)
of R-endomorphisms of M. We contend further that S is a primitive ring
of endomorphisms of the module M. Indeed, if x, y E M, where X 1 0,
·then the set {T,:xlr E.R} forms a nonzero submodule of M and so .must be
M itself; this guarantees that T,x = y for sorne choice of l' E R. As the
conditions ofTheorem 13-12 hold, we find that homR(M, M) = C(S) is a
division ringo

278
FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
It is appropriate to call attention here to a very special c1ass of rings
which are caJled primitive rings. A primitive ring is, by definition, isomorphic
to a primitive ring of endomorphisms of sorne commutative group. That
any division ring D is primitive should be c1ear. (The required primitive
ring of endomorphisms is just the ring of tight multiplication functions on
the additive group of D.) One frequently c1assifies rings according to the
module~ which they admit; in this scheme, the primitive rings are perhaps
the simplest type, for these admit a faithful simple module.
'1
Theorem 13-13. A ring R is primiti've if and only if it has a faithful
simple R-module.
Proo! Let M be any faithful simple R-module. Since Mis simp'le, we have
M =. xR for each O =1=., x E M. The force of this o bservation is that the ring
of nght mUltiplicatioris T,., rE R, forms a primitive ring of (group) endo-
morphisms of M. Furthermore, the supposition that M is faithful implies
that T,. = O if and only if r = O. The mapP!ng p: r ~ r..
thus determines
a ring-isomorphism of R onto a primitive ring of endomorphisms of M,
givin~ rise to the conc1usion that R is a primitive ringo
On the other hand, suppose that R is isomorphic by means of the
mapping r ~ r' to a primitive ring R' of endomorphisms of a commutative
group M. Define a module structure on M by setting xr = r'(x), where
x E M, rE R. It follows at once that Mr = {O} if and only if r'(x) = O for
all x E M; that is to say, if and only if the endomorphism r' = O, or,
equivalently, r = O. Thus, R acts faithfully on M as a right R-module.
To see that the module in question is simple, notice that the primitivity of
R' implies that M;= {r'(x)lr' E R'} for each nonzero x E M; this in its turn
tells us that M '= ')¡:R for' any O =1= x E M, which makes M a simple R-
module.
Note that as ap immediate consequence of the theorem we get
Corollary. Fqr any primitive ring R, the radical J(R) = {O}.
Now that Theorem 13-13 is available, let us make immediate use of it
to prove that a cpmmutative primitive ring R is a field. (Theorem 13-12
could just as well be employed.) To set this fact in evidence, suppos'e that
O =1= a E R and that M is any faithful simple right R-module. Then there
exists sorne x E M such that xa =1= Oand, as a result, xaR = M. It is there-
fore possible to select an element b in R satisfying xab = X. The commuta-
tivity of R now implies that, for every rE R,
xr(ab) = x(ab)r = xr.
But xR = M, whence Mab = M; in other terms, 'M(ab - 1) = {O}.
Since M is a faithful R-module, this gives ab = 1, so that a is an invertible
element of R.
r
I SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY 279
It might be of interest to present a somewhat differ~nt proof of the fact
that a commutative primitive ring R forms a field. As befo re, let M be any
faithful simple right R-module. Theorem 13-10 asserts that M ~ Rjl,
viewed as R-modules, for sorne maximal (two-sided) ideal 1 of R. Now, if
r E 1 and a E R, then
(a + l)r = ar + 1 = 1,
which says that the element r E A(Rj1). As a result, we deduce that
1 ~ A(Rjl) = A(M) = {O}.
Since {O} is a maximal ideal of the ring R, it follows that R must be a field.
I In this connection, we should observe that every simple ring R (hence,
any field) is primitive. For, if 1 is a maximal right ideal of R, then Rjl is a
simple right R-module. Its annihilator A(RjI) forms a two-sided ideal of
R, which is necessarily proper since 1 rt A(Rjl). By hypothesis, we thus
have A(Rjl) = {O}, so that Rjl is a faithful simple R-module; this assures
that R is a primitive ringo
The theory of primitive rings is extensive but somewhat specialized
from our present point of view. We shall therefore break offthe discussion
in order to turn to more important matters.
Let M =1= {O} be a simple right R-module, where R is a given ring with
identity, and consider the cJivision ring D = homR(M, M) of all R-endo-
morphisms of M. For any fE D, we can define a (left) module product
fx by fx = f(x), where x E M. With this definition M beco mes in a natural
way a left D-module (that is, a vector space over the division ring D); the
verification is routine.
Bearing this in mind, we next present a technical lemma, the value oí
. ,~which will become c1ear as we proceed.
Lemma. For any finite set Xl' x 2 , ... , XII in M, linearly independent
with respect to D, there exists an element a E R, such that
xla = ... = xII-la = O, xlla =1= O.
Proo! The proof argues by induction of n. To get the induction started,
take n = 1; in this case, we have simply to establish that xlR =1= {Ol:
Suppose that it happened that xlR = {O}. Since Xl =1= O, the se~ ,
N={XEMlxR= {Ol}
¡'" ,.'
would form a nonzero R-submodule of M. Taking stock ofthe hypothesis
that M is simple, we infer that N = M. It then follows that MR = {O},
I which is definitely impossible when R has an identity.
Now, as sume inductively that n > 1 is arbitrary and that the assertion
of the lemma is already proved for n - 1. Put
1 = {aERlxla = ... = x ll _ 2 a = O}.

278
FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
It is appropriate to call attention here to a very special c1ass of rings
which are caJled primitive rings. A primitive ring is, by definition, isomorphic
to a primitive ring of endomorphisms of sorne commutative group. That
any division ring D is primitive should be c1ear. (The required primitive
ring of endomorphisms is just the ring of tight multiplication functions on
the additive group of D.) One frequently c1assifies rings according to the
module~ which they admit; in this scheme, the primitive rings are perhaps
the simplest type, for these admit a faithful simple module.
'1
Theorem 13-13. A ring R is primiti've if and only if it has a faithful
simple R-module.
Proo! Let M be any faithful simple R-module. Since Mis simp'le, we have
M =. xR for each O =1=., x E M. The force of this o bservation is that the ring
of nght mUltiplicatioris T,., rE R, forms a primitive ring of (group) endo-
morphisms of M. Furthermore, the supposition that M is faithful implies
that T,. = O if and only if r = O. The mapP!ng p: r ~ r..
thus determines
a ring-isomorphism of R onto a primitive ring of endomorphisms of M,
givin~ rise to the conc1usion that R is a primitive ringo
On the other hand, suppose that R is isomorphic by means of the
mapping r ~ r' to a primitive ring R' of endomorphisms of a commutative
group M. Define a module structure on M by setting xr = r'(x), where
x E M, rE R. It follows at once that Mr = {O} if and only if r'(x) = O for
all x E M; that is to say, if and only if the endomorphism r' = O, or,
equivalently, r = O. Thus, R acts faithfully on M as a right R-module.
To see that the module in question is simple, notice that the primitivity of
R' implies that M;= {r'(x)lr' E R'} for each nonzero x E M; this in its turn
tells us that M '= ')¡:R for' any O =1= x E M, which makes M a simple R-
module.
Note that as ap immediate consequence of the theorem we get
Corollary. Fqr any primitive ring R, the radical J(R) = {O}.
Now that Theorem 13-13 is available, let us make immediate use of it
to prove that a cpmmutative primitive ring R is a field. (Theorem 13-12
could just as well be employed.) To set this fact in evidence, suppos'e that
O =1= a E R and that M is any faithful simple right R-module. Then there
exists sorne x E M such that xa =1= Oand, as a result, xaR = M. It is there-
fore possible to select an element b in R satisfying xab = X. The commuta-
tivity of R now implies that, for every rE R,
xr(ab) = x(ab)r = xr.
But xR = M, whence Mab = M; in other terms, 'M(ab - 1) = {O}.
Since M is a faithful R-module, this gives ab = 1, so that a is an invertible
element of R.
r
I SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY 279
It might be of interest to present a somewhat differ~nt proof of the fact
that a commutative primitive ring R forms a field. As befo re, let M be any
faithful simple right R-module. Theorem 13-10 asserts that M ~ Rjl,
viewed as R-modules, for sorne maximal (two-sided) ideal 1 of R. Now, if
r E 1 and a E R, then
(a + l)r = ar + 1 = 1,
which says that the element r E A(Rj1). As a result, we deduce that
1 ~ A(Rjl) = A(M) = {O}.
Since {O} is a maximal ideal of the ring R, it follows that R must be a field.
I In this connection, we should observe that every simple ring R (hence,
any field) is primitive. For, if 1 is a maximal right ideal of R, then Rjl is a
simple right R-module. Its annihilator A(RjI) forms a two-sided ideal of
R, which is necessarily proper since 1 rt A(Rjl). By hypothesis, we thus
have A(Rjl) = {O}, so that Rjl is a faithful simple R-module; this assures
that R is a primitive ringo
The theory of primitive rings is extensive but somewhat specialized
from our present point of view. We shall therefore break offthe discussion
in order to turn to more important matters.
Let M =1= {O} be a simple right R-module, where R is a given ring with
identity, and consider the cJivision ring D = homR(M, M) of all R-endo-
morphisms of M. For any fE D, we can define a (left) module product
fx by fx = f(x), where x E M. With this definition M beco mes in a natural
way a left D-module (that is, a vector space over the division ring D); the
verification is routine.
Bearing this in mind, we next present a technical lemma, the value oí
. ,~which will become c1ear as we proceed.
Lemma. For any finite set Xl' x 2 , ... , XII in M, linearly independent
with respect to D, there exists an element a E R, such that
xla = ... = xII-la = O, xlla =1= O.
Proo! The proof argues by induction of n. To get the induction started,
take n = 1; in this case, we have simply to establish that xlR =1= {Ol:
Suppose that it happened that xlR = {O}. Since Xl =1= O, the se~ ,
N={XEMlxR= {Ol}
¡'" ,.'
would form a nonzero R-submodule of M. Taking stock ofthe hypothesis
that M is simple, we infer that N = M. It then follows that MR = {O},
I which is definitely impossible when R has an identity.
Now, as sume inductively that n > 1 is arbitrary and that the assertion
of the lemma is already proved for n - 1. Put
1 = {aERlxla = ... = x ll _ 2 a = O}.
 280 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IPEALS SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY 281

Then 1 is a right ideal of R and so 11 constitutes an R-submodule of M. Theorem 13-14. (Wedderburn-Artin). Let R be a simple right Artinian
By the induction hypothesis, X"_11 {O}, which implies that x n - l l ='M ring with identity. Then R ,::: homD(I, 1) (thought of as rings) for sorne
(M, of course, being simple). We wish to establish the existence of sorne finite dimensional vector space 1 over a dívision ring D.
element a E 1 with X,,_la = O, while x"a +
O. Let us assumethat this 1S
Proof. By virtue of the minimum cóndition, as applied to the colléction of
not the case; in other words, for all a E 1, whenever x,,_la 0, then
all nonzero right ideals of R, there exists a minimal right ideal 1 of R;
necessarily X"a =:' O. To derive a contradiction from ihis last sentence, We
furthermore, 1 is oí the form 1 eR, e a nonzero idempotent. The next
tentatively define a mapping f: M M by setting
--)o
step is to observe that, since (eRe)eR = eR, the ideal 1 = eR can be viewed
f(X"_la) = x"a (a E 1) as a left vector space over the division ring D eRe. (Theorem 13-5
',. affirms that the set eRe comprises a divisiorúing.)
and proceed to show thatfis an R-endomorphism of M. First, one should Now, let Rrl denote, the set of alI r[~ht multiplications T,,: 1 1 --)o

check to see that f is well-defined. If X"..., X"_lb la

two elements ror determined by elements of R; that is, ,
a, b E 1, then x.-la - b) = O. But the aS$umption made'above'assures us
that, in this event, xn(a - b) = O, whence x"a x"b, ptoducing á well- R rt = {T.;I a E R; Ya x = (:x:'a: for x E 1}.
defined fun~tioÍl,; The following simple calculation confirms that f is an
endomorphlsm of M: ...... There is no special difficulty in verifying thát::R. rt is a subring of the endo-
morphism ring homD(I, 1). At the same tiÍÍle~ the correspondence a Ya
--)o

f(x,.-la + x"_lb) = f(x,,-l(a + b») sets up in a .natural way a nonzero homomoi'phism of R onto R rl ,. whose
kernel is a two-sided ideal of R. Inasmuch as R is assumed to be simple,
= x,,(a + b) this kernel is {O}, whence the isomorphism R ,::: Rrl follows.
= xna + xnb = f(x n- 1a) + f(X"-lb). The main contention of our 'proof is that R rt homD(I, n
To settle
Using the fact that 1 is a right ideal of R, we note further that if a E Iand this point, note first that the set
rE R, then . ReR = fl:: a¡eb¡la¡, b¡ E R}
f(xn-1ar) = xn(ar) = (x"a)r = f(X"_la)r.
(here I represents an arbitrary finite sum) constitutes a two-sided ideal of
By these considerations, f becomes an R-endomorphism of M; that is, a +
R different from zero, since O e = lel E ReR. Hence, we must have
member of the division ring D. ReR == R. In particular, the identity 1 E ReR, so that it is possible to select
This means that the module productfx"_la = xna for al! a E 1. Thus, elements al' b¡ E R satisfying 1 = I a¡eb¡. Now, choose any D-endo-
for each a in 1, we have ' morphism fE homD(I, 1) and any element x = el' E 1. A straightforward
computation gives
xla = ... = x,,_za = (fxn':' l ~ x.)a = O.
f(x) = f(erl) = f(er I a¡eb¡) = f(I era¡eb¡)
Again, from our induction supposition that the ¡emma holds for n - 1
= If(era¡eb,)
elements, it follows that
(O -+ fE D) = I era¡ef(eb;) (since eraje E D)
= er I a¡ef(eb¡)
must be linearly dependent over D.As aresult, the elements Xl'
are also dependent and we arrive at the desired coñtradiction,
X2,'" , XII
xI a¡ef(eb¡').
Fromthis formula, it appears thatf(x) = T.x, where the element s (which
Armed with this rather intricate machinery, we can now derive the
does not depend on x) is given by s = I a¡ef(eb¡}. Therefore, fE R rt ,
fundamental structure theorem for simple right Artinian rings (the so-called
confirming that Rrl = hom D(I, 1). Puttirig our remarks together, we obtain
Second Wedderburn Structure Theorem).. From the many ways of proving
this result, we select a module-theoretic approach essentially due to the isomorphism
Henderson [40].
 280 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IPEALS SOME NONCOMMUTATIVE THEORY 281

Then 1 is a right ideal of R and so 11 constitutes an R-submodule of M. Theorem 13-14. (Wedderburn-Artin). Let R be a simple right Artinian
By the induction hypothesis, X"_11 {O}, which implies that x n - l l ='M ring with identity. Then R ,::: homD(I, 1) (thought of as rings) for sorne
(M, of course, being simple). We wish to establish the existence of sorne finite dimensional vector space 1 over a dívision ring D.
element a E 1 with X,,_la = O, while x"a +
O. Let us assumethat this 1S
Proof. By virtue of the minimum cóndition, as applied to the colléction of
not the case; in other words, for all a E 1, whenever x,,_la 0, then
all nonzero right ideals of R, there exists a minimal right ideal 1 of R;
necessarily X"a =:' O. To derive a contradiction from ihis last sentence, We
furthermore, 1 is oí the form 1 eR, e a nonzero idempotent. The next
tentatively define a mapping f: M M by setting
--)o
step is to observe that, since (eRe)eR = eR, the ideal 1 = eR can be viewed
f(X"_la) = x"a (a E 1) as a left vector space over the division ring D eRe. (Theorem 13-5
',. affirms that the set eRe comprises a divisiorúing.)
and proceed to show thatfis an R-endomorphism of M. First, one should Now, let Rrl denote, the set of alI r[~ht multiplications T,,: 1 1 --)o

check to see that f is well-defined. If X"..., X"_lb la

two elements ror determined by elements of R; that is, ,
a, b E 1, then x.-la - b) = O. But the aS$umption made'above'assures us
that, in this event, xn(a - b) = O, whence x"a x"b, ptoducing á well- R rt = {T.;I a E R; Ya x = (:x:'a: for x E 1}.
defined fun~tioÍl,; The following simple calculation confirms that f is an
endomorphlsm of M: ...... There is no special difficulty in verifying thát::R. rt is a subring of the endo-
morphism ring homD(I, 1). At the same tiÍÍle~ the correspondence a Ya
--)o

f(x,.-la + x"_lb) = f(x,,-l(a + b») sets up in a .natural way a nonzero homomoi'phism of R onto R rl ,. whose
kernel is a two-sided ideal of R. Inasmuch as R is assumed to be simple,
= x,,(a + b) this kernel is {O}, whence the isomorphism R ,::: Rrl follows.
= xna + xnb = f(x n- 1a) + f(X"-lb). The main contention of our 'proof is that R rt homD(I, n
To settle
Using the fact that 1 is a right ideal of R, we note further that if a E Iand this point, note first that the set
rE R, then . ReR = fl:: a¡eb¡la¡, b¡ E R}
f(xn-1ar) = xn(ar) = (x"a)r = f(X"_la)r.
(here I represents an arbitrary finite sum) constitutes a two-sided ideal of
By these considerations, f becomes an R-endomorphism of M; that is, a +
R different from zero, since O e = lel E ReR. Hence, we must have
member of the division ring D. ReR == R. In particular, the identity 1 E ReR, so that it is possible to select
This means that the module productfx"_la = xna for al! a E 1. Thus, elements al' b¡ E R satisfying 1 = I a¡eb¡. Now, choose any D-endo-
for each a in 1, we have ' morphism fE homD(I, 1) and any element x = el' E 1. A straightforward
computation gives
xla = ... = x,,_za = (fxn':' l ~ x.)a = O.
f(x) = f(erl) = f(er I a¡eb¡) = f(I era¡eb¡)
Again, from our induction supposition that the ¡emma holds for n - 1
= If(era¡eb,)
elements, it follows that
(O -+ fE D) = I era¡ef(eb;) (since eraje E D)
= er I a¡ef(eb¡)
must be linearly dependent over D.As aresult, the elements Xl'
are also dependent and we arrive at the desired coñtradiction,
X2,'" , XII
xI a¡ef(eb¡').
Fromthis formula, it appears thatf(x) = T.x, where the element s (which
Armed with this rather intricate machinery, we can now derive the
does not depend on x) is given by s = I a¡ef(eb¡}. Therefore, fE R rt ,
fundamental structure theorem for simple right Artinian rings (the so-called
confirming that Rrl = hom D(I, 1). Puttirig our remarks together, we obtain
Second Wedderburn Structure Theorem).. From the many ways of proving
this result, we select a module-theoretic approach essentially due to the isomorphism
Henderson [40].
 282 FlRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
PROBLEMS 283
To c1inch the argument, let us show that 1 is a finite dimensional (left)
vector space over D. We suppose this to be falseo Then 1 possesses an
infinite basis, from which can be extracted a sequence XI' X , ... of linear1y
2
independent elements. That is, for each integer n, the set {XI' X , ... , XII}
2
is independent with respect to D. Given an integer n, define

