DOCSLIB.ORG

A Primer of Commutative Algebra

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Primer of Commutative Algebra A Primer of Commutative Algebra James S. Milne May 30, 2009, v2.10 Abstract These notes prove the basic theorems in commutative algebra required for alge- braic geometry and algebraic groups. They assume only a knowledge of the algebra usually taught in advanced undergraduate or first-year graduate courses. Available at www.jmilne.org/math/. Contents 1 Rings and algebras . 2 2 Ideals . 3 3 Noetherian rings . 8 4 Unique factorization . 13 5 Integrality . 15 6 Rings of fractions . 19 7 Direct limits. 24 8 Tensor Products . 25 9 Flatness . 29 10 The Hilbert Nullstellensatz . 33 11 The max spectrum of a ring . 35 12 Dimension theory for finitely generated k-algebras . 43 13 Primary decompositions . 46 14 Artinian rings . 50 15 Dimension theory for noetherian rings . 51 16 Regular local rings . 55 17 Connections with geometry . 57 NOTATIONS AND CONVENTIONS Our convention is that rings have identity elements,1 and homomorphisms of rings respect the identity elements. A unit of a ring is an element admitting an inverse. The units of a 2 ring A form a group, which we denote A. Throughout “ring” means “commutative ring”. c 2009 J.S. Milne. Single paper copies for noncommercial personal use may be made without explicit permission from the copyright holder. 1An element e of a ring A is an identity element if ea a ae for all elements a of the ring. It is usually D D denoted 1A or just 1. Some authors call this a unit element, but then an element can be a unit without being a unit element. Worse, a unit need not be the unit. 2 This notation differs from that of Bourbaki, who writes A for the multiplicative monoid A r 0 and A f g for the group of units. We shall rarely need the former, and is overused. 1 1 RINGS AND ALGEBRAS 2 Following Bourbaki, we let N 0;1;2;::: . For a field k, kal denotes an algebraic closure D f g of k. X YX is a subset of Y (not necessarily proper). X def YX is defined to be Y , or equals Y by definition. D X YX is isomorphic to Y . X YX and Y are canonically isomorphic (or there is a given or unique isomorphism). ' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank the following for providing corrections and comments for earlier versions of these notes: Andrew McLennan, Shu Otsuka. 1 Rings and algebras Let A be a ring. A subring of A is a subset that contains 1A and is closed under addition, multiplication, and the formation of negatives. An A-algebra is a ring B together with a homomorphism iB A B.A homomorphism of A-algebras B C is a homomorphism W ! ! of rings ' B C such that '.iB .a// iC .a/ for all a A. W ! D 2 Elements x1;:::;xn of an A-algebra B are said to generate it if every element of B can be expressed as a polynomial in the xi with coefficients in iB .A/, i.e., if the homomorphism of A-algebras AŒX1;:::;Xn B acting as iB on A and sending Xi to xi is surjective. We ! then write B .iB A/Œx1;:::;xn. D A ring homomorphism A B is of finite type, and B is a finitely generated A-algebra, ! if B is generated by a finite set of elements as an A-algebra. A ring homomorphism A B is finite, and B is a finite3 A-algebra, if B is finitely ! generated as an A-module. If A B and B C are finite ring homomorphisms, then so ! ! also is their composite A C . ! Let k be a field, and let A be a k-algebra. When 1A 0, the map k A is injective, ¤ ! and we can identify k with its image, i.e., we can regard k as a subring of A. When 1A 0, D the ring A is the zero ring 0 . f g Let AŒX be the ring of polynomials in the symbol X with coefficients in A. If A is an integral domain, then deg.fg/ deg.f / deg.g/, and so AŒX is also an integral domain; D C moreover, AŒX A . D Let A be an algebra over a field k. If A is an integral domain and finite as a k-algebra, then it is a field because, for each nonzero a A, the k-linear map x ax A A is 2 7! W ! injective, and hence is surjective, which shows that a has an inverse. If A is an integral domain and each element of A is algebraic over k, then for each a A, kŒa is an integral 2 domain finite over k, and hence contains an inverse of a; again A is a field. PRODUCTS AND IDEMPOTENTS An element e of a ring A is idempotent if e2 e. For example, 0 and 1 are both idempo- D tents — they are called the trivial idempotents. Idempotents e1;:::;en are orthogonal if ei ej 0 ej ei for i j . Any sum of orthogonal idempotents is again idempotent. A set D D ¤ 3This is Bourbaki’s terminology. Finite homomorphisms of rings correspond to finite maps of varieties and schemes. Some other authors say “module-finite”. 