24

In which kinds of rings $R$ does the following hold:

$$(a)\cdot (b) = (ab) \; ?$$

With $a, b\in R$, $(a)$ denoting the (two-sided) ideal generated by $a$ and the multiplication of ideals $I, J\subset R$ defined as $$ I\cdot J = \biggl\{\sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_i : n\in\mathbb{N}, x_i \in I, y_i \in J \biggr\}\, .$$

It seems to me that it only holds for commutative rings with $1$. Is that right?


Ok, I'm trying a proof:

Let $R$ be commutative with $1\in R$. Then $(a)\cdot (b) = (a b)$ for any $a, b\in R$.

First let $I_a := \{ra : r\in R\}$, we're going to show that $$(a) = I_a\, .$$ $I_a$ is obviously an ideal. Since $1 \in R$ we have $1 \cdot a \in I_a$, so $(a) \subset I_a$. On the other hand, any $x \in I_a$ can be written as $x = ra$ and so must be an element of $(a)$. This proves that $(a) = I_a$.

Then $$(a)\cdot (b) = I_a \cdot I_b = \biggl\{\sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_i : n\in\mathbb{N}, x_i \in I_a, y_i \in I_b \biggr\} = \biggl\{\sum_{i=1}^n (r_i a) (s_i b) : n\in\mathbb{N}, r_i, s_i \in R \biggr\} = \biggl\{a b \sum_{i=1}^n r_i s_i : n\in\mathbb{N}, r_i, s_i \in R \biggr\} = \biggl\{a b r : r \in R \biggr\} = I_{ab} = (ab)\, .$$

We obviously had to use that $R$ is commutative. In the last step we also used that every $r \in R$ can be written as $r=\sum_{i=1}^n r_i s_i$. This is because $1 \in R$, so with $n=1$ we have $r = 1\cdot r$.

Qyburn
  • 1,677
  • 2
    Where do you need the existence of $1$, exactly? –  May 05 '15 at 07:54
  • @G.Sassatelli: Give me a proof where I don't have to use that $1\in R$. – Qyburn May 05 '15 at 08:35
  • I shall do it right away in the answers. Or someone else will. –  May 05 '15 at 08:40
  • Well, it comes down to a notation war, after all. –  May 05 '15 at 09:43
  • @G.Sassatelli: Honestly, I don't care so much. If it also works in rings without unity, nice, but that's not important for me. All rings which I work with have a $1$. – Qyburn May 05 '15 at 10:01
  • In the end, I was almost certainly using the wrong way to extend ideal generation to rngs. I have a proof, but it works only with the definition of ideal generated by an element that one finds in this. But it's the only explicit source I found, and I do not trust it that much (for instance wikipedia.fr is not that explicit on that). –  May 05 '15 at 10:17
  • @Qyburn there is a definition of principal ideals in the case when $R$ is not unital. I think you could adapt your proof only slightly using this definition instead. –  Mar 18 '17 at 19:33

1 Answers1

11

Take $R:=M_2(\mathbb{R})$.

$$a=b:=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\0&0\end{pmatrix} $$

Then :

$$(ab)=(0)=\{0\} $$

However :

$$\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\0&0\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}0&1\\1&1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&0\end{pmatrix} \in (a),(b) $$

And :

$$\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&0\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&0\end{pmatrix}\neq 0$$

So $(a).(b)\neq(ab)$.

Here I used the fact that there are nilpotents of order $2$ in the non-commutative ring. I don't know if you can find an example for a non-commutative-ring with no nilpotent elements (seems harder to me...).

Now for $(a)(b)=(ab)$ in commutative rings.

I claim that this does not hold for commutative ring without unity. First a definition :

In a commutative ring $A$, for $a\in A$, I define $(a)$ to be the set $\{ba|b\in A\}$. It is an ideal of $A$. Note that this definition does not imply that $a\in (a)$ (it does if $A$ has a unity).

Take $A_0:=\mathbb{Z}[X,Y]$ and $A:=(X,Y)$ it is an ideal of $A$ and hence a ring (although it has not a unit, it is an additive group which is closed for the multiplication). From now on any ideal has to be taken as an ideal of the ring $A$ (and not $A_0$).

Then take $a:=X$ and $b:=Y$. I claim that $abX=X^2Y\in (ab)$ but :

$$X^2Y\notin (a)(b) $$

The proof is straightforward because any element of $(a)$ or $(b)$ is either null or has total degree $\geq 2$ hence a non null element of $(a)(b)$ has total degree $\geq 4$ but $X^2Y$ is of total degree $3$.

So I would conclude by saying that both commutativity and unity are essential to this result. However I am still trying to find a non-commutative ring in which $ab=0$ implies $a=0$ or $b=0$ with a unit for which the relation does not hold... Let's see if this works :

$$A:=\mathbb{C}<X,Y> $$

It is the ring of "polynomials" over $\mathbb{C}$ for which $XY\neq YX$ (it exists...). I claim that this is a ring with a unity (it contains $\mathbb{C}$) and furthermore if $ab=0$ then $a=0$ or $b=0$ for this ring. However if :

$$a:=X^2\text{and } b:=Y^2 $$

Then $X^2Y\in (a)$, $XY^2\in (b)$ but :

$$X^2YXY^2\notin (X^2Y^2) $$

So the relation does not hold for "non-commutative domain" even with unity.

  • So does $(a)\cdot (b) = (a b)$ hold for commutative rings with 1 in your opinion? – Qyburn May 05 '15 at 08:40
  • @Qyburn Your proof is good to me, I am wondering about the utility of the unity but I still cannot figure out a proof without it... If I do I edit my answer. – Clément Guérin May 05 '15 at 08:45
  • @Qyburn I think you are right about the unity see if the counter-example in my edited answer suits you... – Clément Guérin May 05 '15 at 08:55
  • 1
    Sorry, but... Isn't $X^2\in (X),\ Y\in(Y)$, whence $X^2Y\in(X)\cdot(Y)$ by definition? Or am I missing something? –  May 05 '15 at 09:23
  • @G.Sassatelli Good question but the point is that $Y\notin (Y)$ (see the general definition of an ideal generated by some elements) precisely because the ring has no unity. I recall that $(Y)$ means here $YA={Y\times a\text{ where } a\in A}$. – Clément Guérin May 05 '15 at 09:26
  • 1
    Sorry if I'm quoting English and French Wikipedia. They state that the ideal generated by a set $S$ is the smallest ideal containing it. I admitt I did not read books about rings without $1$, though. –  May 05 '15 at 09:37
  • 1
    @G.Sassatelli, I agree with you, our definitions are different and this is exactly why we disagree. However I stick with my definition of an ideal generated by an element which makes more sens (to me). I admit that Wikipedia states your definition. By the way, maybe this is a good question to ask on this site what is an ideal generated by something in general ? – Clément Guérin May 05 '15 at 09:49
  • I'm so sorry, I am probably wrong. It just came to my mind that in French the right name is "pseudo-anneau" and in English is "rng". –  May 05 '15 at 09:53