1rr = {a E R/xla = ... = = O}

a J.
X' I
These relations make clear that
T~en 11 ;2 12 ;2 ••. ;2 1" ;2 ' .. forms a descending chain of right ideals of j +g -+ (a¡j + bu) = (aij) + (bu),
.R. Sin ce the ideal 1 = eR can be regarded as a simple (right) R-module,
a direct appeal to the last lemma is permissible. Thus, there exists sorne and, by definition of the product of two matrices, that
element a E R for which

xla = ... = xII-la = O,

jo g -+( ¿11

k=1
aikbkj) = (a¡j)(b¡J

. . . h' ch associates with eachj E hom D (V, V)

leading to the conc1usion that 1" is proper1y contained in In-l' The point The conc1usIOn IS that the mappmg w .1 th fixed basis) induces a ring
its matrix representation {a u) (relatlve to e
which we wish tp make is tha t 1 I ::J 12 ::J ••• ::J 1" ::J ... is a strictly
isomorphism
descending chain, in violation of the assumption that R is a right Artinian.
homD(V, V) ~ M,,(D) ..
Accordingly, the dimension dim D l < co and this finally ends the proof of
Theorem 13-14. . .. Its may be collected
?n thedstre~gtt~
to glve a escnp IOnof ~7.e:.I_:::;~~feurri~~7°~:tf~::n rings in terms of
If Vis an n-dimensional vector space over the division ring D, then the
ring homD(J~ V) is well-known to be isomorphic to the ring M,,(D) of n x n matrix rings. .. . Th
matrices over D. To spell out somedetails, let Vhave the basis {XI' X , '" , x,,}. Theorem 13-15. Let R be a nil-sernisimple right Artmta.n nng. e~
If j E homD(v, V), each of thése basis elements will be mapped by 2
j into a there exist division rings Di and suitable integers ni (1 = 1, 2, ... , r
uniquely determined linear combination of XI' x 2 , ... , x". In other words, such that
there exist elements a¡i E D, uniquely defined by j, such that j(x ) can be
expressed in the form . i R ~ M",(D I ) Etl M",(D 2 ) E!7 ... E!7 M,,/D r ).

Although we must now c~ose this ~~aP::~iS:d a~~h;~Oi~~n~~!: ~~:

~-".

j(xi ) = ¿" aijx¡ (j = 1,.2, ... , n). presentation of the theory.of nngs,. w~ a p ~ore thorough treatment
¡= I
~.
could start delving d~eply mto the ,sub~ect. (;~:~ account by Herstein [15J
\ J1'.

(Observe that the summation is over the first i:ndex.) Thus, to each endo- of the noncommutatlve aspects, ~ee t e exce we have merely scratched
morphism jE.homD(v, V) there corresponds #.·i;unique n x n matrix (aij) and the reference~ cited. the.re·)bNeed~essf t~;:~;a' nonetheless, the reader
with entries from D. ¡: , the surface of tbis fascmatmg . ranc o . '. d he difficulties.
should now be in a better POSiti~l'l to apprectate the detatls an t
There is no problem in showing that the ~flPj -+ (aij) yields a one-to-
one function from homD(v, V) onto the matrixring M,,(D). Indeed, starting
withanarbitrary(a¡) E M,,(D),onedefinesaD-endomorphismj E homD(V, V)
by first setting j(x) = ¿í= I aUx¡ and then extending linearly to all of V; PROBLEMS
it is evident that (a¡) is precisely the matrix identified with the resulting Unless spedlied otherwise, R always (jenotes an arbitrary ring with identity.
endomorphism. If (a u ) and (bu) are the matrix representations of two
elements of homD(v, V), say j and g, then 1. Let e be an idempotentelement of the ring R. For any two-sided ideal l of R,
show that the subring ele = l n (eRe).
(f + g)(x) = j(xi ) + g(x) = ¿n
aijx¡ + ¿" b¡jx¡ = ¿ "
(aij + b¡)x¡
and ¡=I i=1 i=1 2. If R is a right Artinian ring, prove that ,,:,henever therede~ists ~:~ ~~n~n!~;,;E.~
with ah = 1, then ba = 1. [Hint: Conslder the deseen mg e _
;2 b"R ;2 ... of right ideals of R.]
 282 FlRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
PROBLEMS 283
To c1inch the argument, let us show that 1 is a finite dimensional (left)
vector space over D. We suppose this to be falseo Then 1 possesses an
infinite basis, from which can be extracted a sequence XI' X , ... of linear1y
2
independent elements. That is, for each integer n, the set {XI' X , ... , XII}
2
is independent with respect to D. Given an integer n, define

1rr = {a E R/xla = ... = = O}

a J.
X' I
These relations make clear that
T~en 11 ;2 12 ;2 ••. ;2 1" ;2 ' .. forms a descending chain of right ideals of j +g -+ (a¡j + bu) = (aij) + (bu),
.R. Sin ce the ideal 1 = eR can be regarded as a simple (right) R-module,
a direct appeal to the last lemma is permissible. Thus, there exists sorne and, by definition of the product of two matrices, that
element a E R for which

xla = ... = xII-la = O,

jo g -+( ¿11

k=1
aikbkj) = (a¡j)(b¡J

. . . h' ch associates with eachj E hom D (V, V)

leading to the conc1usion that 1" is proper1y contained in In-l' The point The conc1usIOn IS that the mappmg w .1 th fixed basis) induces a ring
its matrix representation {a u) (relatlve to e
which we wish tp make is tha t 1 I ::J 12 ::J ••• ::J 1" ::J ... is a strictly
isomorphism
descending chain, in violation of the assumption that R is a right Artinian.
homD(V, V) ~ M,,(D) ..
Accordingly, the dimension dim D l < co and this finally ends the proof of
Theorem 13-14. . .. Its may be collected
?n thedstre~gtt~
to glve a escnp IOnof ~7.e:.I_:::;~~feurri~~7°~:tf~::n rings in terms of
If Vis an n-dimensional vector space over the division ring D, then the
ring homD(J~ V) is well-known to be isomorphic to the ring M,,(D) of n x n matrix rings. .. . Th
matrices over D. To spell out somedetails, let Vhave the basis {XI' X , '" , x,,}. Theorem 13-15. Let R be a nil-sernisimple right Artmta.n nng. e~
If j E homD(v, V), each of thése basis elements will be mapped by 2
j into a there exist division rings Di and suitable integers ni (1 = 1, 2, ... , r
uniquely determined linear combination of XI' x 2 , ... , x". In other words, such that
there exist elements a¡i E D, uniquely defined by j, such that j(x ) can be
expressed in the form . i R ~ M",(D I ) Etl M",(D 2 ) E!7 ... E!7 M,,/D r ).

Although we must now c~ose this ~~aP::~iS:d a~~h;~Oi~~n~~!: ~~:

~-".

j(xi ) = ¿" aijx¡ (j = 1,.2, ... , n). presentation of the theory.of nngs,. w~ a p ~ore thorough treatment
¡= I
~.
could start delving d~eply mto the ,sub~ect. (;~:~ account by Herstein [15J
\ J1'.