2 IDEALS 3 e1;:::;en of orthogonal idempotents is complete if e1 en 1. Any set of orthogo- f g CC D nal idempotents e1;:::;en can be made into a complete set of orthogonal idempotents by f g adding the idempotent e 1 .e1 en/. D C C If A A1 An (direct product of rings), then the elements D i ei .0;:::;1;:::;0/; 1 i n; D Ä Ä form a complete set of orthogonal idempotents in A. Conversely, if e1;:::;en is a com- 4 f g plete set of orthogonal idempotents in A, then Aei becomes a ring with the addition and multiplication induced by that of A, and A Ae1 Aen. ' 2 Ideals Let A be a ring. An ideal a in A is a subset such that a is a subgroup of A regarded as a group under addition; ˘ a a, r A ra a: ˘ 2 2 ) 2 The ideal generated by a subset S of A is the intersection of all ideals a containing S — it is easy to verify that this is in fact an ideal, and that it consists of all finite sums of the P form ri si with ri A, si S. The ideal generated by the empty set is the zero ideal 0 . 2 2 f g When S s1;s2;::: , we write .s1;s2;:::/ for the ideal it generates. D f g An ideal is principal if it is generated by a single element. Such an ideal .a/ is proper if and only a is not a unit. Thus a ring A is a field if and only if 1A 0 and A contains no ¤ nonzero proper ideals. Let a and b be ideals in A. The set a b a a; b b is an ideal, denoted a b. f C j 2 2 g C The ideal generated by ab a a; b b is denoted by ab. Clearly ab consists of all finite P f j 2 2 g sums ai bi with ai a and bi b, and if a .a1;:::;am/ and b .b1;:::;bn/, then 2 2 D D ab .a1b1;:::;ai bj ;:::;ambn/. Note that ab aA a and ab Ab b, and so D D D ab a b: (1) \ The kernel of a homomorphism A B is an ideal in A. Conversely, for any ideal a in ! a ring A, the set of cosets of a in A forms a ring A=a, and a a a is a homomorphism 7! C ' A A=a whose kernel is a. There is a one-to-one correspondence W ! b '.b/ ideals of A containing a 7! ideals of A=a : (2) 1 f g '! .b/ b f g [ For any ideal b of A, ' 1'.b/ a b. D C The ideals of A B are all of the form a b with a and b ideals in A and B. To see this, note that if c is an ideal in A B and .a;b/ c, then .a;0/ .1;0/.a;b/ c and 2 D 2 .0;b/ .0;1/.a;b/ c. Therefore, c a b with D 2 D a a .a;0/ c ; b b .0;b/ c : D f j 2 g D f j 2 g An ideal p in A is prime if p A and ab p a p or b p. Thus p is prime if and ¤ 2 ) 2 2 only if the quotient ring A=p is nonzero and has the property that ab 0; b 0 a 0; D ¤ ) D 4 But Aei is not a subring of A if n 1 because its identity element is ei 1 : However, the map a ¤ ¤ A 7! aei A Aei realizes Aei as a quotient of A. W ! 2 IDEALS 4 i.e., A=p is an integral domain. Note that if p is prime and a1 an p, then either a1 p 2 2 or a2 an p; if the latter, then either a2 p or a3 an p; continuing in this fashion, 2 2 2 we find that at least one of the ai p. 2 An ideal m in A is maximal if it is a maximal element of the set of proper ideals in A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dimension Theory and Systems of Parameters
    Dimension theory and systems of parameters Krull's principal ideal theorem Our next objective is to study dimension theory in Noetherian rings. There was initially amazement that the results that follow hold in an arbitrary Noetherian ring. Theorem (Krull's principal ideal theorem). Let R be a Noetherian ring, x 2 R, and P a minimal prime of xR. Then the height of P ≤ 1. Before giving the proof, we want to state a consequence that appears much more general. The following result is also frequently referred to as Krull's principal ideal theorem, even though no principal ideals are present. But the heart of the proof is the case n = 1, which is the principal ideal theorem. This result is sometimes called Krull's height theorem. It follows by induction from the principal ideal theorem, although the induction is not quite straightforward, and the converse also needs a result on prime avoidance. Theorem (Krull's principal ideal theorem, strong version, alias Krull's height theorem). Let R be a Noetherian ring and P a minimal prime ideal of an ideal generated by n elements. Then the height of P is at most n. Conversely, if P has height n then it is a minimal prime of an ideal generated by n elements. That is, the height of a prime P is the same as the least number of generators of an ideal I ⊆ P of which P is a minimal prime. In particular, the height of every prime ideal P is at most the number of generators of P , and is therefore finite.