(Observe that the summation is over the first i:ndex.) Thus, to each endo- of the noncommutatlve aspects, ~ee t e exce we have merely scratched
morphism jE.homD(v, V) there corresponds #.·i;unique n x n matrix (aij) and the reference~ cited. the.re·)bNeed~essf t~;:~;a' nonetheless, the reader
with entries from D. ¡: , the surface of tbis fascmatmg . ranc o . '. d he difficulties.
should now be in a better POSiti~l'l to apprectate the detatls an t
There is no problem in showing that the ~flPj -+ (aij) yields a one-to-
one function from homD(v, V) onto the matrixring M,,(D). Indeed, starting
withanarbitrary(a¡) E M,,(D),onedefinesaD-endomorphismj E homD(V, V)
by first setting j(x) = ¿í= I aUx¡ and then extending linearly to all of V; PROBLEMS
it is evident that (a¡) is precisely the matrix identified with the resulting Unless spedlied otherwise, R always (jenotes an arbitrary ring with identity.
endomorphism. If (a u ) and (bu) are the matrix representations of two
elements of homD(v, V), say j and g, then 1. Let e be an idempotentelement of the ring R. For any two-sided ideal l of R,
show that the subring ele = l n (eRe).
(f + g)(x) = j(xi ) + g(x) = ¿n
aijx¡ + ¿" b¡jx¡ = ¿ "
(aij + b¡)x¡
and ¡=I i=1 i=1 2. If R is a right Artinian ring, prove that ,,:,henever therede~ists ~:~ ~~n~n!~;,;E.~
with ah = 1, then ba = 1. [Hint: Conslder the deseen mg e _
;2 b"R ;2 ... of right ideals of R.]
 284 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
3. Given a right Artinian ring R, establish that
a) The sum N of all nilpotent right ideals of R is again a nilpotent right ideal.
[H int: If N is not nilpotent, it contains a nonzero idempotent by Theorem 13-L]
b) N fOnTIsa two-sidedideal ofR. [Hint: The ideal RN is sueh that (RN)" m",
whence RN ~ N.]
e) The ideal N contains any nilpotent left ideal 1 of R. [H int: 1 ~ RN ~ N.]
= {O} or 12 = 1;
4. Let 1 be a minimal right ideal of the ring R. Show that either J2
in thé second case, deduce' that J = eR = el for some idempotent e =1= O in l.
[Hint: See the proofs ofTheorems 13-1 and 13-2; first, establish the existence of
an element a e J ror whie~.ál = J.]
t 1·,
5. Assume !hat 1. and J are/t~o minimal right ideals of the ring R which are iso-
morphie as right R-modul~8: Ir J2 1, prove that
a) Any R-isomorphismj)~ J is orthe fornlf(x) = ax for some a ej.
b) The produet JJ J.. [Hint: By part (a),. J al, where a E J.]
6. For nonzero idempotents'é;'u of the ring R, prove that
a) eR = uR ir and onlylf é4 = u and ue = e.
b) eR and uR are isomorphié as R-modules if and only ifthere.exist x, y E R sueh
tbat xy = u and yx = e. [Hint: Sinee xe ux and yu "" ey, the funetion
f(er) = x{er) = u(xr) defines an R-isomorphism f: eR ..... uR, with f-I(US) =
y(us) = e(ys).]
e) eR ~ uR, as R-modules, if and only if Re ~ Ru.
7. Let eR and uR be two minimal right ideals of the ring R, where e and u are non-
zero idempotents of R. Show tbat eR and uR are R-isomorphíe ifand only iftheir
produet uReR =1= {O}. [Hint: Ifure =1= Ofor some r E R, define the R-isomorphisnl
f: eR ..... uR by f(es) = (ure)s.] . a) The matrices el =
8. Let R bea nil-semisimple ring without identity. Ifthe element a E Rand aR {O},
establish that a O. [Hint: The ideal A(R) = {r E RlrR = {O}} satisfies
A(R)2 ~ A(R)R = {O}.]
9. Establish the statements below:
a) A right ideal J of the ring R is a direct summand of R if and oruy· ir 1 = eR for
some idempotent e e R ;
b) a mininlal right ideal J of the ring R is a dÍreet summand of R if and only ir
12 =1= {O}.
10. Prove that a right Artinian fing R is nil-semisinlple ir and only ir 12 =1= {O} ror
each mínimal rigbt ideal 1 of R.
11. Assuming tbat R is a nil-semisimple right Artinian ring, veriry the following
assertions:
a) R is rigbt Noetherian; that is, R satisfies the ascending ehain condition on right
ideals. [Hint: By Theorem 13-2, the right ideals of R are finiteIy generated.]
b) The mapping e ..... eR defines a one-to-one eorrespondence between the set of
all idempotent elements e e cent R and the set of two-sided ideaIs of R.
c) For any two-sided ideal 1 of R, ann,1 = ann¡1 and so R = 1 EB annl.
d) Every right ideal J of R is a direct sumÍnand of any right ideal containing it.
PROBLEMS 285
12. a) Suppose that the ring R is a finite direct sum of right ideals J¡ =1= {O}, say
R = 1¡ fE) J 2 EB ... EB Jn • Ir 1 e¡ + e2 + ... + e", where e¡el" prove
that the elements e¡ fornl a set of orthogonaI idempotents and that 11 = eóR
(i = 1, 2, .. , , n).
b) If the ideals 1¡ of part (a) are aH two-sided, show that e¡ E cent R an4 so serves
as an identity element for 1¡.
13. a)' Prove that an idempotent e =1= O of the ring R is prinlitive if and only if R
contains no idenlpotent u =1= e sueh that eu = ue = u.
bl,'Establish that any idempotent elenlent e =1= O of a nil-semisimple right Artinian
nlng R is the sum of a finite number of orthogonal primitive idempotents.
;.CHint: There exists a minimal rigbt ideal 1 S;; eRo Write eR = 1 fE) J, where
:~ •.the right ideal J 1. Now, either J = {O}, or else e ;,. el + ez, with e¡ e J
e
.:/aprimitive idempotent. If ez J is not primitive, repeat this proeess as applied
/:ro J e2R.]
14. ~)áf M =1= {O} is a right R-modulé, verify that M becomes a left homR(M, M)-
"'!:.,rllodule on defining the module productfx by
fx =' f(x) (fE homR(M, M); x e M).
b) Let M and N be right R·modules which are R-isomorphic under the mapping
a: M -> N. Show that homR(M, M) ~ homR(N, N), as rings, by means of the
funetion that éames fe homR(M, M) toa. fo a-l.
15. Let F be a field and M 2(F) denote the ring of 2 x 2 matrices over F. Prove thát
(~ ~) and e2 = [~ ~). are orthogonal idempotents;
b) 1¡ = e¡Mz(F)(i = 1,2)isaminimalrightidealofM2 (F),withM2(F) 1 1 EB lz;
e) e¡Mz(F)ei ~ F for i = 1,2.
16; Use Theorem 13-14 to deduce that any commutative semisinlple (in the usual
sense) Artinian ring is a finite direct sum of fields.
17. Prove tbat a right Artinian ring R is a regular ring if and only if R is nil-semisinlple.
[Hint: Problems 19 and 20, Chapter 9.J
18. Let M =1= {O} be a simple right R-module and so, by Theorem 13-9, a vector
space over the division ring D homR(M, M). Prove ihe following version of
the Jacobson Density Theorem. Given any x¡, X2' ... , x. e M which are lineady
independent' with respect to D aÍld arbitrary y¡, Yz, ... , Y. e M, there exists some
element a E R (equivalently, some D-endomorphism Ya e Rr¡) such that Xka = Yk
for k = 1,2, ... , n. [Hint: From the lenlllla preeedíngTheorem 13-14, it is possíble
to choose elements aj e R for which
= Ofor j =1= i
xja¡ {=1= Ofor j = i .
Let r¡ E R be an elenlent such that x¡a¡r¡ = Yi' Now, consider a = 2::i=¡ a¡r¡.]
 284 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
3. Given a right Artinian ring R, establish that
a) The sum N of all nilpotent right ideals of R is again a nilpotent right ideal.
[H int: If N is not nilpotent, it contains a nonzero idempotent by Theorem 13-L]
b) N fOnTIsa two-sidedideal ofR. [Hint: The ideal RN is sueh that (RN)" m",
whence RN ~ N.]
e) The ideal N contains any nilpotent left ideal 1 of R. [H int: 1 ~ RN ~ N.]
= {O} or 12 = 1;
4. Let 1 be a minimal right ideal of the ring R. Show that either J2
in thé second case, deduce' that J = eR = el for some idempotent e =1= O in l.
[Hint: See the proofs ofTheorems 13-1 and 13-2; first, establish the existence of
an element a e J ror whie~.ál = J.]
t 1·,
5. Assume !hat 1. and J are/t~o minimal right ideals of the ring R which are iso-
morphie as right R-modul~8: Ir J2 1, prove that
a) Any R-isomorphismj)~ J is orthe fornlf(x) = ax for some a ej.
b) The produet JJ J.. [Hint: By part (a),. J al, where a E J.]
6. For nonzero idempotents'é;'u of the ring R, prove that
a) eR = uR ir and onlylf é4 = u and ue = e.
b) eR and uR are isomorphié as R-modules if and only ifthere.exist x, y E R sueh
tbat xy = u and yx = e. [Hint: Sinee xe ux and yu "" ey, the funetion
f(er) = x{er) = u(xr) defines an R-isomorphism f: eR ..... uR, with f-I(US) =
y(us) = e(ys).]
e) eR ~ uR, as R-modules, if and only if Re ~ Ru.
7. Let eR and uR be two minimal right ideals of the ring R, where e and u are non-
zero idempotents of R. Show tbat eR and uR are R-isomorphíe ifand only iftheir
produet uReR =1= {O}. [Hint: Ifure =1= Ofor some r E R, define the R-isomorphisnl
f: eR ..... uR by f(es) = (ure)s.] . a) The matrices el =
8. Let R bea nil-semisimple ring without identity. Ifthe element a E Rand aR {O},
establish that a O. [Hint: The ideal A(R) = {r E RlrR = {O}} satisfies
A(R)2 ~ A(R)R = {O}.]
9. Establish the statements below:
a) A right ideal J of the ring R is a direct summand of R if and oruy· ir 1 = eR for
some idempotent e e R ;
b) a mininlal right ideal J of the ring R is a dÍreet summand of R if and only ir
12 =1= {O}.
10. Prove that a right Artinian fing R is nil-semisinlple ir and only ir 12 =1= {O} ror
each mínimal rigbt ideal 1 of R.
11. Assuming tbat R is a nil-semisimple right Artinian ring, veriry the following
assertions:
a) R is rigbt Noetherian; that is, R satisfies the ascending ehain condition on right
ideals. [Hint: By Theorem 13-2, the right ideals of R are finiteIy generated.]
b) The mapping e ..... eR defines a one-to-one eorrespondence between the set of
all idempotent elements e e cent R and the set of two-sided ideaIs of R.
c) For any two-sided ideal 1 of R, ann,1 = ann¡1 and so R = 1 EB annl.
d) Every right ideal J of R is a direct sumÍnand of any right ideal containing it.
PROBLEMS 285
12. a) Suppose that the ring R is a finite direct sum of right ideals J¡ =1= {O}, say
R = 1¡ fE) J 2 EB ... EB Jn • Ir 1 e¡ + e2 + ... + e", where e¡el" prove
that the elements e¡ fornl a set of orthogonaI idempotents and that 11 = eóR
(i = 1, 2, .. , , n).
b) If the ideals 1¡ of part (a) are aH two-sided, show that e¡ E cent R an4 so serves
as an identity element for 1¡.
13. a)' Prove that an idempotent e =1= O of the ring R is prinlitive if and only if R
contains no idenlpotent u =1= e sueh that eu = ue = u.
bl,'Establish that any idempotent elenlent e =1= O of a nil-semisimple right Artinian
nlng R is the sum of a finite number of orthogonal primitive idempotents.
;.CHint: There exists a minimal rigbt ideal 1 S;; eRo Write eR = 1 fE) J, where
:~ •.the right ideal J 1. Now, either J = {O}, or else e ;,. el + ez, with e¡ e J
e
.:/aprimitive idempotent. If ez J is not primitive, repeat this proeess as applied
/:ro J e2R.]
14. ~)áf M =1= {O} is a right R-modulé, verify that M becomes a left homR(M, M)-
"'!:.,rllodule on defining the module productfx by
fx =' f(x) (fE homR(M, M); x e M).
b) Let M and N be right R·modules which are R-isomorphic under the mapping
a: M -> N. Show that homR(M, M) ~ homR(N, N), as rings, by means of the
funetion that éames fe homR(M, M) toa. fo a-l.
15. Let F be a field and M 2(F) denote the ring of 2 x 2 matrices over F. Prove thát
(~ ~) and e2 = [~ ~). are orthogonal idempotents;
b) 1¡ = e¡Mz(F)(i = 1,2)isaminimalrightidealofM2 (F),withM2(F) 1 1 EB lz;
e) e¡Mz(F)ei ~ F for i = 1,2.
16; Use Theorem 13-14 to deduce that any commutative semisinlple (in the usual
sense) Artinian ring is a finite direct sum of fields.
17. Prove tbat a right Artinian ring R is a regular ring if and only if R is nil-semisinlple.
[Hint: Problems 19 and 20, Chapter 9.J
18. Let M =1= {O} be a simple right R-module and so, by Theorem 13-9, a vector
space over the division ring D homR(M, M). Prove ihe following version of
the Jacobson Density Theorem. Given any x¡, X2' ... , x. e M which are lineady
independent' with respect to D aÍld arbitrary y¡, Yz, ... , Y. e M, there exists some
element a E R (equivalently, some D-endomorphism Ya e Rr¡) such that Xka = Yk
for k = 1,2, ... , n. [Hint: From the lenlllla preeedíngTheorem 13-14, it is possíble
to choose elements aj e R for which
= Ofor j =1= i
xja¡ {=1= Ofor j = i .
Let r¡ E R be an elenlent such that x¡a¡r¡ = Yi' Now, consider a = 2::i=¡ a¡r¡.]
 286 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
19. Given a right R-module M, set M* = homR(M, R). Prove the statements below:
a) M* caD. be made into a left R-module (known as the dual module of M) by
defining the module product rf as
(rf)(x) = rf(x) (rER,x E M).
b) When R is a division ring, so that M* forms a vector space over R, then
[M*:R] = [M:R]. [Hint: Ifx¡, x z, ... , x. is a basis for M, then the n functions
j¡t' E M* (i = 1, 2, ... , n) prescribed by
j¡i *(Xj ) -_ bij _J1 for
-lO for i = j
i 0/= j
serv.e as a basis for M*.]
c) M and M** are naturally isomorphic as right R-modules, where M** =
(M*)* = homR(M~, R). [Hint: For each x E M, defind E M** by x(g) = g(x),
g E M*; then M ~!\ll** under the R-isomorphism that sends x to x.]
20. Let M be a right R-module and 1 a right ideal of R. Prove that
a) The set MI = {¿ Xir;jXi E M, ri El}, where ¿ is an arbitrary finite sum,
constitutes a submodule of M.
b) If M and 1 are both simple (as R-modules) with MI 0/= {O}, then M ~ i.
[Hint: Since xl = M for some x E M, an R-isomorphism f: 1 -> M can be
given by f(a) = xa, where a E l.]
21. Let R be a nil-semisimple right Artinian ringo Verify that, up to R-isomorphism,
there exist only a finite number of sinlple right R-modules. [Hint: R is a direct
sum R = 1¡.EB lz EB .. · EB l. offinitely many two-sided ideals. If M 0/= {O} is
any simple right R-module, use Problem 20(b) to conc1ude that M ~ li for some i.]
22. Prove that the ring R is simple if and only if every simple right R-module is faithful.
[Hint: Ir R has non trivial two-sided ideals, it possesses a maxin:ial one 1 by Zorn's
Lemma, Let J be any maximal right ideal of R with J ;2 1 and obtain a contradic-
tionby considering the simple right R-module A(RfJ) ;2 l.]
23. Prove'each of the following assertions:
a) 1'he radical J(R) = n (1 :,R), where the intersection runs over all maximal right
ideals 1 of R.
b) ~py nonzero ideal of a prinlitive ring of endomorphisms of a commutative group
G;j!i also a primitive ring of endomorphisms of G.
c) A ring R is primitive if and only if it contains a maximal right ideal 1 such that
thequotient ideal (1:,R) = {O}.
24. An ideal 1 of the ring R is said to be a primitive ideal if R/l is a primitive ringo
Establish that the radical J(R) can be represented as J(R) = n
P, where the
intersection is taken over a1l primitive ideals P of R. [Hint: If P = A(M), where
M is a simple R-module, then M is a faithful simple module over the ring R/P.]
APPENDIX A
RELATIONS
We herein append a few definitions and general results concerning certain
types of relations that can be imposed on a set. For the most part, our
attention is confined to two relations of particular utility, namely, equivalence
relations ancl order relations.
Intuitively, a (binary) relation on a set S pro vides a criterio n such that
for each ordered pair (a, b) of elements of S, one can determine whether the
statement "a is related to b" is meaningful (in the sen se of being true or
false according to the choice of elements a and b). The relation is completely
characterized once we know the set of all those pairs for which the first
component stands in that relation to the second. This idea can best be
formulated in set-theoretic language as
Definition A-l. A (binary) relation R in a nonempty set Sjs any subset
of the Cartesian product S x S. (' :.
If R is a relation, we express the fact that the pair {a, b) e,i{'by saying
that. a is related to b with respect to the relation R, and we wrfte'aRb. F or
instance, the relation < in R can be represented by aH points iri' the plane
lying aboye the diagonalline y = x; it is customary to write 3: < 4, rathet
than the awkward (3, 4) E <. 'l !
Our immediate concern is with equivalence relations. In pi~ctice, these
arise whenever it is desirable to identify, as a single entity, aH eIements of a
set that have sorne preassigned characteristic.
Definition A-2. A relation R in a set S is an equivalenee relation in S
provided that it satisfies the three propertit';s, .
1) aRa for aH a E S (reflexive property),
2) if aRb, then bRa (symmetric property),
3) if aRb and bRe, then aRe (transitive property).
Equivalence relations are usually denoted by the symbol ~ (pronounced
"tilda") rather than by R as heretofore. With this change in notation, the
conditions of the aboye definition may be recast in a more familiar form:
,)~7
 286 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
19. Given a right R-module M, set M* = homR(M, R). Prove the statements below:
a) M* caD. be made into a left R-module (known as the dual module of M) by
defining the module product rf as
(rf)(x) = rf(x) (rER,x E M).
b) When R is a division ring, so that M* forms a vector space over R, then
[M*:R] = [M:R]. [Hint: Ifx¡, x z, ... , x. is a basis for M, then the n functions
j¡t' E M* (i = 1, 2, ... , n) prescribed by
j¡i *(Xj ) -_ bij _J1 for
-lO for i = j
i 0/= j
serv.e as a basis for M*.]
c) M and M** are naturally isomorphic as right R-modules, where M** =
(M*)* = homR(M~, R). [Hint: For each x E M, defind E M** by x(g) = g(x),
g E M*; then M ~!\ll** under the R-isomorphism that sends x to x.]
20. Let M be a right R-module and 1 a right ideal of R. Prove that
a) The set MI = {¿ Xir;jXi E M, ri El}, where ¿ is an arbitrary finite sum,
constitutes a submodule of M.
b) If M and 1 are both simple (as R-modules) with MI 0/= {O}, then M ~ i.
[Hint: Since xl = M for some x E M, an R-isomorphism f: 1 -> M can be
given by f(a) = xa, where a E l.]
21. Let R be a nil-semisimple right Artinian ringo Verify that, up to R-isomorphism,
there exist only a finite number of sinlple right R-modules. [Hint: R is a direct
sum R = 1¡.EB lz EB .. · EB l. offinitely many two-sided ideals. If M 0/= {O} is
any simple right R-module, use Problem 20(b) to conc1ude that M ~ li for some i.]
22. Prove that the ring R is simple if and only if every simple right R-module is faithful.
[Hint: Ir R has non trivial two-sided ideals, it possesses a maxin:ial one 1 by Zorn's
Lemma, Let J be any maximal right ideal of R with J ;2 1 and obtain a contradic-
tionby considering the simple right R-module A(RfJ) ;2 l.]
23. Prove'each of the following assertions:
a) 1'he radical J(R) = n (1 :,R), where the intersection runs over all maximal right
ideals 1 of R.
b) ~py nonzero ideal of a prinlitive ring of endomorphisms of a commutative group
G;j!i also a primitive ring of endomorphisms of G.
c) A ring R is primitive if and only if it contains a maximal right ideal 1 such that
thequotient ideal (1:,R) = {O}.
24. An ideal 1 of the ring R is said to be a primitive ideal if R/l is a primitive ringo
Establish that the radical J(R) can be represented as J(R) = n
P, where the
intersection is taken over a1l primitive ideals P of R. [Hint: If P = A(M), where
M is a simple R-module, then M is a faithful simple module over the ring R/P.]
APPENDIX A
RELATIONS
We herein append a few definitions and general results concerning certain
types of relations that can be imposed on a set. For the most part, our
attention is confined to two relations of particular utility, namely, equivalence
relations ancl order relations.
Intuitively, a (binary) relation on a set S pro vides a criterio n such that
for each ordered pair (a, b) of elements of S, one can determine whether the
statement "a is related to b" is meaningful (in the sen se of being true or
false according to the choice of elements a and b). The relation is completely
characterized once we know the set of all those pairs for which the first
component stands in that relation to the second. This idea can best be
formulated in set-theoretic language as
Definition A-l. A (binary) relation R in a nonempty set Sjs any subset
of the Cartesian product S x S. (' :.
If R is a relation, we express the fact that the pair {a, b) e,i{'by saying
that. a is related to b with respect to the relation R, and we wrfte'aRb. F or
instance, the relation < in R can be represented by aH points iri' the plane
lying aboye the diagonalline y = x; it is customary to write 3: < 4, rathet
than the awkward (3, 4) E <. 'l !
Our immediate concern is with equivalence relations. In pi~ctice, these
arise whenever it is desirable to identify, as a single entity, aH eIements of a
set that have sorne preassigned characteristic.
Definition A-2. A relation R in a set S is an equivalenee relation in S
provided that it satisfies the three propertit';s, .
1) aRa for aH a E S (reflexive property),
2) if aRb, then bRa (symmetric property),
3) if aRb and bRe, then aRe (transitive property).
Equivalence relations are usually denoted by the symbol ~ (pronounced
"tilda") rather than by R as heretofore. With this change in notation, the
conditions of the aboye definition may be recast in a more familiar form:
,)~7
 288 FIRST COqRSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
for every a, b, C E S, (1) a ~ a, (2) a ~ b implies b ~ a, (3) a ~ b and b ~ C
together imply a ~ c. We say that a is equivalent to b if and only if a ~ b
holds.
In the following set of miscellaneous examples, we leave to the reader
the task of verifying that each relation described actually is an equivalence
relation.
.. ' .
~xample/A-1. Let S be a nonempty set and define, for a, b E S; a ~. b if
and only if a = b; that is, a and b are the same element. (TechnicalIy
'speaking, ~ is the subset {(a, a)la E S} of S x S.) Then ~ satisfies the
:requirements of Definition A-2, showing that theequivalence concept is a
;g~neralization of equality. . 2) if bE [a], then [a] = [b]; in other words,',ány element of aÍl
::,~xample A-2. In the Cartesian product R # X R #, let (a, b) ~ (c, d) signÚy.
,t:liat a - c and b - d are both integers. A simple calculation reveals that .
",".-;,!, so definee!, is an equivalence relation in R # X R #.
g'E'Xample A-3. As another illustration, consider the set L of all lines in a
pnme. Then the phrase "is parallel to" is meaningful when applied to the"
elements of L and may be used to define a relation in L. If we a'gree that
. any line is paralIel to itself, this yields an eq,tlÍvalence relation.
Examp]e A-4. Let f: X ..... Y be a given mapping. Take for ~ the relation
a ~ b if and only if f(a) = f(b); then ~ is an equivalen ce relation in X,
cal1ed the equivalence relation associated with the mapping f. More general1y,
if fF is an arbitrary family offunctions from X into y, an equivalence relation
. can be introduced in X by interpreting a ~ b to meanf(a) = f(b) for every
fE fF. (The underlying feature in the latter case is that any intersection
of equivalen ce relations in X is again an equivalence relation, for
~ = nJEff {(a, b)lf(a) = f(b)}.)
One is often led to conc1ude, incorrectly, that the reflexive property is
redundant in Definition A-2. The argument proceedslike this: if a ~ b,
then the symmetric property implies thát b ~ a; from a ~ b and b ~ a,
. together with the transitivity of ~,it follows that.a ~ a. Thus, there appears
to be no necessity for the reflexive condition at all. The flaw in this reasoning
lies, of course, in the fact that, for sorne element a E S, there may not ex.ist
any b in S such that a ~ b. As a result, we would not have a ~ a for every
member of $, as the reflexive property requires.
Any equivalence relation ~ determines a separation of the set S into
a collection of subsets of a kind which we now describe. For each a E S,
let [a] denote the subset of S consisting of all elements which are equivalent
to a:
[a] = {bESlb ~ a}.
This set [a] is referred to as the equivalence class determined by a. (The
reader should realize that, in general, the eq uivalence c1ass [a] is the same
RELATIONS 289
as the c1ass [al] for many elements al E S.) As a notational device, let us
henceforth use the symbol SI ~ to represent the set of al1 equivalence c1asses
of the relation ~; that is,
S/,..; = {[a]la E S}.
Sorne of the basic properties of equivalence dasses are listed in the
theorem below.
Theorem A-lo Let ~ be ah equivalence relation iti the set S. Then,
1) for each a E S, the c1ass [a] =1= 0 ;i?,
. ;
equivalen ce c1ass determines that c1ass; . ":\;'
3) for all a, bE S, [a] = [bJ.if and only if a~ br"}
- ,,'~.
4) foralla,bES,either[a] n [b] = 00r[a].;=;,:lb];
5) U [a] = s. :~"~'~'.'.
aeS
Proof. Clearly, the element a E [a], for a ~ a. Tci:'prove the' second
assertion, let b E [a], so that b ~ a. Now, suppóse that x E [a], which
mean s x ~ a. Using the symmetric and transitive properties of -, we thus
obtain x ~ b, whence x E [b]. Since x is an arbitrary member of [a], this
establishes the inc1usion [a] S;; I b]. A similar argument yields the reverse
inc1usion and equality folIows. As regards (3), first assume that [a] = [b];
then .aE [a] = [b] and so a ~ b. Conversley, if we let a ~ b, then the
element a E [b]; hence, [a] = [b] from (2).
To derive (3), suppose that [a] and [b] have an element in common,
say, e E [a] n [b]. Statement (2) then informs us that [a] = [e] = [b].
In brief, if [a] n [b] =1= 0, then we must have [a] = [b]. Fin ally, since
each c1ass [a] S;; S, the inc1usion u {[a]la E S} S;; Scertainly holds. For
the cípposite inc1usion, it is enough to show that each element a E S belongs
to sorne equivalence c1ass; but this ís no problem, for a E [a].
As evidenced by Example A-4, any mapping determines an eq uivalence
re1ation in its domain. The foIlowing corolIary indica tes that every
equivalence relation arises in this manner; that is to say, each eq uivalence
relation is the associated equivalen ce relation of sorne function.
Corol1ary. Let~· be an equivalence relation in the set S. Then there
exists a set T and a mapping g: S ..... T such that a ~ b if and only if
q(a) = g(b).
Prooj: Simply take T = SI ~ and g: S ..... T to be the mappíng defined by
g(a) = [a]; in other words, send each element of S onto the (necessarily
unique) equivalen ce c1ass to which it belongs. By the foregoing theorem,
a ~ b if and only if [a] = [b], or equivalently, g(a) = g(b).
 288 FIRST COqRSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
for every a, b, C E S, (1) a ~ a, (2) a ~ b implies b ~ a, (3) a ~ b and b ~ C
together imply a ~ c. We say that a is equivalent to b if and only if a ~ b
holds.
In the following set of miscellaneous examples, we leave to the reader
the task of verifying that each relation described actually is an equivalence
relation.
.. ' .
~xample/A-1. Let S be a nonempty set and define, for a, b E S; a ~. b if
and only if a = b; that is, a and b are the same element. (TechnicalIy
'speaking, ~ is the subset {(a, a)la E S} of S x S.) Then ~ satisfies the
:requirements of Definition A-2, showing that theequivalence concept is a
;g~neralization of equality. . 2) if bE [a], then [a] = [b]; in other words,',ány element of aÍl
::,~xample A-2. In the Cartesian product R # X R #, let (a, b) ~ (c, d) signÚy.
,t:liat a - c and b - d are both integers. A simple calculation reveals that .
",".-;,!, so definee!, is an equivalence relation in R # X R #.
g'E'Xample A-3. As another illustration, consider the set L of all lines in a
pnme. Then the phrase "is parallel to" is meaningful when applied to the"
elements of L and may be used to define a relation in L. If we a'gree that
. any line is paralIel to itself, this yields an eq,tlÍvalence relation.
Examp]e A-4. Let f: X ..... Y be a given mapping. Take for ~ the relation
a ~ b if and only if f(a) = f(b); then ~ is an equivalen ce relation in X,
cal1ed the equivalence relation associated with the mapping f. More general1y,
if fF is an arbitrary family offunctions from X into y, an equivalence relation
. can be introduced in X by interpreting a ~ b to meanf(a) = f(b) for every
fE fF. (The underlying feature in the latter case is that any intersection
of equivalen ce relations in X is again an equivalence relation, for
~ = nJEff {(a, b)lf(a) = f(b)}.)
One is often led to conc1ude, incorrectly, that the reflexive property is
redundant in Definition A-2. The argument proceedslike this: if a ~ b,
then the symmetric property implies thát b ~ a; from a ~ b and b ~ a,
. together with the transitivity of ~,it follows that.a ~ a. Thus, there appears
to be no necessity for the reflexive condition at all. The flaw in this reasoning
lies, of course, in the fact that, for sorne element a E S, there may not ex.ist
any b in S such that a ~ b. As a result, we would not have a ~ a for every
member of $, as the reflexive property requires.
Any equivalence relation ~ determines a separation of the set S into
a collection of subsets of a kind which we now describe. For each a E S,
let [a] denote the subset of S consisting of all elements which are equivalent
to a:
[a] = {bESlb ~ a}.
This set [a] is referred to as the equivalence class determined by a. (The
reader should realize that, in general, the eq uivalence c1ass [a] is the same
RELATIONS 289
as the c1ass [al] for many elements al E S.) As a notational device, let us
henceforth use the symbol SI ~ to represent the set of al1 equivalence c1asses
of the relation ~; that is,
S/,..; = {[a]la E S}.
Sorne of the basic properties of equivalence dasses are listed in the
theorem below.
Theorem A-lo Let ~ be ah equivalence relation iti the set S. Then,
1) for each a E S, the c1ass [a] =1= 0 ;i?,
. ;
equivalen ce c1ass determines that c1ass; . ":\;'
3) for all a, bE S, [a] = [bJ.if and only if a~ br"}
- ,,'~.
4) foralla,bES,either[a] n [b] = 00r[a].;=;,:lb];
5) U [a] = s. :~"~'~'.'.
aeS
Proof. Clearly, the element a E [a], for a ~ a. Tci:'prove the' second
assertion, let b E [a], so that b ~ a. Now, suppóse that x E [a], which
mean s x ~ a. Using the symmetric and transitive properties of -, we thus
obtain x ~ b, whence x E [b]. Since x is an arbitrary member of [a], this
establishes the inc1usion [a] S;; I b]. A similar argument yields the reverse
inc1usion and equality folIows. As regards (3), first assume that [a] = [b];
then .aE [a] = [b] and so a ~ b. Conversley, if we let a ~ b, then the
element a E [b]; hence, [a] = [b] from (2).
To derive (3), suppose that [a] and [b] have an element in common,
say, e E [a] n [b]. Statement (2) then informs us that [a] = [e] = [b].
In brief, if [a] n [b] =1= 0, then we must have [a] = [b]. Fin ally, since
each c1ass [a] S;; S, the inc1usion u {[a]la E S} S;; Scertainly holds. For
the cípposite inc1usion, it is enough to show that each element a E S belongs
to sorne equivalence c1ass; but this ís no problem, for a E [a].
As evidenced by Example A-4, any mapping determines an eq uivalence
re1ation in its domain. The foIlowing corolIary indica tes that every
equivalence relation arises in this manner; that is to say, each eq uivalence
relation is the associated equivalen ce relation of sorne function.
Corol1ary. Let~· be an equivalence relation in the set S. Then there
exists a set T and a mapping g: S ..... T such that a ~ b if and only if
q(a) = g(b).
Prooj: Simply take T = SI ~ and g: S ..... T to be the mappíng defined by
g(a) = [a]; in other words, send each element of S onto the (necessarily
unique) equivalen ce c1ass to which it belongs. By the foregoing theorem,
a ~ b if and only if [a] = [b], or equivalently, g(a) = g(b).
 290 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Ex~mple Á-5. This example is given to illustrate that any mapping can be
wntten as the composition of a one-to-one function and an onto function.
Letf; X -+ Ybe an arbitrary mapping and consider the equivalence relation
~ associated with! If the element a E X, then we have
[a] = {bEXlf(b) =f(a)} =f-l(J(a)).
!neffect" the equivalence c1asses for the relation ~ are just the inverse
lmages.off-1(y), where y Ef(X) 5; y.
Now, ~efine the f~nctionl: X/~_ -+ Yby the ruleJ([a]) = f(a). Since
[a] = [b]lfand only lfj(a) = f(b),fis well-defined. Observe that whereas
the original ~unction L may no.! have been one-to-one, 1 happens to be
one-to-one; mdeed, f([a]) = f([b]) implies that f(a) = f(b), wherice
[a].= [b]. At this point, we intro~uce the ~nto function g;)( -+ X/~ by
sett!ng g(a) = [a]. Tht(nf(a) =J([a]) = f(g(a)) = (Jo g)(a) for all a in
X, m consequence of which f = f o g. This achieves our stated aim.
We next connect the notion of an equivalence relation in S with that
of a partition of S. .
Definition Á-3. By a partition ofthe set S is meant a family {!J of subsets
of S with the properties
1) 0 ~ [l},
2) for any A, B E [l}, either A = B or A 11 B =0 (pairwise disjoint),
3) u [l} = S.
Expressed otherwise, a partition of S)s a collection {!J of nonempty
subsets of S such th~t every element of S be~0rt&s to one and ónly one member
of {!J. The set Z of mtegers, for instance, c::t.n/be partitioned into the subsets
of od~ ~nd. even integers; another partiti~~ ;~f Z might consist of the sets
of poslÍlve mtegers, negative integers and {Q}~
Theorem A-1 may be viewed as assertirig that each equivalence relation
~ ~n a set S yields a partition of S, na.D:l:ely, the partition SI ~ into the
eqUlvalen~e c1asses fo!~. (In this connection, notice that, for the equiva-
lence relatlOn ofequahty, the corresponding.~lasses contain only one element
each ~ hen.ce, the resulting partition is the finest possible.) We now reverse
the S.ltu~tlOn and show that a given partition of S induces an equivalence
relatlOn m S. But first a preliminary lemma is required.
Lemma. Two equivalence relations ~ and ~ in the set S are the same
I
if and only if SI ~ and SI ~, are the same.
Proo! If ~ and ~' are the same, then surely SI ~ = SI ~'. So, suppose
that ~ and ~' are distinct equivalence relations in S. Then there exists
a pair of elements a, b E S which are equivalent under .qne of the relations,
RELATIONS 291
but not under the other; say a ~ b, but not a ~' b. By Theorem A-1,
there is an equivalence c1ass in SI ~ containing both a and b, while no such
c1ass appeats in SI ~'. Accordingly, SI ~ and SI ~., differ.
Theorem Á-2. If [l} is a paitition of the set ·S, then there is a unique
equivalence relation in S whose equivalel}ce c1asses are precisely the
members of [l}.
Proo! Given a, b E S, we write a ~ b if and only if a and b both belong to
the same subset in [l}, (The fact that [l} partitions S guarantees that each
element of S lies in exactly one member of [l}.) The reader may easily check
that the relation ~, defined in this way, is indeed an equivalence relation
in S.
Let us prove that the partition [l} has the form SI ~. If the subset P E [l},
then a E P for .some a inS. Now, the element bE P if and only if b ~ a,
or, what amounts to the same thing, if and on!:y if b E [a]. This demonstrates
the equality P = [a] E SI ~. Since this holds for each P in [l}, it follows
that [l} 5; Sl~. On the other hand, let fa] be an arbitrary equivalence
class and P be the partition set in !?J> to \vhich the element a belongs. By
similar reasoning, we conc1ude that [a] = P; hence, S/~ 5; [l}. Thus, the
set of equivalence c1asses for ~ coincides with the partition {!J. The
uniqueness assertion is an immediate consequence of the lernma.
To surnmarize, there is a natural one-to-one correspondence between
the equivalence relations in a set and the partitions of that set; every
equivalence relation gives rise to a partition and vice versa. We have a
single idea, which h~~ been considered from two different points of view.
Another type of'relation which occurs in various branches of mathe-
matics is the so-called partial order relation. Just as equivalence generalizes
equality, this relation'(as we define it below) generalizes the idea of "Iess
than or equal to" on the realline.
Definition Á-4. 'A. relation R in a nonempty set S is called a partial
order in S if the (ollowing three conditions are satisfied;
1) aRa (reflexiveproperty),
2) if aRb and bRa, then a = b (antisymmetric property),
3) if aRb and bRe, then aRe (transitive property),
where a, b, e denote arbitrary elements of S.
From now on, we shall follow custom and adopt the symbol ::;; to
represent a partial order relation, writing a ::;; b in place of aRb; the fore-
going axioms then read; (1) a ::;; a, (2) if a ::;; b and b ::;; a, then a = b,
and {3) if a ::;; b and b ::;; e, then a ::;; e. As a linguistic convention, let us
also agree to say (depending on the circumstance) that "a precedes b" or
 290 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
Ex~mple Á-5. This example is given to illustrate that any mapping can be
wntten as the composition of a one-to-one function and an onto function.
Letf; X -+ Ybe an arbitrary mapping and consider the equivalence relation
~ associated with! If the element a E X, then we have
[a] = {bEXlf(b) =f(a)} =f-l(J(a)).
!neffect" the equivalence c1asses for the relation ~ are just the inverse
lmages.off-1(y), where y Ef(X) 5; y.
Now, ~efine the f~nctionl: X/~_ -+ Yby the ruleJ([a]) = f(a). Since
[a] = [b]lfand only lfj(a) = f(b),fis well-defined. Observe that whereas
the original ~unction L may no.! have been one-to-one, 1 happens to be
one-to-one; mdeed, f([a]) = f([b]) implies that f(a) = f(b), wherice
[a].= [b]. At this point, we intro~uce the ~nto function g;)( -+ X/~ by
sett!ng g(a) = [a]. Tht(nf(a) =J([a]) = f(g(a)) = (Jo g)(a) for all a in
X, m consequence of which f = f o g. This achieves our stated aim.
We next connect the notion of an equivalence relation in S with that
of a partition of S. .
Definition Á-3. By a partition ofthe set S is meant a family {!J of subsets
of S with the properties
1) 0 ~ [l},
2) for any A, B E [l}, either A = B or A 11 B =0 (pairwise disjoint),
3) u [l} = S.
Expressed otherwise, a partition of S)s a collection {!J of nonempty
subsets of S such th~t every element of S be~0rt&s to one and ónly one member
of {!J. The set Z of mtegers, for instance, c::t.n/be partitioned into the subsets
of od~ ~nd. even integers; another partiti~~ ;~f Z might consist of the sets
of poslÍlve mtegers, negative integers and {Q}~
Theorem A-1 may be viewed as assertirig that each equivalence relation
~ ~n a set S yields a partition of S, na.D:l:ely, the partition SI ~ into the
eqUlvalen~e c1asses fo!~. (In this connection, notice that, for the equiva-
lence relatlOn ofequahty, the corresponding.~lasses contain only one element
each ~ hen.ce, the resulting partition is the finest possible.) We now reverse
the S.ltu~tlOn and show that a given partition of S induces an equivalence
relatlOn m S. But first a preliminary lemma is required.
Lemma. Two equivalence relations ~ and ~ in the set S are the same
I
if and only if SI ~ and SI ~, are the same.
Proo! If ~ and ~' are the same, then surely SI ~ = SI ~'. So, suppose
that ~ and ~' are distinct equivalence relations in S. Then there exists
a pair of elements a, b E S which are equivalent under .qne of the relations,
RELATIONS 291
but not under the other; say a ~ b, but not a ~' b. By Theorem A-1,
there is an equivalence c1ass in SI ~ containing both a and b, while no such
c1ass appeats in SI ~'. Accordingly, SI ~ and SI ~., differ.
Theorem Á-2. If [l} is a paitition of the set ·S, then there is a unique
equivalence relation in S whose equivalel}ce c1asses are precisely the
members of [l}.
Proo! Given a, b E S, we write a ~ b if and only if a and b both belong to
the same subset in [l}, (The fact that [l} partitions S guarantees that each
element of S lies in exactly one member of [l}.) The reader may easily check
that the relation ~, defined in this way, is indeed an equivalence relation
in S.
Let us prove that the partition [l} has the form SI ~. If the subset P E [l},
then a E P for .some a inS. Now, the element bE P if and only if b ~ a,
or, what amounts to the same thing, if and on!:y if b E [a]. This demonstrates
the equality P = [a] E SI ~. Since this holds for each P in [l}, it follows
that [l} 5; Sl~. On the other hand, let fa] be an arbitrary equivalence
class and P be the partition set in !?J> to \vhich the element a belongs. By
similar reasoning, we conc1ude that [a] = P; hence, S/~ 5; [l}. Thus, the
set of equivalence c1asses for ~ coincides with the partition {!J. The
uniqueness assertion is an immediate consequence of the lernma.
To surnmarize, there is a natural one-to-one correspondence between
the equivalence relations in a set and the partitions of that set; every
equivalence relation gives rise to a partition and vice versa. We have a
single idea, which h~~ been considered from two different points of view.
Another type of'relation which occurs in various branches of mathe-
matics is the so-called partial order relation. Just as equivalence generalizes
equality, this relation'(as we define it below) generalizes the idea of "Iess
than or equal to" on the realline.
Definition Á-4. 'A. relation R in a nonempty set S is called a partial
order in S if the (ollowing three conditions are satisfied;
1) aRa (reflexiveproperty),
2) if aRb and bRa, then a = b (antisymmetric property),
3) if aRb and bRe, then aRe (transitive property),
where a, b, e denote arbitrary elements of S.
From now on, we shall follow custom and adopt the symbol ::;; to
represent a partial order relation, writing a ::;; b in place of aRb; the fore-
going axioms then read; (1) a ::;; a, (2) if a ::;; b and b ::;; a, then a = b,
and {3) if a ::;; b and b ::;; e, then a ::;; e. As a linguistic convention, let us
also agree to say (depending on the circumstance) that "a precedes b" or
 292 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
"a is a predecessor of b", or "b succeeds a", or "b is a successor of a" if
a ::5;; b and a' =F b. By a partially ordered set is meant a pair (S, ::5;;) consisting
of a set S and a partial order relation ::5;; in S. In practice, one tends to
ignore the second component and simply speak of the partially ordered set
S, or, when moreprecision is required, say that S is partially ordered by ::5;;.
If A is a subset of a partially ordered set S, then the ordering of S
restricted to A is a partial ordering of A, called the induced partial order;
in this se/nse, any subset ofa partially ordered set beco mes a partially ordered
set in lts own right. When consiqering subsets of a partially ordered set as
partially ordered sets, it is always th~ induced order that we have in mind.
Let S be a set partially ordered by the relation ::5;;. Two elements a
and b of S such that either a ::5;; for b ::5;; a are said to be comparable . . In
view of the refiexivity of a partiai.·order, each element of S is comparable
to itself. There is nothing, howev'er, in Definition A-3 that .en sures the
comparability of every'two elemen.ts of S. Indeed, the qualifying adverb
"partially" in the phrase "partiallY'ordered set" is intended to emphasize
that there may exist pairs of eleniénts in the set which are not comparable.
Definition A-S. A partial order ::5;; in a set S is termed total (sometimes
simple, or linear) if any two elements of S are comparable; that is,
a ::5;; b or b ::5;; a for any two elements a and b of S.
A partially ordered set (S,::5;; ) whose reiation ::::; constitutes a total
order in S is called a totally ordered set or, for short, a chain.
Let us pause to illustrate sorne of the preceding remarks.
Example A-6. In the set R# of real numbers, the relation ::5;; (taken with
the usual meaning) is the most natural example of a total brdering.
Example A-7. Given the set Z+ of positive integers, define a ::5;; b if and
only if a divides b. This affords a partial ordering of Z +, which is not total;
for instance, the integers 4 and 6 are not comparable, since neither divides
the other.
Example A-S. Let S be the collection of all real-valued functions defined
on a nonempty set X. If f::5;; 9 is interpreted to mean f(x) ::5;; g(x) for all
x E X, then ::5;; partially, but not totally, orders S.
Example A-9. For a final illustration, consider the set P(X) of all subsets
of a set X. The relation A ::5;; B if and only if A ~ B is a partial ordering of
P(X), but not a total ordering provided that X has at least two elements.
For example, if X = {1,2, 3}, and A = {l,2}, B = {2,3}, then neither
A ::5;; B nor B :$; A holds. As regards terminology, any family of sets ordered
in this manner will be said to be ordered by inc/usion.
Let (A, :$; ) and (B, ::5;;) be two partially ordered sets (when there is no
danger of confusion, we write :$; for the partial orders in both A and B).
RELATIONS 293
A mappingf: A - Bis said to be order-preservingor an or~er-homomorphism
if for all a, b E A, a ::5;; b implies f(a) ::5;; f(b) in B. A one-to-one order-
homomorphism f of the set A onto B whose inverse is als.o an order-homo-
morphism (from B onto A) is ·an ordá-isomorphism. If such 'a function
exists, we say that the two partially ordered sets (A,::5;; ) and (B,::5;;) are
order-isomorphic. When th~ partial order is the primary object of interest
and the naturé of the elements plays no essential role, order-isomorphic sets
can be regarded as identical.
The corrting theorem emphasizes the fundamental role of our last
example on ¡{~rtially ordered sets (Example A-9), for it allows us to represent
any partially'prdered set by a family of sets.
";/::.:'
Theoreg):A-3. Let A be a,' set partially ordered by the relation ::5;; •
Then A,is'prder-isomorphic to a family ofsubsets of A, partially ordered
. by inclusibn.
Proof. Fo?¡~~~h a E A, let la = {x EAlx ;; a}. It is not hard to verify
that the mapping f: A - P(A) defined by f(a) = la is an order-homo-
morphism of A into P(A). Indeed, if a ::5;; b, then the condition x ::5;; a
implies x ::5;; b and therefore la ~ lb' or, equivalently,f(a) ~ f(b). To see
thatfis one-to-one, suppose a, b E A are such thatf(a) = f(b). Then the
element a E la = lb' and, hence, a::5;; b by definition ofIb ; likewise, b ::5;; a,
from which it follows that a = b. Finally, the inverse f-1 is also order-
pre~rving. For, if the inc1usion la ~ lb holds, then a E lb and so a ::5;; b.
These calculations make it clear that A is order-isomorphic to a certain
set of subsets of P(A).
Corollary. For no set A is A order-isomorphic to P(A).
Proof. We argue that ifj: A - P(A) is any order-homomorphism from A
-into P(A); then f cannot map onto P(A). For purposes of contradiction;
assume that f does carry A onto P(A). Define B = {a E Ala fjf(a)} and
B* = {cEAlc ::5;;aforsomeaEB} . .
By supposition, the set B* = f(b) for someelement bE A. If b fj B*,
then, according to the definition of B, b E B ~ B*, a contradiction. Hence,
b E B* and so b ::5;; a for sorne a in B. From the order-preserving character
of f, B* = f(b) ~ f(a) . . But then, a E B' ~ B* ~ f(a). The implication is
that a fj B, which is again a contradiction.
In an ordered set, there are sometimes elements with special properties
that are worth mentioning.
Definition A-6. Let S. be a set partially ordered by the relation ::5;;. An
element x E S is said to be a minimal (maximal) element of S if a E S
and a ::5;; x (x ::5;; a) imply a = x.
 292 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
"a is a predecessor of b", or "b succeeds a", or "b is a successor of a" if
a ::5;; b and a' =F b. By a partially ordered set is meant a pair (S, ::5;;) consisting
of a set S and a partial order relation ::5;; in S. In practice, one tends to
ignore the second component and simply speak of the partially ordered set
S, or, when moreprecision is required, say that S is partially ordered by ::5;;.
If A is a subset of a partially ordered set S, then the ordering of S
restricted to A is a partial ordering of A, called the induced partial order;
in this se/nse, any subset ofa partially ordered set beco mes a partially ordered
set in lts own right. When consiqering subsets of a partially ordered set as
partially ordered sets, it is always th~ induced order that we have in mind.
Let S be a set partially ordered by the relation ::5;;. Two elements a
and b of S such that either a ::5;; for b ::5;; a are said to be comparable . . In
view of the refiexivity of a partiai.·order, each element of S is comparable
to itself. There is nothing, howev'er, in Definition A-3 that .en sures the
comparability of every'two elemen.ts of S. Indeed, the qualifying adverb
"partially" in the phrase "partiallY'ordered set" is intended to emphasize
that there may exist pairs of eleniénts in the set which are not comparable.
Definition A-S. A partial order ::5;; in a set S is termed total (sometimes
simple, or linear) if any two elements of S are comparable; that is,
a ::5;; b or b ::5;; a for any two elements a and b of S.
A partially ordered set (S,::5;; ) whose reiation ::::; constitutes a total
order in S is called a totally ordered set or, for short, a chain.
Let us pause to illustrate sorne of the preceding remarks.
Example A-6. In the set R# of real numbers, the relation ::5;; (taken with
the usual meaning) is the most natural example of a total brdering.
Example A-7. Given the set Z+ of positive integers, define a ::5;; b if and
only if a divides b. This affords a partial ordering of Z +, which is not total;
for instance, the integers 4 and 6 are not comparable, since neither divides
the other.
Example A-S. Let S be the collection of all real-valued functions defined
on a nonempty set X. If f::5;; 9 is interpreted to mean f(x) ::5;; g(x) for all
x E X, then ::5;; partially, but not totally, orders S.
Example A-9. For a final illustration, consider the set P(X) of all subsets
of a set X. The relation A ::5;; B if and only if A ~ B is a partial ordering of
P(X), but not a total ordering provided that X has at least two elements.
For example, if X = {1,2, 3}, and A = {l,2}, B = {2,3}, then neither
A ::5;; B nor B :$; A holds. As regards terminology, any family of sets ordered
in this manner will be said to be ordered by inc/usion.
Let (A, :$; ) and (B, ::5;;) be two partially ordered sets (when there is no
danger of confusion, we write :$; for the partial orders in both A and B).
RELATIONS 293
A mappingf: A - Bis said to be order-preservingor an or~er-homomorphism
if for all a, b E A, a ::5;; b implies f(a) ::5;; f(b) in B. A one-to-one order-
homomorphism f of the set A onto B whose inverse is als.o an order-homo-
morphism (from B onto A) is ·an ordá-isomorphism. If such 'a function
exists, we say that the two partially ordered sets (A,::5;; ) and (B,::5;;) are
order-isomorphic. When th~ partial order is the primary object of interest
and the naturé of the elements plays no essential role, order-isomorphic sets
can be regarded as identical.
The corrting theorem emphasizes the fundamental role of our last
example on ¡{~rtially ordered sets (Example A-9), for it allows us to represent
any partially'prdered set by a family of sets.
";/::.:'
Theoreg):A-3. Let A be a,' set partially ordered by the relation ::5;; •
Then A,is'prder-isomorphic to a family ofsubsets of A, partially ordered
. by inclusibn.
Proof. Fo?¡~~~h a E A, let la = {x EAlx ;; a}. It is not hard to verify
that the mapping f: A - P(A) defined by f(a) = la is an order-homo-
morphism of A into P(A). Indeed, if a ::5;; b, then the condition x ::5;; a
implies x ::5;; b and therefore la ~ lb' or, equivalently,f(a) ~ f(b). To see
thatfis one-to-one, suppose a, b E A are such thatf(a) = f(b). Then the
element a E la = lb' and, hence, a::5;; b by definition ofIb ; likewise, b ::5;; a,
from which it follows that a = b. Finally, the inverse f-1 is also order-
pre~rving. For, if the inc1usion la ~ lb holds, then a E lb and so a ::5;; b.
These calculations make it clear that A is order-isomorphic to a certain
set of subsets of P(A).
Corollary. For no set A is A order-isomorphic to P(A).
Proof. We argue that ifj: A - P(A) is any order-homomorphism from A
-into P(A); then f cannot map onto P(A). For purposes of contradiction;
assume that f does carry A onto P(A). Define B = {a E Ala fjf(a)} and
B* = {cEAlc ::5;;aforsomeaEB} . .
By supposition, the set B* = f(b) for someelement bE A. If b fj B*,
then, according to the definition of B, b E B ~ B*, a contradiction. Hence,
b E B* and so b ::5;; a for sorne a in B. From the order-preserving character
of f, B* = f(b) ~ f(a) . . But then, a E B' ~ B* ~ f(a). The implication is
that a fj B, which is again a contradiction.
In an ordered set, there are sometimes elements with special properties
that are worth mentioning.
Definition A-6. Let S. be a set partially ordered by the relation ::5;;. An
element x E S is said to be a minimal (maximal) element of S if a E S
and a ::5;; x (x ::5;; a) imply a = x.
294 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS RELATlONS 295

In other words, x is a mínimal (maximal) element of S if no element of
S precedes (exceeds) x. It is not always the case that a partially ordered
set possesses a mínimal (maximal) element and, when such an element exists,
there is no guarantee that it will be unique.
Example A-lO. The simplest illustration of a partially ordered set without
minimal or maximal elements is fumished by the set R# with the ordering
::;; in thé usual sen se.
Example A-U. In the collection P(X) -' {0} of all nonempty subsets of
a nonempty set S {partially ordered by set-theoretic inclusion), the minimal
elements are those subsets consisting of a single element.
Example A-12. Consi.der the set S of all integers greater than 1 and the
partial order ::;; defined, by a ::;; b if and only if a divides b. In this setting,
the prime numbers serve as minimal elements.
It is technically convenient to distinguish between the notion of a
mínimal (maximal) element and that of a first (last) element.
We emphasize that a lower (upper) bound for a subset A of a partially
ordered set is not required to belong to A itself. If A happens to have a
first (last) element, then the same element is a lower (upper) bound for ~;
conversely, if a lower (upper) bound for A is contained in the set A, then 1t
serves as the first (last) element for A. Notice, too, that a lower (upper)
bound for A is a lower (upper) bound for any subset of A.
A subset of a partially ordered set need not have upper or lower bounds
(just consider Z S; R # with respect to ::;; ) or it may have many. For an
example of this latter situation, one may turn to the family P(X) of all
subsets of a set X, with the order being given by the inclusion relation; an
upper bound for a subfamíly d ~ P(X) is any set containing u d, while
a lower bound is any set contained in n d.