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Power Series - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Formal power series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_power_series Formal power series From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In mathematics, formal power series are a generalization of polynomials as formal objects, where the number of terms is allowed to be infinite; this implies giving up the possibility to substitute arbitrary values for indeterminates. This perspective contrasts with that of power series, whose variables designate numerical values, and which series therefore only have a definite value if convergence can be established. Formal power series are often used merely to represent the whole collection of their coefficients. In combinatorics, they provide representations of numerical sequences and of multisets, and for instance allow giving concise expressions for recursively defined sequences regardless of whether the recursion can be explicitly solved; this is known as the method of generating functions. Contents 1 Introduction 2 The ring of formal power series 2.1 Definition of the formal power series ring 2.1.1 Ring structure 2.1.2 Topological structure 2.1.3 Alternative topologies 2.2 Universal property 3 Operations on formal power series 3.1 Multiplying series 3.2 Power series raised to powers 3.3 Inverting series 3.4 Dividing series 3.5 Extracting coefficients 3.6 Composition of series 3.6.1 Example 3.7 Composition inverse 3.8 Formal differentiation of series 4 Properties 4.1 Algebraic properties of the formal power series ring 4.2 Topological properties of the formal power series
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Operad Theory
    AN INTRODUCTION TO OPERAD THEORY SAIMA SAMCHUCK-SCHNARCH Abstract. We give an introduction to category theory and operad theory aimed at the undergraduate level. We first explore operads in the category of sets, and then generalize to other familiar categories. Finally, we develop tools to construct operads via generators and relations, and provide several examples of operads in various categories. Throughout, we highlight the ways in which operads can be seen to encode the properties of algebraic structures across different categories. Contents 1. Introduction1 2. Preliminary Definitions2 2.1. Algebraic Structures2 2.2. Category Theory4 3. Operads in the Category of Sets 12 3.1. Basic Definitions 13 3.2. Tree Diagram Visualizations 14 3.3. Morphisms and Algebras over Operads of Sets 17 4. General Operads 22 4.1. Basic Definitions 22 4.2. Morphisms and Algebras over General Operads 27 5. Operads via Generators and Relations 33 5.1. Quotient Operads and Free Operads 33 5.2. More Examples of Operads 38 5.3. Coloured Operads 43 References 44 1. Introduction Sets equipped with operations are ubiquitous in mathematics, and many familiar operati- ons share key properties. For instance, the addition of real numbers, composition of functions, and concatenation of strings are all associative operations with an identity element. In other words, all three are examples of monoids. Rather than working with particular examples of sets and operations directly, it is often more convenient to abstract out their common pro- perties and work with algebraic structures instead. For instance, one can prove that in any monoid, arbitrarily long products x1x2 ··· xn have an unambiguous value, and thus brackets 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 210B. Finite-Dimensional Commutative Algebras Over a Field Let a Be a Nonzero finite-Dimensional Commutative Algebra Over a field K
    Math 210B. Finite-dimensional commutative algebras over a field Let A be a nonzero finite-dimensional commutative algebra over a field k. Here is a general structure theorem for such A: Theorem 0.1. The set Max(A) of maximal ideals of A is finite, all primes of A are maximal and minimal, and the natural map Y A ! Am m is an isomorphism, with each Am having nilpotent maximal ideal. Qn In particular, if A is reduced then A ' i=1 ki for fields ki, with the maximal ideals given by the kernels of the projections A ! ki. The assertion in the reduced case follows from the rest since if A is reduced then so is each Am (and hence its nilpotent unique maximal ideal vanishes, implying Am must be a field). Note also that the nilpotence of the maximal ideal mAm implies that for some large n we have n n n Am = Am=m Am = (A=m )m = A=m (final equality since m is maximal in A), so the isomorphism in the Theorem can also be expressed Q n as saying A ' m A=m for large n. Most of the proof of this result is worked out in HW1 Exercise 7, and here we just address one point: the nilpotence of the maximal ideal of the local ring Am at each maximal ideal m of A. That is, we claim that the maximal ideal M := mAm is nilpotent. To establish such nilpotence, note that M is finitely generated as an Am-module since Am is noetherian (as A is obviously noetherian!).