Definition A-7. Let S be a set partially ordered by the relation ::;;.

An element x E S is called the first (last) element of S if x ::;; a (a ::;; x)
for all a ES.
Let us point out immediately the important distinction between first
(last) elements and mínimal (maximal) elements. Definition A-7 asserts that
the first (last) element of a partially ordered set S must be comparable to
every element of S. On the other hand, as Definition A-6 implies, it is not '
required that a mínimal (maximal) element be comparable to every element .
of'S, only that there be no element in S which precedes (exceeds) it. A,
lninimal (maximal) element has no predecessors (successors), whereas a first ' , , ~" :
(iá:st) element precedes (succeeds) every element. Clearly, any first (last) "
element is a mínimal (maximal) element, but not conversely.
, First (last) elements of partially ordered sets are unique, if they exist
at all. Indeed, suppose that the partially ordered set (S, ::;; ) has two first "
elements, say x and y; then, x ::;; y and y ::;; x, so that x = y by the anti-
symmetric property. Thus, x is unique and we are justified in using the
definite article when referring to the first element of S. A similar argument
holds for last elements. '
Let us introduce some additional terminology pertaining to partially
ordered sets.

Definition A-8. Let S be a set partially ordered by the relation ::;; and
let A be a subset of S. An element x E S is said to be a lower (upper)
bound for A if x ::;; a (a ::;; x) for all a E A.
294 FIRST COURSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS RELATlONS 295

In other words, x is a mínimal (maximal) element of S if no element of
S precedes (exceeds) x. It is not always the case that a partially ordered
set possesses a mínimal (maximal) element and, when such an element exists,
there is no guarantee that it will be unique.
Example A-lO. The simplest illustration of a partially ordered set without
minimal or maximal elements is fumished by the set R# with the ordering
::;; in thé usual sen se.
Example A-U. In the collection P(X) -' {0} of all nonempty subsets of
a nonempty set S {partially ordered by set-theoretic inclusion), the minimal
elements are those subsets consisting of a single element.
Example A-12. Consi.der the set S of all integers greater than 1 and the
partial order ::;; defined, by a ::;; b if and only if a divides b. In this setting,
the prime numbers serve as minimal elements.
It is technically convenient to distinguish between the notion of a
mínimal (maximal) element and that of a first (last) element.
We emphasize that a lower (upper) bound for a subset A of a partially
ordered set is not required to belong to A itself. If A happens to have a
first (last) element, then the same element is a lower (upper) bound for ~;
conversely, if a lower (upper) bound for A is contained in the set A, then 1t
serves as the first (last) element for A. Notice, too, that a lower (upper)
bound for A is a lower (upper) bound for any subset of A.
A subset of a partially ordered set need not have upper or lower bounds
(just consider Z S; R # with respect to ::;; ) or it may have many. For an
example of this latter situation, one may turn to the family P(X) of all
subsets of a set X, with the order being given by the inclusion relation; an
upper bound for a subfamíly d ~ P(X) is any set containing u d, while
a lower bound is any set contained in n d.

Definition A-7. Let S be a set partially ordered by the relation ::;;.

An element x E S is called the first (last) element of S if x ::;; a (a ::;; x)
for all a ES.
Let us point out immediately the important distinction between first
(last) elements and mínimal (maximal) elements. Definition A-7 asserts that
the first (last) element of a partially ordered set S must be comparable to
every element of S. On the other hand, as Definition A-6 implies, it is not '
required that a mínimal (maximal) element be comparable to every element .
of'S, only that there be no element in S which precedes (exceeds) it. A,
lninimal (maximal) element has no predecessors (successors), whereas a first ' , , ~" :
(iá:st) element precedes (succeeds) every element. Clearly, any first (last) "
element is a mínimal (maximal) element, but not conversely.
, First (last) elements of partially ordered sets are unique, if they exist
at all. Indeed, suppose that the partially ordered set (S, ::;; ) has two first "
elements, say x and y; then, x ::;; y and y ::;; x, so that x = y by the anti-
symmetric property. Thus, x is unique and we are justified in using the
definite article when referring to the first element of S. A similar argument
holds for last elements. '
Let us introduce some additional terminology pertaining to partially
ordered sets.

Definition A-8. Let S be a set partially ordered by the relation ::;; and
let A be a subset of S. An element x E S is said to be a lower (upper)
bound for A if x ::;; a (a ::;; x) for all a E A.

APPENDIX B
ZORN'S LEMMA:t::
;'::\1n this Appendix, we give a brief áccount of sorne of the axioms of set theory¡!l"i,
,}with the primary purpose of introducing Zom's Lemma. Our presentatioQ::í
ts
l descriptive and most of the facts are merely stated. The reader who is
not content with tbis bird's-eye view should consult [12J for the details.
As we know, a: given partially ordered set need not have a first element
and, ifit does, sorne subset could very well faíl to possess one. This prompts
the foIlowing definition: ti partially ordered set (S, ~) is said to be well-
ordered if every nonempty subset A f; S has afirst element ("with respect
to ~"being understood). The set Z + is well-ordered by the usual ~ ; each
nonempty subset has a first element, iJamely, the integer of smallest
magnitude in the set.
Notice that any well-ordered set (S, ~ ) is in fact totally ordered. For,
each subset {a, b} f; S must have a first element. According as the first
element is a or b, we see that a ~ b or b ~ a, whence the two elements
a and b are comparable. Going in the other direction, any total ordering
of a finite set is a weIl-ordering of that set. Let it also be remarked that a
subset of a well-ordered set is again well-ordered (by the restriction of the
ordering).
Example B-l. Consider the Cartesian product S = Z+ x We par-
tialIy order S as follows: if (a, b) and (a', b1 are ordered pairs of po~itive
integers, (a, b) ~ (a', b' ) means that (1) a < a' (in the usual sense) or (2)
a a' and b ~ b' , (This is called the lexicographíc order of Z + x Z +,
because of its resemblance to the way words are arranged in a dictionary.)
For instance, (4, 8) ~ (5,2), while (3, 5) ~ (3,9). To confirm that ~ is a
well-ordering of S, let 0 =1= A f; S and define B = {aEZ+ICa,b)EA}.
Since A is a nonempty subset of Z +, it has a first element, call it ao. Now,
let e == {b E Z + I(a o, b) e A}. Again, the well-ordering of Z + under ~
guarantees that e has a first eIement, say bo' We Ieave it to the reader to
convince himselfthat the pair (a o, boj serves as the first element of A, thereby
making S a well-ordered set relative to ~.
296
ZORN'S LEMMA 297
A fundamental axiom of set theory, which has a surprising variety of
10gicalIy equivalent formulations, is the so-caIled Well-Ordering Theorem
of Zermelo (1904). The designation "theorem" notwithstanding, we take
this to be an axiom (assumed and un pro ven) of our system. We ,state:
Zermelo's Theorem. Any set S can be well-ordered; that ¡s, there is a
partial ordering ~ for S such that (S, ~) is a well-~rdered set.
Accepting th~ existence of such orderings, we do not pretend at all to
be able to specify them. Indeed, nobody has ever "cons,tructed" an explicit
function that well-orders an uncountable set. More'over, the promised
'/ ~' well-ordering may bear no relation to any other order1:dg that the given set
" may alrcady possess; the well-ordering of R#, for instahce, cannot coincide
with its customary ordering. . ..; , (
Zermelo based the "proof" of his classical Well-0idering Theorem on
a seemingly innocent property whose validity had iÍ,f?ver been questioned
and which has since become known as the axiom oFéMice. To state this
axiom, we first need the delliliÍ:ionof a choice function".\¡(·
Definition B-l. Let ce be a (nonempty) colIection of nonempty sets. A
function f: ce -+ u ce is called a choice function for ce if feA) E A for
every set A in ~.
Informally, a choice function f can be thought of as "selecting" from
each set A E ce a certain representative elementf(A) of that set. As a simple
illustration, there are two distinct choice functions f1 and f2 for the family
of nonempty supsets of {1, 2} :
fl({1,2}) 1, fl({l}) = 1, fl({2}) = 2,
f2({1,2}) 2, f2({1}) = 1, f2({2}) = 2.
The question arises whether tms selecHon"process can actually be carried
out when ce has infinítely many members. The possibUity of making such
choices is handled by the axiom mentioned above:
Axiom of Choice. Every collection ce ofnonempty sets has at least one
choice function,
Since this general principie of choice has a way of slipping into proofs
unnoticed, the reader should become familiar with its disguised forms. For
instance, one often encounters the following wording: if {X¡} is a family
of nonempty sets indexed by the nonempty set .1, then the Cartesian product
X i•.1 Xi is nonempty (it should be clcar that the e1ements of X XI are pre-
cisely the choice functions for {Xi})' For another common phrasing, which
again expresses the idea of se1ection, let ce be a collectionof disjoint, non-
l' empty sets. The axiom of choice, as we have stated it, is equivalent to
~~;

APPENDIX B
ZORN'S LEMMA:t::
;'::\1n this Appendix, we give a brief áccount of sorne of the axioms of set theory¡!l"i,
,}with the primary purpose of introducing Zom's Lemma. Our presentatioQ::í
ts
l descriptive and most of the facts are merely stated. The reader who is
not content with tbis bird's-eye view should consult [12J for the details.
As we know, a: given partially ordered set need not have a first element
and, ifit does, sorne subset could very well faíl to possess one. This prompts
the foIlowing definition: ti partially ordered set (S, ~) is said to be well-
ordered if every nonempty subset A f; S has afirst element ("with respect
to ~"being understood). The set Z + is well-ordered by the usual ~ ; each
nonempty subset has a first element, iJamely, the integer of smallest
magnitude in the set.
Notice that any well-ordered set (S, ~ ) is in fact totally ordered. For,
each subset {a, b} f; S must have a first element. According as the first
element is a or b, we see that a ~ b or b ~ a, whence the two elements
a and b are comparable. Going in the other direction, any total ordering
of a finite set is a weIl-ordering of that set. Let it also be remarked that a
subset of a well-ordered set is again well-ordered (by the restriction of the
ordering).
Example B-l. Consider the Cartesian product S = Z+ x We par-
tialIy order S as follows: if (a, b) and (a', b1 are ordered pairs of po~itive
integers, (a, b) ~ (a', b' ) means that (1) a < a' (in the usual sense) or (2)
a a' and b ~ b' , (This is called the lexicographíc order of Z + x Z +,
because of its resemblance to the way words are arranged in a dictionary.)
For instance, (4, 8) ~ (5,2), while (3, 5) ~ (3,9). To confirm that ~ is a
well-ordering of S, let 0 =1= A f; S and define B = {aEZ+ICa,b)EA}.
Since A is a nonempty subset of Z +, it has a first element, call it ao. Now,
let e == {b E Z + I(a o, b) e A}. Again, the well-ordering of Z + under ~
guarantees that e has a first eIement, say bo' We Ieave it to the reader to
convince himselfthat the pair (a o, boj serves as the first element of A, thereby
making S a well-ordered set relative to ~.
296
ZORN'S LEMMA 297
A fundamental axiom of set theory, which has a surprising variety of
10gicalIy equivalent formulations, is the so-caIled Well-Ordering Theorem
of Zermelo (1904). The designation "theorem" notwithstanding, we take
this to be an axiom (assumed and un pro ven) of our system. We ,state:
Zermelo's Theorem. Any set S can be well-ordered; that ¡s, there is a
partial ordering ~ for S such that (S, ~) is a well-~rdered set.
Accepting th~ existence of such orderings, we do not pretend at all to
be able to specify them. Indeed, nobody has ever "cons,tructed" an explicit
function that well-orders an uncountable set. More'over, the promised
'/ ~' well-ordering may bear no relation to any other order1:dg that the given set
" may alrcady possess; the well-ordering of R#, for instahce, cannot coincide
with its customary ordering. . ..; , (
Zermelo based the "proof" of his classical Well-0idering Theorem on
a seemingly innocent property whose validity had iÍ,f?ver been questioned
and which has since become known as the axiom oFéMice. To state this
axiom, we first need the delliliÍ:ionof a choice function".\¡(·
Definition B-l. Let ce be a (nonempty) colIection of nonempty sets. A
function f: ce -+ u ce is called a choice function for ce if feA) E A for
every set A in ~.
Informally, a choice function f can be thought of as "selecting" from
each set A E ce a certain representative elementf(A) of that set. As a simple
illustration, there are two distinct choice functions f1 and f2 for the family
of nonempty supsets of {1, 2} :
fl({1,2}) 1, fl({l}) = 1, fl({2}) = 2,
f2({1,2}) 2, f2({1}) = 1, f2({2}) = 2.
The question arises whether tms selecHon"process can actually be carried
out when ce has infinítely many members. The possibUity of making such
choices is handled by the axiom mentioned above:
Axiom of Choice. Every collection ce ofnonempty sets has at least one
choice function,
Since this general principie of choice has a way of slipping into proofs
unnoticed, the reader should become familiar with its disguised forms. For
instance, one often encounters the following wording: if {X¡} is a family
of nonempty sets indexed by the nonempty set .1, then the Cartesian product
X i•.1 Xi is nonempty (it should be clcar that the e1ements of X XI are pre-
cisely the choice functions for {Xi})' For another common phrasing, which
again expresses the idea of se1ection, let ce be a collectionof disjoint, non-
l' empty sets. The axiom of choice, as we have stated it, is equivalent to
~~;
 298 FIRST COVRSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
asserting the existence of a set S with the property that A 11 S contains
exactIy one element, for each A in ~.
Granting Zermelo's Theorem, it is c1ear that a choice function f can
be defined for al1y collection ~ of'nonempty sets: having well-ordered u ~,
simply take f to be the function which assigns to each set A 'in ~ its first
element. As indicated earlier, Zermelo's Theorem was originally derived
from theaxiom of choice, so that these are in reality two equivalent principies
(a1though seemingly quite different).
A1though the axiom of choice may strike the reader as being intuitively
obvious, the soundness of this principIe has aroused more philosophical
discussion than any other single question in the foundations ofmathematics.
At the heart of the controversy is the ancient problern of existence. Soine
mathematicians believ€; that a set exists only if each of its elements can be
de~ignated specifically, qr at the very least if there is a rule by which each
Of1tS members can be constructed. A more liberal school ofthought is that
an axiom about existence of sets may be used if it does not lead to a contra-
diction. In 1938 Gode1 demonstrated that the axiom of choice is not in
contradiction with the other genera:lly accepted axioms of set theory
(assuming that the latter are consistent with one another). It was sub-
sequentIy established by Cohen (1963) that the denial of this axiom is also
consistent with the rest of set theory. Thus, the axiom of choice is in fact
an independent axiom, whose use or rejection is a matter of personal
inc1ination. The feeling among most mathematicians today is that the axiom
of choice is harmless in principIe and indispensable in practice (provided
that one calls attention to the occ;asions of its use). It is also valuable as
an heuristic tool, since every proof,by means of this assumption represents
a result for which we can then seek ,p'roofs along other lines.
A non-constructive criterion f6'V'the existence of maximal e1ements is
given by the so-called "maximality principIe", which general1y is cited in
the literature under the name Zorn'sLemma. (From the point of view of
priority, this principIe goes back t9' Hausdorff and Kuratowski, but Zorn
gave a formulation of it which is patticularly suitable to algebra; he was also
the first to state, without proof, ili.at a maximality principIe implies the
axiom of choice.)
Zorn's Lemma. Let S be a nonempty set partially ordered by ~ .
Suppose that every subset A S S which is total1y ordered by ~ has an
upper bound (in S). Then S possesses at least one maximal element.
Zorn's Lemma is a particularly handy tool when the underlying set is
partially ordered and the required object of interest is characterized by
maximality. To demonstrate how it is used in practice, let us prove what is
sometimes known as Hausdorff's Theorem (recall that by a chain is meant
a totally ordered set):
ZORN'S LEMMA 299
Theorem B-l. Every partially ordered set contains a maximal chain;
that is, a chain which is not a proper subset of any other chain.
Proa! Consider the collection ~ of all chains of a partially ordered set
(S, ~ ); ~ is nonempty, since it contains the chains consisting of single
elements of S. Partially order ~ by inc1usion and let d be any chain of ~
(for the ordering s). We maintain that the union u d belongs to C(f. Given
elements a, b E U d, we have a E A E d and bE BE d, for sorne A, B.
As d is a chain, either A S B or B S A; suppose, for convenience, that
A S B. Then a, b both lie in B and, since B is itself a chain (in S), i t follows
that a ~ b or b :5: a. In con sequen ce, any two elements of u d are com-
parable, making u d a chain in S. Since u d is c1early an upper bound
for d in ~, Zorn's Lemma implies that (~, s) has a maximal mernber.
As another brief application of Zorn's Lemma, consider the following
assertion: if (S, :5:) is a partially ordered set every chain of which has an
upper bound, then for each a E S there exists a maximal element x E S with
the property that a ~ x; in other words, there exists a maximal element
!arger than the given element For a proof of this, nrst observe that the set
J a = {y E Sla :5: y} satisfies the hypotheses of Zorn's Lemma (under the
restriction of :5:); hence, has a maximal e1ement x. But x is maxirnal in S,
not merely in J a • For, suppose that s E S with x :5: s. Then a ~ s (since
both a ~ x and x :5: s) and so s E J a • From the maximality of x in J a , it
then follows that s = x, completing the argument.
Needless to say, we could just as well have phrased Zorn's Lemma in
terms of lower bounds and minimal elements. The assertion in this case is
that there exists at l{¡ast one minimal element in S.
Before cÓtlcluding, let us sta te
Theorem' B,:;;2. Zermelo's Well-Ordering Theorem, the Axiom of Choice
and Zor~~~l,Lemma are aH equivalent.
The deduction of these equivalences is somewhat involved and the
argument is 'not presented here; the interested reader can find the proofs
in any numb:ef:of texts on set theory.
'F'"
I
~
 298 FIRST COVRSE IN RINGS AND IDEALS
asserting the existence of a set S with the property that A 11 S contains
exactIy one element, for each A in ~.
Granting Zermelo's Theorem, it is c1ear that a choice function f can
be defined for al1y collection ~ of'nonempty sets: having well-ordered u ~,
simply take f to be the function which assigns to each set A 'in ~ its first
element. As indicated earlier, Zermelo's Theorem was originally derived
from theaxiom of choice, so that these are in reality two equivalent principies
(a1though seemingly quite different).
A1though the axiom of choice may strike the reader as being intuitively
obvious, the soundness of this principIe has aroused more philosophical
discussion than any other single question in the foundations ofmathematics.
At the heart of the controversy is the ancient problern of existence. Soine
mathematicians believ€; that a set exists only if each of its elements can be
de~ignated specifically, qr at the very least if there is a rule by which each
Of1tS members can be constructed. A more liberal school ofthought is that
an axiom about existence of sets may be used if it does not lead to a contra-
diction. In 1938 Gode1 demonstrated that the axiom of choice is not in
contradiction with the other genera:lly accepted axioms of set theory
(assuming that the latter are consistent with one another). It was sub-
sequentIy established by Cohen (1963) that the denial of this axiom is also
consistent with the rest of set theory. Thus, the axiom of choice is in fact
an independent axiom, whose use or rejection is a matter of personal
inc1ination. The feeling among most mathematicians today is that the axiom
of choice is harmless in principIe and indispensable in practice (provided
that one calls attention to the occ;asions of its use). It is also valuable as
an heuristic tool, since every proof,by means of this assumption represents
a result for which we can then seek ,p'roofs along other lines.
A non-constructive criterion f6'V'the existence of maximal e1ements is
given by the so-called "maximality principIe", which general1y is cited in
the literature under the name Zorn'sLemma. (From the point of view of
priority, this principIe goes back t9' Hausdorff and Kuratowski, but Zorn
gave a formulation of it which is patticularly suitable to algebra; he was also
the first to state, without proof, ili.at a maximality principIe implies the
axiom of choice.)
Zorn's Lemma. Let S be a nonempty set partially ordered by ~ .
Suppose that every subset A S S which is total1y ordered by ~ has an
upper bound (in S). Then S possesses at least one maximal element.
Zorn's Lemma is a particularly handy tool when the underlying set is
partially ordered and the required object of interest is characterized by
maximality. To demonstrate how it is used in practice, let us prove what is
sometimes known as Hausdorff's Theorem (recall that by a chain is meant
a totally ordered set):
ZORN'S LEMMA 299
Theorem B-l. Every partially ordered set contains a maximal chain;
that is, a chain which is not a proper subset of any other chain.
Proa! Consider the collection ~ of all chains of a partially ordered set
(S, ~ ); ~ is nonempty, since it contains the chains consisting of single
elements of S. Partially order ~ by inc1usion and let d be any chain of ~
(for the ordering s). We maintain that the union u d belongs to C(f. Given
elements a, b E U d, we have a E A E d and bE BE d, for sorne A, B.
As d is a chain, either A S B or B S A; suppose, for convenience, that
A S B. Then a, b both lie in B and, since B is itself a chain (in S), i t follows
that a ~ b or b :5: a. In con sequen ce, any two elements of u d are com-
parable, making u d a chain in S. Since u d is c1early an upper bound
for d in ~, Zorn's Lemma implies that (~, s) has a maximal mernber.
As another brief application of Zorn's Lemma, consider the following
assertion: if (S, :5:) is a partially ordered set every chain of which has an
upper bound, then for each a E S there exists a maximal element x E S with
the property that a ~ x; in other words, there exists a maximal element
!arger than the given element For a proof of this, nrst observe that the set
J a = {y E Sla :5: y} satisfies the hypotheses of Zorn's Lemma (under the
restriction of :5:); hence, has a maximal e1ement x. But x is maxirnal in S,
not merely in J a • For, suppose that s E S with x :5: s. Then a ~ s (since
both a ~ x and x :5: s) and so s E J a • From the maximality of x in J a , it
then follows that s = x, completing the argument.
Needless to say, we could just as well have phrased Zorn's Lemma in
terms of lower bounds and minimal elements. The assertion in this case is
that there exists at l{¡ast one minimal element in S.
Before cÓtlcluding, let us sta te
Theorem' B,:;;2. Zermelo's Well-Ordering Theorem, the Axiom of Choice
and Zor~~~l,Lemma are aH equivalent.
The deduction of these equivalences is somewhat involved and the
argument is 'not presented here; the interested reader can find the proofs
in any numb:ef:of texts on set theory.
'F'"
I
~
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 301

BIBLIOGRAPHY
,.--!'
GENERAL REFERENCES
. .
Our purpose bere is to present a list Of sugg~sÜons for collateral reading and
further study. Tbe specialized sources wiUtarry tbe reader considerably
beyond tbe point attained in tbe final pages'óf tbis work.
1. ADAMSON, T., Introduction 10 Field Theory. New York: lnterscience, 1964.
2. ARTIN, E., Galois Theory, 2nd Ed. NotreDame, lnd.: University ofNotre Dame Press,
1955.
3. AATIN, E., C. NESBITT, and R. THRALL~ Rings wilh Mínimum Condítion. Ann Aibor,
Mich,: University of Michigan Press, 1944.
4. AUSLANDER, M., Rings, Modules and Homology, Chapters l and n. Waltham, Mass.:
Department of Mathematics, Brandeis University (lecture notes), 1960.
5. BARNES, W., Introduction 10 Abstract Algebra. Boston: Heath, 1963.
6. BOURllAKI, N., Algebra, Chapter 8. Paris: Hermann, 1958.
7. BOURBAKI, N., Algebra Commutative, Chapters 2, 4 and 5. Paris: Hermann, 1961.
8. BURTON, D. ,'Introductíon to M odern Abstract Algebra. Reading, Mass : Addison-Wes1ey,
1967. . 37. DIYINSKY, N., "Cornmutative Subdirectly Irreducible Rings," Proc. Am. Math Soco
9. CURTIS, C. and 1. REINER, RepresentalÍon Theory of Finíte Groups and Associatíve
Algebras. NewYork: lnterscience, 1962.
lO. DIVINSKY, N., Rings and Radicals. Toranto: University ofToronto Press, 1965.
11. GOLDIE, A., Rings with Maximum.Condition. New Haven: Department of Mathe-
matics, Yale University.(lecture notes), 1961.
12 .. HALMOS, P., Naive Set Theory. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1960.
13. HERSTEIN, 1. N., Topies in Algebra.. New York: Blaisdell, 1964.
14. HERSTEIN, l. N., Theory of Rings. Chicago: Department of Mathematics, University
of Chicago (lecture notes), 1961.
,15. HERSTEIN, 1. N., Noncommutative Rings. (Carus Monographs). Menascha, Wis.;
Mathematical Association of America, 1968.
16. HEWITT, E. and K. STROMBERG, Real and Abstract Analysis. New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1965. . 44. JACOBSON, N" "The Radical and Semi-Simplicity for Arbitrary Rings," Am. J. Math.
17. JACOBSON, N., Lectures in AbstractAlgebra, Vol. l, Basic Concepts. Princeton: Van
Nostrand, 1951.
18. lACOBSON, N., SlrUClure of Rings, Rev. Ed. Providence: American Mathematica1
Society, 1964.
19. JANS, J., Rings and Homology. New York: Hol!, 1964.
20. KUROSH, A., General Algebra. New York: Chelsea, 1963.
21. LANG, S., Algebra. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1965.
22. LAMBEK, J., Lectures on Rings and Modules. Waltham, Mass.: B1aisdell, 1966.
23. MCCARTHY, P., Algebraic Extensions of Fields. Waltham; Mass.: BlaisdeIl, 1966.
24. McCoy, N., Rings andldeals. (Carus Monographs). Menascha, Wis.: Mathematical
Association of America, 1948.'
25. McCoy, N., TheoryofRings. NewYork: Macmillan, 1964.
26. NAGATA, M., Local Riñgs. NewYork: lnterscience, 1962 ..
27. NORTHCOTT, D. G., Ideal Theory. Cambridge, Eng1and: Cambridge UniversityPress,
1953. . . .
28. NORTHCOTT, D. G., Lessonson Rings, Modulesand Multiplicities. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge Uriiversity Press, 1968.
29. REDEl, L., Algebra, VoLI. 'oxford, Eng1and: Pergamon, 1967.
30. SAH, C.-H., Abstract')i.igebra. New York: Academic Press, 1967.
31. W ARNER, ~., Modern1!Algebrti, 2 Vols. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
1965.
32. WEISS, E., Algebraic'Nu~ber Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
33. ZARISKI, O. and P. SAMUEL, Commutative Algebra, Vol. 1. Princeton: Van Nostrand,
1958.
JOURNAL ARTICLES
34. BROWN, B. and N. McCoy, "Radicals and Subdirect Sums," Am. J. Math. 69, 46-58
(1947). .
35. BUCK, R. c., "Extensions ofHomorphisms and Regular ldeals," J. Indian Math. Soco
14, 156-158 (1950).
36. COHEN, 1. S:, "Commutative Rings with Restricted Minimum Condition," DukeMath.
J. 17, 27-42 (1950).
8, 642~648 (1957). .
38. FELLER, E., "A Type of Quasi-FrobeniusRings," Canad. Math. Bull. lO, 19-27 (1967).
39. GIFFEN, c., "Unique Factorization of Polynomials," Proc. Am. Math. Soco 14, 366
(1963).
40. HENDERSON, D., HA Short Praof ofWedderburn's Theorem," Am. Math. Monthly 72,
385-386 (1965).
1; 41. HERSTEIN, 1. ·N., "A Generalízation of a Theorem of Jacobson, l," Am. J. Math. 73,
756-762 (1951).
42. HERSTEIN, 1. N., "An Elementary Proof of a Theorem of Jacobson," Duke Math. J.
21,45-48 (1954).
43. HERSTEIN, 1. N., ~'Wedderburn's Theorem and a Theorem cif Jacobson," Am. Math.
Monthly 68,249-251 (1961).
67,300-320 (1945).
45. KOHLS, c., "The Space ofPrime ldeals of a Ring," Fund. Math. 45, 17-27 (1957).
',1
'f'