    [Show full text]
  • Irreducible Representations of Finite Monoids
    U.U.D.M. Project Report 2019:11 Irreducible representations of finite monoids Christoffer Hindlycke Examensarbete i matematik, 30 hp Handledare: Volodymyr Mazorchuk Examinator: Denis Gaidashev Mars 2019 Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Irreducible representations of finite monoids Christoffer Hindlycke Contents Introduction 2 Theory 3 Finite monoids and their structure . .3 Introductory notions . .3 Cyclic semigroups . .6 Green’s relations . .7 von Neumann regularity . 10 The theory of an idempotent . 11 The five functors Inde, Coinde, Rese,Te and Ne ..................... 11 Idempotents and simple modules . 14 Irreducible representations of a finite monoid . 17 Monoid algebras . 17 Clifford-Munn-Ponizovski˘ıtheory . 20 Application 24 The symmetric inverse monoid . 24 Calculating the irreducible representations of I3 ........................ 25 Appendix: Prerequisite theory 37 Basic definitions . 37 Finite dimensional algebras . 41 Semisimple modules and algebras . 41 Indecomposable modules . 42 An introduction to idempotents . 42 1 Irreducible representations of finite monoids Christoffer Hindlycke Introduction This paper is a literature study of the 2016 book Representation Theory of Finite Monoids by Benjamin Steinberg [3]. As this book contains too much interesting material for a simple master thesis, we have narrowed our attention to chapters 1, 4 and 5. This thesis is divided into three main parts: Theory, Application and Appendix. Within the Theory chapter, we (as the name might suggest) develop the necessary theory to assist with finding irreducible representations of finite monoids. Finite monoids and their structure gives elementary definitions as regards to finite monoids, and expands on the basic theory of their structure. This part corresponds to chapter 1 in [3]. The theory of an idempotent develops just enough theory regarding idempotents to enable us to state a key result, from which the principal result later follows almost immediately.
    [Show full text]
  • CRITERIA for FLATNESS and INJECTIVITY 3 Ring of R
    CRITERIA FOR FLATNESS AND INJECTIVITY NEIL EPSTEIN AND YONGWEI YAO Abstract. Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring. We give criteria for flatness of R-modules in terms of associated primes and torsion-freeness of certain tensor products. This allows us to develop a criterion for regularity if R has characteristic p, or more generally if it has a locally contracting en- domorphism. Dualizing, we give criteria for injectivity of R-modules in terms of coassociated primes and (h-)divisibility of certain Hom-modules. Along the way, we develop tools to achieve such a dual result. These include a careful analysis of the notions of divisibility and h-divisibility (including a localization result), a theorem on coassociated primes across a Hom-module base change, and a local criterion for injectivity. 1. Introduction The most important classes of modules over a commutative Noetherian ring R, from a homological point of view, are the projective, flat, and injective modules. It is relatively easy to check whether a module is projective, via the well-known criterion that a module is projective if and only if it is locally free. However, flatness and injectivity are much harder to determine. R It is well-known that an R-module M is flat if and only if Tor1 (R/P,M)=0 for all prime ideals P . For special classes of modules, there are some criteria for flatness which are easier to check. For example, a finitely generated module is flat if and only if it is projective. More generally, there is the following Local Flatness Criterion, stated here in slightly simplified form (see [Mat86, Section 22] for a self-contained proof): Theorem 1.1 ([Gro61, 10.2.2]).