300 1:
1:
l'
·u
- _
..... .... __.. _. --~-

-------~
- - - - - - - - - - - - _. . ~~-.-~----------.-._._-----
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 301

BIBLIOGRAPHY
,.--!'
GENERAL REFERENCES
. .
Our purpose bere is to present a list Of sugg~sÜons for collateral reading and
further study. Tbe specialized sources wiUtarry tbe reader considerably
beyond tbe point attained in tbe final pages'óf tbis work.
1. ADAMSON, T., Introduction 10 Field Theory. New York: lnterscience, 1964.
2. ARTIN, E., Galois Theory, 2nd Ed. NotreDame, lnd.: University ofNotre Dame Press,
1955.
3. AATIN, E., C. NESBITT, and R. THRALL~ Rings wilh Mínimum Condítion. Ann Aibor,
Mich,: University of Michigan Press, 1944.
4. AUSLANDER, M., Rings, Modules and Homology, Chapters l and n. Waltham, Mass.:
Department of Mathematics, Brandeis University (lecture notes), 1960.
5. BARNES, W., Introduction 10 Abstract Algebra. Boston: Heath, 1963.
6. BOURllAKI, N., Algebra, Chapter 8. Paris: Hermann, 1958.
7. BOURBAKI, N., Algebra Commutative, Chapters 2, 4 and 5. Paris: Hermann, 1961.
8. BURTON, D. ,'Introductíon to M odern Abstract Algebra. Reading, Mass : Addison-Wes1ey,
1967. . 37. DIYINSKY, N., "Cornmutative Subdirectly Irreducible Rings," Proc. Am. Math Soco
9. CURTIS, C. and 1. REINER, RepresentalÍon Theory of Finíte Groups and Associatíve
Algebras. NewYork: lnterscience, 1962.
lO. DIVINSKY, N., Rings and Radicals. Toranto: University ofToronto Press, 1965.
11. GOLDIE, A., Rings with Maximum.Condition. New Haven: Department of Mathe-
matics, Yale University.(lecture notes), 1961.
12 .. HALMOS, P., Naive Set Theory. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1960.
13. HERSTEIN, 1. N., Topies in Algebra.. New York: Blaisdell, 1964.
14. HERSTEIN, l. N., Theory of Rings. Chicago: Department of Mathematics, University
of Chicago (lecture notes), 1961.
,15. HERSTEIN, 1. N., Noncommutative Rings. (Carus Monographs). Menascha, Wis.;
Mathematical Association of America, 1968.
16. HEWITT, E. and K. STROMBERG, Real and Abstract Analysis. New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1965. . 44. JACOBSON, N" "The Radical and Semi-Simplicity for Arbitrary Rings," Am. J. Math.
17. JACOBSON, N., Lectures in AbstractAlgebra, Vol. l, Basic Concepts. Princeton: Van
Nostrand, 1951.
18. lACOBSON, N., SlrUClure of Rings, Rev. Ed. Providence: American Mathematica1
Society, 1964.
19. JANS, J., Rings and Homology. New York: Hol!, 1964.
20. KUROSH, A., General Algebra. New York: Chelsea, 1963.
21. LANG, S., Algebra. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1965.
22. LAMBEK, J., Lectures on Rings and Modules. Waltham, Mass.: B1aisdell, 1966.
23. MCCARTHY, P., Algebraic Extensions of Fields. Waltham; Mass.: BlaisdeIl, 1966.
24. McCoy, N., Rings andldeals. (Carus Monographs). Menascha, Wis.: Mathematical
Association of America, 1948.'
25. McCoy, N., TheoryofRings. NewYork: Macmillan, 1964.
26. NAGATA, M., Local Riñgs. NewYork: lnterscience, 1962 ..
27. NORTHCOTT, D. G., Ideal Theory. Cambridge, Eng1and: Cambridge UniversityPress,
1953. . . .
28. NORTHCOTT, D. G., Lessonson Rings, Modulesand Multiplicities. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge Uriiversity Press, 1968.
29. REDEl, L., Algebra, VoLI. 'oxford, Eng1and: Pergamon, 1967.
30. SAH, C.-H., Abstract')i.igebra. New York: Academic Press, 1967.
31. W ARNER, ~., Modern1!Algebrti, 2 Vols. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
1965.
32. WEISS, E., Algebraic'Nu~ber Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
33. ZARISKI, O. and P. SAMUEL, Commutative Algebra, Vol. 1. Princeton: Van Nostrand,
1958.
JOURNAL ARTICLES
34. BROWN, B. and N. McCoy, "Radicals and Subdirect Sums," Am. J. Math. 69, 46-58
(1947). .
35. BUCK, R. c., "Extensions ofHomorphisms and Regular ldeals," J. Indian Math. Soco
14, 156-158 (1950).
36. COHEN, 1. S:, "Commutative Rings with Restricted Minimum Condition," DukeMath.
J. 17, 27-42 (1950).
8, 642~648 (1957). .
38. FELLER, E., "A Type of Quasi-FrobeniusRings," Canad. Math. Bull. lO, 19-27 (1967).
39. GIFFEN, c., "Unique Factorization of Polynomials," Proc. Am. Math. Soco 14, 366
(1963).
40. HENDERSON, D., HA Short Praof ofWedderburn's Theorem," Am. Math. Monthly 72,
385-386 (1965).
1; 41. HERSTEIN, 1. ·N., "A Generalízation of a Theorem of Jacobson, l," Am. J. Math. 73,
756-762 (1951).
42. HERSTEIN, 1. N., "An Elementary Proof of a Theorem of Jacobson," Duke Math. J.
21,45-48 (1954).
43. HERSTEIN, 1. N., ~'Wedderburn's Theorem and a Theorem cif Jacobson," Am. Math.
Monthly 68,249-251 (1961).
67,300-320 (1945).
45. KOHLS, c., "The Space ofPrime ldeals of a Ring," Fund. Math. 45, 17-27 (1957).
',1
'f'

300 1:
1:
l'
·u
- _
..... .... __.. _. --~-

-------~
- - - - - - - - - - - - _. . ~~-.-~----------.-._._-----
 1;

302 BIBLIOGRAPHY '.

46. KOVACS, L., ;'A Note on Regular Rings," Publ. Math. Debrecen 4,465-468 (1956).
47. LUH, J., "On the Cornrnutativity of J-Rings," Canad. J. Math. 19, 1289-1292 (1967).
48. McCov, N., "Subdirectly Irreducible Cornrnutative Rings," Duke Math. J. 12, 3lH-387
(1945).
49. McCov, N.; "Subdirect Sums ofRings," Bull. Am. Math. Soco 53, 856-877 (1947).
50. McCoy, N., HA Note on Finite Unions of Ideals and Subgroups," Proc. Am. Math.
Soco 8, 633-637 (1957).
51. NAGATA, M., "On the Theory of Radicals in a Ring," J. Math. Soco Japan 3, 330-344
(1951). INDEX OF SPECIAL SYMBOLS
52. VON, NEUMANN, J., "On Regular Rings," Proc. Nat!. Acad. Sci. U.S. 22, 707-713 (1936).
53. NORTHCOIT, D., HA Note on the Intersection Theorern for Ideals," Proc. Cambridge
Phil. Soco 48, 366-367 (1952).
54. PERL1S, S. HA Characterization of the Radical of an Algebra," Bul!. Am. Math. Soco The following is by no means a complete list of all the symbols used in the
48, 128-132.(1942). . text, but is rather a listing of certain symbols which occur frequently.
55. SAMUEL, P., "On Unique F~ctorization Dornains," Illinois J. Math, S, 1-17 (1961). Numbers refer to the page where the symbol in question is first found.
56. SATYANARAVANA, M., "Rings with Prirnary Ideals as Maximal Ideals," Math. Scand:
20; 52-54 (1967).
51. SATYANARAYANA, M.,. "Characterization ofLocal Rings," TohokuMath.J.19,411-416 {a} set consisting of the element a, 8
(1967). [a] congruence class determined by the element a, 4
58. SNAPPER, E., "Cornpletely Prirnary Rings, 1," Ann. Math. 52, 666-693 (1950). a+l coset of the ideal 1, 39
59. STONE, M. H., "The Theory of Representations of Boolean AIgebras," Trans. Am. (a) smallest (two-sided) ideal containing the element a, 19
Math. Soco 40, 37-Ill (1936). aR smallest right ideal of R containing the element a, 19
annS annihilator of the set S, 36
alb, atb a divides (does not divide) the element b, 90
a == b (mod n) integer a is a congruent to integer b modulo n, 4
alb formal fraction of elements a and b, 61
aob circ1e-product of elements a and b, 171
AAB symmetric difference of sets A atifl.,#, 3
AxB Cartesian product of sets A an(!t;, ·9
A(M) annihilator of the module M, iJ5,
e field of complex numbers, 53 ; . ,
C(a) centralizer of the element a, 14;Ló'
centR center of the ring R, 9
char R characteristic of the ring R, 11 d
contf(x) content of the polynomialj{x), c:i~9
degf(x) degree ofthe polynomialj{x), 119
f(A) direct image of the set A under J,. 27
1 (A)1 inverse imageofthe set A underf, 27
F(a) field generated by the element a over F, 137
F[aJ set of polynomials in the element a, 120
[F':F] degree ofthe fieldr over the subfield F, 140
gcd (a,b) greatest common divisor ofthe elements a and b, 92
GF(p") Galois field with pD elements, 191
hom(R,R') set of ring homomorphisms from R into R', 26
303
 1;

302 BIBLIOGRAPHY '.

46. KOVACS, L., ;'A Note on Regular Rings," Publ. Math. Debrecen 4,465-468 (1956).
47. LUH, J., "On the Cornrnutativity of J-Rings," Canad. J. Math. 19, 1289-1292 (1967).
48. McCov, N., "Subdirectly Irreducible Cornrnutative Rings," Duke Math. J. 12, 3lH-387
(1945).
49. McCov, N.; "Subdirect Sums ofRings," Bull. Am. Math. Soco 53, 856-877 (1947).
50. McCoy, N., HA Note on Finite Unions of Ideals and Subgroups," Proc. Am. Math.
Soco 8, 633-637 (1957).
51. NAGATA, M., "On the Theory of Radicals in a Ring," J. Math. Soco Japan 3, 330-344
(1951). INDEX OF SPECIAL SYMBOLS
52. VON, NEUMANN, J., "On Regular Rings," Proc. Nat!. Acad. Sci. U.S. 22, 707-713 (1936).
53. NORTHCOIT, D., HA Note on the Intersection Theorern for Ideals," Proc. Cambridge
Phil. Soco 48, 366-367 (1952).
54. PERL1S, S. HA Characterization of the Radical of an Algebra," Bul!. Am. Math. Soco The following is by no means a complete list of all the symbols used in the
48, 128-132.(1942). . text, but is rather a listing of certain symbols which occur frequently.
55. SAMUEL, P., "On Unique F~ctorization Dornains," Illinois J. Math, S, 1-17 (1961). Numbers refer to the page where the symbol in question is first found.
56. SATYANARAVANA, M., "Rings with Prirnary Ideals as Maximal Ideals," Math. Scand:
20; 52-54 (1967).
51. SATYANARAYANA, M.,. "Characterization ofLocal Rings," TohokuMath.J.19,411-416 {a} set consisting of the element a, 8
(1967). [a] congruence class determined by the element a, 4
58. SNAPPER, E., "Cornpletely Prirnary Rings, 1," Ann. Math. 52, 666-693 (1950). a+l coset of the ideal 1, 39
59. STONE, M. H., "The Theory of Representations of Boolean AIgebras," Trans. Am. (a) smallest (two-sided) ideal containing the element a, 19
Math. Soco 40, 37-Ill (1936). aR smallest right ideal of R containing the element a, 19
annS annihilator of the set S, 36
alb, atb a divides (does not divide) the element b, 90
a == b (mod n) integer a is a congruent to integer b modulo n, 4
alb formal fraction of elements a and b, 61
aob circ1e-product of elements a and b, 171
AAB symmetric difference of sets A atifl.,#, 3
AxB Cartesian product of sets A an(!t;, ·9
A(M) annihilator of the module M, iJ5,
e field of complex numbers, 53 ; . ,
C(a) centralizer of the element a, 14;Ló'
centR center of the ring R, 9
char R characteristic of the ring R, 11 d
contf(x) content of the polynomialj{x), c:i~9
degf(x) degree ofthe polynomialj{x), 119
f(A) direct image of the set A under J,. 27
1 (A)1 inverse imageofthe set A underf, 27
F(a) field generated by the element a over F, 137
F[aJ set of polynomials in the element a, 120
[F':F] degree ofthe fieldr over the subfield F, 140
gcd (a,b) greatest common divisor ofthe elements a and b, 92
GF(p") Galois field with pD elements, 191
hom(R,R') set of ring homomorphisms from R into R', 26
303
304 INDEX OF SPECIAL SYMBOLS

hornR(M,M') set of R-rnodule hornornorphisrns frorn M into M', 272

IJ product of the ideals J and J, 22
J+J surn of the ideals J and J, 21
JrJ;JJ internal direct sum of the ideals J and J, 21
(J ;J) quotient of the ideal J by the ideal J, 23
Ll i surn of a set ofideals Ji' 21
.Jl nil radical ofthe ideal J, 79
J(R) J-radical of the ring R, 172
kerf kernel ofthe homomorphisrnj, 28 INDEX
o',:.,
I(M) length ofthe module M, 252
lcrn(a,b) ; least common multiple ofthe elements a and b, 94
Mn(R) ring of n x n matrices oyer R, 3 '. ",'
rnap(X,R) , ring of mappings from X into R, 4
nat¡ natuflil mapping determined by the ideal J, 40 additive group of a ring, 1 comparable elements, 292 , ",
ordf(x)! :'< adeal, ' 38 component rings (in a direct sum), 204
orderbfthe power seriesf(x), 115
o ,",'f:.
the empty set; 3
adjunction (of an element to a field), 137 component projection, 206 ,,'
Euler phi-function, 57
algebraic element, 138 'coIi1mutati~~ diagram, 43
4J(n) extension fiele, 140 commutative ring, 2
4Jr substitution homomorphisrn induced by the element r, 120 number field, 155 complete dir~t sum, 204
P(X) power set ofthe set X, 3 algebraically c10sed field, ' 156 composition series, 251
Q field of rational numbers, 2 annihilator of a su bset, 36 , congruence moduló n, 4
Q(.jñ) ,quadratic number field, 105 Artinian ring, 223 congruen'ce cIass, 4
Qc¡(R) cIassical ring of quotients of R, 60 ascending chain condition, 217 representation of, 4
R# field of real numbers, 2 ' associated elements, 91 conjugate of an element, "105
R* set of in vertible elernents of R, 2 prime ideal of a primary ideal, '81 content of a polynomia1, 129
priÍne ideal in a N oetherian ring, 236 Correspondence Theorerti: 30
R V
heart ofthe,ring R, 212
atom in a Boolean ring, 200 coset of an ideal, 39
R[x] polynomial ring in one indeterminant ,oyer R, 118
au tomo rphism, 25
R[x,y] polynomial ring in two indeterminants over R, 134 axiom of choice, 297 degree, of an extension field, 140
R[[x]] power series ring in one indeterminant oyer R, 114 of a polynomial, 119
R/J quotient ring of R by the ideal J, 40 ' derivative functiQn, 153
Bezout identity, 93
rad R Jacobson radical of R, 157 descending chain condition, 223
binomial equation, 13
Rad R prime radical of R, 163 direct sum, complete, 204
Boolean ring, 14
Is Etl R¡ su bdirect sum of a set of rings R¡, 206 discrete, 205
IrJ;JR i complete direct sum of a set of rings R¡, 204 external, 33
cancellation law, 7 internal, 21
Z'Ze ring of integers (eyen integers), 2,9
center of a ring, 9 ofmodules, 259
Z+ set of positiye integers, 12
centralizer, of an element, 194 direct summand, 34
Zl ring of multiples ofthe identity element, 12 of a set of endomorphisms, 277 divides (divisor), 90
Z(i) domain of Gaussian integers, 91 chaiIl (in a partially ordered set), 292 clivision ring, 52
Zn ' ring of integers modulo n, 4 chain conditions, 217,223, finite, 194
Z(.jñ) a domain of quadratic integers, 106 characteristic of a ring, 11 divisor of zero, 7
+", *n
addition (multiplication) modulo n, 5 choice function, 297 domain, Euelidean, 102
is isomorphic to, 29 classical ring of quotients, 60 integral, 7
coefficien ts of a power series, 114 principal ideal, 20
comaximal ideals, 211 unique factorization, 100
305
304 INDEX OF SPECIAL SYMBOLS