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Commutative Ring Theory Mathematics Undergraduate Seminar: Toric Varieties
    A REVIEW OF COMMUTATIVE RING THEORY MATHEMATICS UNDERGRADUATE SEMINAR: TORIC VARIETIES ADRIANO FERNANDES Contents 1. Basic Definitions and Examples 1 2. Ideals and Quotient Rings 3 3. Properties and Types of Ideals 5 4. C-algebras 7 References 7 1. Basic Definitions and Examples In this first section, I define a ring and give some relevant examples of rings we have encountered before (and might have not thought of as abstract algebraic structures.) I will not cover many of the intermediate structures arising between rings and fields (e.g. integral domains, unique factorization domains, etc.) The interested reader is referred to Dummit and Foote. Definition 1.1 (Rings). The algebraic structure “ring” R is a set with two binary opera- tions + and , respectively named addition and multiplication, satisfying · (R, +) is an abelian group (i.e. a group with commutative addition), • is associative (i.e. a, b, c R, (a b) c = a (b c)) , • and the distributive8 law holds2 (i.e.· a,· b, c ·R, (·a + b) c = a c + b c, a (b + c)= • a b + a c.) 8 2 · · · · · · Moreover, the ring is commutative if multiplication is commutative. The ring has an identity, conventionally denoted 1, if there exists an element 1 R s.t. a R, 1 a = a 1=a. 2 8 2 · ·From now on, all rings considered will be commutative rings (after all, this is a review of commutative ring theory...) Since we will be talking substantially about the complex field C, let us recall the definition of such structure. Definition 1.2 (Fields).
    [Show full text]
  • CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS Property, Then There Is a Unique Isomorphism (V ) (V ) Intertwining the Two Inclusions of V
    CHAPTER 2 Clifford algebras 1. Exterior algebras 1.1. Definition. For any vector space V over a field K, let T (V ) = k k k Z T (V ) be the tensor algebra, with T (V ) = V V the k-fold tensor∈ product. The quotient of T (V ) by the two-sided⊗···⊗ ideal (V ) generated byL all v w + w v is the exterior algebra, denoted (V ).I The product in (V ) is usually⊗ denoted⊗ α α , although we will frequently∧ omit the wedge ∧ 1 ∧ 2 sign and just write α1α2. Since (V ) is a graded ideal, the exterior algebra inherits a grading I (V )= k(V ) ∧ ∧ k Z M∈ where k(V ) is the image of T k(V ) under the quotient map. Clearly, 0(V )∧ = K and 1(V ) = V so that we can think of V as a subspace of ∧(V ). We may thus∧ think of (V ) as the associative algebra linearly gener- ated∧ by V , subject to the relations∧ vw + wv = 0. We will write φ = k if φ k(V ). The exterior algebra is commutative | | ∈∧ (in the graded sense). That is, for φ k1 (V ) and φ k2 (V ), 1 ∈∧ 2 ∈∧ [φ , φ ] := φ φ + ( 1)k1k2 φ φ = 0. 1 2 1 2 − 2 1 k If V has finite dimension, with basis e1,...,en, the space (V ) has basis ∧ e = e e I i1 · · · ik for all ordered subsets I = i1,...,ik of 1,...,n . (If k = 0, we put { } k { n } e = 1.) In particular, we see that dim (V )= k , and ∅ ∧ n n dim (V )= = 2n.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Localization
    52 Andreas Gathmann 6. Localization Localization is a very powerful technique in commutative algebra that often allows to reduce ques- tions on rings and modules to a union of smaller “local” problems. It can easily be motivated both from an algebraic and a geometric point of view, so let us start by explaining the idea behind it in these two settings. Remark 6.1 (Motivation for localization). (a) Algebraic motivation: Let R be a ring which is not a field, i. e. in which not all non-zero elements are units. The algebraic idea of localization is then to make more (or even all) non-zero elements invertible by introducing fractions, in the same way as one passes from the integers Z to the rational numbers Q. Let us have a more precise look at this particular example: in order to construct the rational numbers from the integers we start with R = Z, and let S = Znf0g be the subset of the elements of R that we would like to become invertible. On the set R×S we then consider the equivalence relation (a;s) ∼ (a0;s0) , as0 − a0s = 0 a and denote the equivalence class of a pair (a;s) by s . The set of these “fractions” is then obviously Q, and we can define addition and multiplication on it in the expected way by a a0 as0+a0s a a0 aa0 s + s0 := ss0 and s · s0 := ss0 . (b) Geometric motivation: Now let R = A(X) be the ring of polynomial functions on a variety X. In the same way as in (a) we can ask if it makes sense to consider fractions of such polynomials, i.