hornR(M,M') set of R-rnodule hornornorphisrns frorn M into M', 272

IJ product of the ideals J and J, 22
J+J surn of the ideals J and J, 21
JrJ;JJ internal direct sum of the ideals J and J, 21
(J ;J) quotient of the ideal J by the ideal J, 23
Ll i surn of a set ofideals Ji' 21
.Jl nil radical ofthe ideal J, 79
J(R) J-radical of the ring R, 172
kerf kernel ofthe homomorphisrnj, 28 INDEX
o',:.,
I(M) length ofthe module M, 252
lcrn(a,b) ; least common multiple ofthe elements a and b, 94
Mn(R) ring of n x n matrices oyer R, 3 '. ",'
rnap(X,R) , ring of mappings from X into R, 4
nat¡ natuflil mapping determined by the ideal J, 40 additive group of a ring, 1 comparable elements, 292 , ",
ordf(x)! :'< adeal, ' 38 component rings (in a direct sum), 204
orderbfthe power seriesf(x), 115
o ,",'f:.
the empty set; 3
adjunction (of an element to a field), 137 component projection, 206 ,,'
Euler phi-function, 57
algebraic element, 138 'coIi1mutati~~ diagram, 43
4J(n) extension fiele, 140 commutative ring, 2
4Jr substitution homomorphisrn induced by the element r, 120 number field, 155 complete dir~t sum, 204
P(X) power set ofthe set X, 3 algebraically c10sed field, ' 156 composition series, 251
Q field of rational numbers, 2 annihilator of a su bset, 36 , congruence moduló n, 4
Q(.jñ) ,quadratic number field, 105 Artinian ring, 223 congruen'ce cIass, 4
Qc¡(R) cIassical ring of quotients of R, 60 ascending chain condition, 217 representation of, 4
R# field of real numbers, 2 ' associated elements, 91 conjugate of an element, "105
R* set of in vertible elernents of R, 2 prime ideal of a primary ideal, '81 content of a polynomia1, 129
priÍne ideal in a N oetherian ring, 236 Correspondence Theorerti: 30
R V
heart ofthe,ring R, 212
atom in a Boolean ring, 200 coset of an ideal, 39
R[x] polynomial ring in one indeterminant ,oyer R, 118
au tomo rphism, 25
R[x,y] polynomial ring in two indeterminants over R, 134 axiom of choice, 297 degree, of an extension field, 140
R[[x]] power series ring in one indeterminant oyer R, 114 of a polynomial, 119
R/J quotient ring of R by the ideal J, 40 ' derivative functiQn, 153
Bezout identity, 93
rad R Jacobson radical of R, 157 descending chain condition, 223
binomial equation, 13
Rad R prime radical of R, 163 direct sum, complete, 204
Boolean ring, 14
Is Etl R¡ su bdirect sum of a set of rings R¡, 206 discrete, 205
IrJ;JR i complete direct sum of a set of rings R¡, 204 external, 33
cancellation law, 7 internal, 21
Z'Ze ring of integers (eyen integers), 2,9
center of a ring, 9 ofmodules, 259
Z+ set of positiye integers, 12
centralizer, of an element, 194 direct summand, 34
Zl ring of multiples ofthe identity element, 12 of a set of endomorphisms, 277 divides (divisor), 90
Z(i) domain of Gaussian integers, 91 chaiIl (in a partially ordered set), 292 clivision ring, 52
Zn ' ring of integers modulo n, 4 chain conditions, 217,223, finite, 194
Z(.jñ) a domain of quadratic integers, 106 characteristic of a ring, 11 divisor of zero, 7
+", *n
addition (multiplication) modulo n, 5 choice function, 297 domain, Euelidean, 102
is isomorphic to, 29 classical ring of quotients, 60 integral, 7
coefficien ts of a power series, 114 principal ideal, 20
comaximal ideals, 211 unique factorization, 100
305
 lNDEX 306 307 INDEX

element(s), fixed field, 69 semiprime, 80 prime ideal of a ring, 84

algebraic, 138 formal fraction, 61 minimum condition, 223
idempotent Hoolean ring, 200 polynomial, 139
associa te, 91 formal po.wer series, 112 element, 14
conjugate, 105 Frobenius automorphism, 202 modular ideal, 173
orthogonal, 268 module, 247
idempotent, 14 Fundamental Homorphism Theorem, 44 primitive, 270
identity, 2 Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, 128 annihilator of, 275
imbedding, 31 centralizer or, 272
; invertible, 2 induced partíal order, 292
Galois field, 191 direct sum, 259
irreducible, 97 irreducible element, 97
Gaussian integers, 91 dual, 286
nilpotent, 14 ideal, 235
gcd-property, 95 endomorphism or, 272
prime, 97 polynomial, 126
generators (of an ideal), 19 faithful, 275
quasi-regular, 170 irredundant primary representaion, 236
greatest COmInon divisor, 92 homomorphism of, 250
related to an ideal, 258 subdirect sum, 214
group ofinvertible elements (of a ring) , 2 indecomposable, 260
relatively prime, 93 isomorphism ofmodules, 250
group ring, 15 isomorpbism, 250
transcendental:, 138 of partiaUy ordered sets, 293
torsion, 259 H-ring, 203 quotient, 249
ofrings, 25 simple, 249
zero, 1 heart of a ring, 212
Eisenstein irreducibility criterion, 133 Hilbert ring, 178 J-radical, 172 submodule, 249
endomorpbism of a module, 272 homomorphism, 25 J-ring, , 196 torsíon-free, 259
ofa ring, 25 evaluation, 26 Jacobson radical, 157 monic polynomial, 119
evaluation homorphism, 26 kernel of, 28 multiplicatively closed set, 70
equivalence class, 288 ofmodules, 250 kernel of a homomorphism, 28 multiplicative sernigtoup of a ring,
relation, 287 of partially ordered sets, 293 last element, 294
Euler pbi-function, 57 of rings, 25 natural mapping, 41
Icm-property, 95
Euclidean domain, 102 reduction, 130 nil ideal, 47
leasi common multiple, 94
valuation, 102 substitution, 120 nilpotent element, 14
left annihilator, 36
extension, algebraic, 140 trivial, 26 ideal, 47
ideal, 16,
simple, 137 homomorphic image, ' 25 nil radical of an ideal, 79
leroma,
extension ring, 31 ; associated prime, 236 i ofa ring, 79
FittirÍ$'~, 256
comaximai, 211 nil-sernisimple ring, 264
Gauss" ,,130
faithful module, 275,,;,,'; commutator, 50 Noetherian ring, 219
Nakayama's, 243
field, 52 finitely generated, 19 nontrlviai subring, 8
Schur's, 274
subdir~t sum, 206
algebraically c10sedj ;, 156 ideal, 16 length of an,element, 109
extension, 136 " irreducible, 235 non-zero-divisor, 60
of a normal series, 252
Galois, 191 •, left (right), 16 norm, 105
of a module, 252
obtained by adjoining an element, 137 maxímal, 71 normal series, 251
lexicographic order, 296
of algebraic numbers; 155 mínimal, 86 lifting idempotents, 167
of complex numbers, 53 minimal prime, 84 order homomorphism, 293
local ring, 88
of quadratic numbers, 105 modular, 173 order isomorphic, 293
localization, 88
of ratioÍlal functions, 138 modular maximal, 174 order of a power series, 115
lower bound (for a partially ordered set),
skew, 52 nil, 47 Ore condition, 69
294
splitting, 148 nilpotent, 47 orthogonal idempotents, 268
finite division ring, 194 primary, 81 maximal element, 293
ideal, 71 partial order, 291
integral domain, 56 príme, 76
field, 187 product of, 22 maximum condition, 218 partition, 290
ring, 2 quotient, 23 , minimal element, 293 poiynomial, 118
finitely generated, 19 regular, 179 ideal, 86 content, 129
first element, 294 sum of, 20 prime ideal of an ideal, 84 cyclotomic, 133
 lNDEX 306 307 INDEX

element(s), fixed field, 69 semiprime, 80 prime ideal of a ring, 84

algebraic, 138 formal fraction, 61 minimum condition, 223
idempotent Hoolean ring, 200 polynomial, 139
associa te, 91 formal po.wer series, 112 element, 14
conjugate, 105 Frobenius automorphism, 202 modular ideal, 173
orthogonal, 268 module, 247
idempotent, 14 Fundamental Homorphism Theorem, 44 primitive, 270
identity, 2 Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, 128 annihilator of, 275
imbedding, 31 centralizer or, 272
; invertible, 2 induced partíal order, 292
Galois field, 191 direct sum, 259
irreducible, 97 irreducible element, 97
Gaussian integers, 91 dual, 286
nilpotent, 14 ideal, 235
gcd-property, 95 endomorphism or, 272
prime, 97 polynomial, 126
generators (of an ideal), 19 faithful, 275
quasi-regular, 170 irredundant primary representaion, 236
greatest COmInon divisor, 92 homomorphism of, 250
related to an ideal, 258 subdirect sum, 214
group ofinvertible elements (of a ring) , 2 indecomposable, 260
relatively prime, 93 isomorphism ofmodules, 250
group ring, 15 isomorpbism, 250
transcendental:, 138 of partiaUy ordered sets, 293
torsion, 259 H-ring, 203 quotient, 249
ofrings, 25 simple, 249
zero, 1 heart of a ring, 212
Eisenstein irreducibility criterion, 133 Hilbert ring, 178 J-radical, 172 submodule, 249
endomorpbism of a module, 272 homomorphism, 25 J-ring, , 196 torsíon-free, 259
ofa ring, 25 evaluation, 26 Jacobson radical, 157 monic polynomial, 119
evaluation homorphism, 26 kernel of, 28 multiplicatively closed set, 70
equivalence class, 288 ofmodules, 250 kernel of a homomorphism, 28 multiplicative sernigtoup of a ring,
relation, 287 of partially ordered sets, 293 last element, 294
Euler pbi-function, 57 of rings, 25 natural mapping, 41
Icm-property, 95
Euclidean domain, 102 reduction, 130 nil ideal, 47
leasi common multiple, 94
valuation, 102 substitution, 120 nilpotent element, 14
left annihilator, 36
extension, algebraic, 140 trivial, 26 ideal, 47
ideal, 16,
simple, 137 homomorphic image, ' 25 nil radical of an ideal, 79
leroma,
extension ring, 31 ; associated prime, 236 i ofa ring, 79
FittirÍ$'~, 256
comaximai, 211 nil-sernisimple ring, 264
Gauss" ,,130
faithful module, 275,,;,,'; commutator, 50 Noetherian ring, 219
Nakayama's, 243
field, 52 finitely generated, 19 nontrlviai subring, 8
Schur's, 274
subdir~t sum, 206
algebraically c10sedj ;, 156 ideal, 16 length of an,element, 109
extension, 136 " irreducible, 235 non-zero-divisor, 60
of a normal series, 252
Galois, 191 •, left (right), 16 norm, 105
of a module, 252
obtained by adjoining an element, 137 maxímal, 71 normal series, 251
lexicographic order, 296
of algebraic numbers; 155 mínimal, 86 lifting idempotents, 167
of complex numbers, 53 minimal prime, 84 order homomorphism, 293
local ring, 88
of quadratic numbers, 105 modular, 173 order isomorphic, 293
localization, 88
of ratioÍlal functions, 138 modular maximal, 174 order of a power series, 115
lower bound (for a partially ordered set),
skew, 52 nil, 47 Ore condition, 69
294
splitting, 148 nilpotent, 47 orthogonal idempotents, 268
finite division ring, 194 primary, 81 maximal element, 293
ideal, 71 partial order, 291
integral domain, 56 príme, 76
field, 187 product of, 22 maximum condition, 218 partition, 290
ring, 2 quotient, 23 , minimal element, 293 poiynomial, 118
finitely generated, 19 regular, 179 ideal, 86 content, 129
first element, 294 sum of, 20 prime ideal of an ideal, 84 cyclotomic, 133
~ I~
,I

INDEX 308 309 INDEX

q.egree of, 119 defined by a partition, 291 series, composition, 251 Hilbert Basis, 220
function, 153 equivalence, 287 _~quiva1ent, 252 Jordan-HOlder, 252
in two indetenninants, 134 partialorder, 291 normal, 251 Jacobson's. 198
irreducible, 126 refiexive, 287 length of, 252 Jacobson Density, 285
leading eoefficient, 119 symmetric, . 287 refinement of, 251 Kroneeker's, 144
minimum, 139 transitive, 287 simple extension field, 137 Krull Intersection, 244
monie, 119 relatively prime elements, 93 simple module, 249 .. 1 Krull-Zorn, 74
primitive, 129 . Remainder Theorem, 123 ring, 18 Levitski's, 222
root of, 121 refinemen t of a normal series, 251 skew field, 52 McCoy's, '212
primary component, 236 'ring, I splítting field, 148 Noether's, 236
ideal, 81 'Artinian, 223 square-free integer, 105 Stone Representatíon, 183
representation, 236 Boolean, 14 subdirectly irreducible, 211 Wilson's, 188
ring, 169 . commutative, 2 subdirect sum, 206 Wedderbum's, 194, 266, 230
prime element, 97 . 'divisible, 233 subfield, 59 yYedderbum-Artin, 281
field, 65 . division, 52 submodule, 249 Zermelo's, 297
ideal, 76 \:ti.nite, 2 subring, 8 ... ti total ordering, 292
radical, 163 H-, 203 generated by a set, 14 .~ torsion element, 259
primitive idempotent, 270 Hil bert, 178 proper, 8 torsión-free module, 259
ideal, 286 J-, 196 trivial, 8 transcendental element (over a field), 138
polynomial, 129 local, 88 substitution homomorphism, 120 trivial subring, 8
ring, 278 nil-semisimple, 264 in a polynomial, 120 ., homomorphism, 26
principal ideal, 19 Noetherian, 219 symmetric difference, 3
ideal ring, 20 of endomorphisms ofá module, 272 unique factorization domain, 100
proper su bring, 8 of extended power series over R, 152 Theorem, upper bound (for a partially ordered set),
pseudo-inverse, 25 of formal power series over R, 113 Akizuld-Hopldns, 255 294'
of functions between a set and ring, 4 Birkhoff's, 212
quadratie num ber field, 105 of integers modulo n, 5 Brauer's, 262 valuation ring, 88
quasi-inverse, 170 ofpolynomials over R, 118 Chinese Remainder, 211
quasi-regular, 170 of matriées over R, 3 Cohen's, 241 we1l-ordered set, 296
quatemions, 54 primary, 169 Dorroh Extension, 31 without radical, 157, 163
quotient ideal, 23 quotient, 40 Euler-FeIlflat, 58
fie1d of, 60 regular, 24 Euclid's, 101 zero divisor, 7
module, 249 right Artinian, 262 Fermat's little, 68 zero e1ement of a ring,
ring, 40 semisimple, 157 Hausdorff's, 299 zero ring, 13
simple, 18 Herstein's, 199 Zorn's lemma, 298
radical, J-, 172 subdirectIy irreducible, 211
J aeo bson, 157 with identity, 2
nil, 79 without radical, 157, 163
prime, 163 zero, 13
. rational function, 138 ring of quotients, classical, 60
reduction homomorphism, 130 generalized, 70
regular ring, 24 relative to a set, 70
relation (binary), 287 root of a polynomial, 121
antisymmetric, 291 multiple, 153
associated with a function, 288
compatible equivalence, 49 saturated, 178
ABCDE79876543210
congruence modulo n, 4 semisimple ring, 157
~ I~
,I

INDEX 308 309 INDEX

q.egree of, 119 defined by a partition, 291 series, composition, 251 Hilbert Basis, 220
function, 153 equivalence, 287 _~quiva1ent, 252 Jordan-HOlder, 252
in two indetenninants, 134 partialorder, 291 normal, 251 Jacobson's. 198
irreducible, 126 refiexive, 287 length of, 252 Jacobson Density, 285
leading eoefficient, 119 symmetric, . 287 refinement of, 251 Kroneeker's, 144
minimum, 139 transitive, 287 simple extension field, 137 Krull Intersection, 244
monie, 119 relatively prime elements, 93 simple module, 249 .. 1 Krull-Zorn, 74
primitive, 129 . Remainder Theorem, 123 ring, 18 Levitski's, 222
root of, 121 refinemen t of a normal series, 251 skew field, 52 McCoy's, '212
primary component, 236 'ring, I splítting field, 148 Noether's, 236
ideal, 81 'Artinian, 223 square-free integer, 105 Stone Representatíon, 183
representation, 236 Boolean, 14 subdirectly irreducible, 211 Wilson's, 188
ring, 169 . commutative, 2 subdirect sum, 206 Wedderbum's, 194, 266, 230
prime element, 97 . 'divisible, 233 subfield, 59 yYedderbum-Artin, 281
field, 65 . division, 52 submodule, 249 Zermelo's, 297
ideal, 76 \:ti.nite, 2 subring, 8 ... ti total ordering, 292
radical, 163 H-, 203 generated by a set, 14 .~ torsion element, 259
primitive idempotent, 270 Hil bert, 178 proper, 8 torsión-free module, 259
ideal, 286 J-, 196 trivial, 8 transcendental element (over a field), 138
polynomial, 129 local, 88 substitution homomorphism, 120 trivial subring, 8
ring, 278 nil-semisimple, 264 in a polynomial, 120 ., homomorphism, 26
principal ideal, 19 Noetherian, 219 symmetric difference, 3
ideal ring, 20 of endomorphisms ofá module, 272 unique factorization domain, 100
proper su bring, 8 of extended power series over R, 152 Theorem, upper bound (for a partially ordered set),
pseudo-inverse, 25 of formal power series over R, 113 Akizuld-Hopldns, 255 294'
of functions between a set and ring, 4 Birkhoff's, 212
quadratie num ber field, 105 of integers modulo n, 5 Brauer's, 262 valuation ring, 88
quasi-inverse, 170 ofpolynomials over R, 118 Chinese Remainder, 211
quasi-regular, 170 of matriées over R, 3 Cohen's, 241 we1l-ordered set, 296
quatemions, 54 primary, 169 Dorroh Extension, 31 without radical, 157, 163
quotient ideal, 23 quotient, 40 Euler-FeIlflat, 58
fie1d of, 60 regular, 24 Euclid's, 101 zero divisor, 7
module, 249 right Artinian, 262 Fermat's little, 68 zero e1ement of a ring,
ring, 40 semisimple, 157 Hausdorff's, 299 zero ring, 13
simple, 18 Herstein's, 199 Zorn's lemma, 298
radical, J-, 172 subdirectIy irreducible, 211
J aeo bson, 157 with identity, 2
nil, 79 without radical, 157, 163
prime, 163 zero, 13
. rational function, 138 ring of quotients, classical, 60
reduction homomorphism, 130 generalized, 70
regular ring, 24 relative to a set, 70
relation (binary), 287 root of a polynomial, 121
antisymmetric, 291 multiple, 153
associated with a function, 288
compatible equivalence, 49 saturated, 178
ABCDE79876543210
congruence modulo n, 4 semisimple ring, 157