    [Show full text]
  • Elements of Minimal Prime Ideals in General Rings
    Elements of minimal prime ideals in general rings W.D. Burgess, A. Lashgari and A. Mojiri Dedicated to S.K. Jain on his seventieth birthday Abstract. Let R be any ring; a 2 R is called a weak zero-divisor if there are r; s 2 R with ras = 0 and rs 6= 0. It is shown that, in any ring R, the elements of a minimal prime ideal are weak zero-divisors. Examples show that a minimal prime ideal may have elements which are neither left nor right zero-divisors. However, every R has a minimal prime ideal consisting of left zero-divisors and one of right zero-divisors. The union of the minimal prime ideals is studied in 2-primal rings and the union of the minimal strongly prime ideals (in the sense of Rowen) in NI-rings. Mathematics Subject Classification (2000). Primary: 16D25; Secondary: 16N40, 16U99. Keywords. minimal prime ideal, zero-divisors, 2-primal ring, NI-ring. Introduction. E. Armendariz asked, during a conference lecture, if, in any ring, the elements of a minimal prime ideal were zero-divisors of some sort. In what follows this question will be answered in the positive with an appropriate interpretation of \zero-divisor". Two very basic statements about minimal prime ideals hold in a commutative ring R: (I) If P is a minimal prime ideal then the elements of P are zero-divisors, and (II) the union of the minimal prime ideals is M = fa 2 R j 9 r 2 R with ar 2 N∗(R) but r2 = N∗(R)g, where N∗(R) is the prime radical.
    [Show full text]
  • Ring (Mathematics) 1 Ring (Mathematics)
    Ring (mathematics) 1 Ring (mathematics) In mathematics, a ring is an algebraic structure consisting of a set together with two binary operations usually called addition and multiplication, where the set is an abelian group under addition (called the additive group of the ring) and a monoid under multiplication such that multiplication distributes over addition.a[›] In other words the ring axioms require that addition is commutative, addition and multiplication are associative, multiplication distributes over addition, each element in the set has an additive inverse, and there exists an additive identity. One of the most common examples of a ring is the set of integers endowed with its natural operations of addition and multiplication. Certain variations of the definition of a ring are sometimes employed, and these are outlined later in the article. Polynomials, represented here by curves, form a ring under addition The branch of mathematics that studies rings is known and multiplication. as ring theory. Ring theorists study properties common to both familiar mathematical structures such as integers and polynomials, and to the many less well-known mathematical structures that also satisfy the axioms of ring theory. The ubiquity of rings makes them a central organizing principle of contemporary mathematics.[1] Ring theory may be used to understand fundamental physical laws, such as those underlying special relativity and symmetry phenomena in molecular chemistry. The concept of a ring first arose from attempts to prove Fermat's last theorem, starting with Richard Dedekind in the 1880s. After contributions from other fields, mainly number theory, the ring notion was generalized and firmly established during the 1920s by Emmy Noether and Wolfgang Krull.[2] Modern ring theory—a very active mathematical discipline—studies rings in their own right.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Ring Theory
    A Brief History of Ring Theory by Kristen Pollock Abstract Algebra II, Math 442 Loyola College, Spring 2005 A Brief History of Ring Theory Kristen Pollock 2 1. Introduction In order to fully define and examine an abstract ring, this essay will follow a procedure that is unlike a typical algebra textbook. That is, rather than initially offering just definitions, relevant examples will first be supplied so that the origins of a ring and its components can be better understood. Of course, this is the path that history has taken so what better way to proceed? First, it is important to understand that the abstract ring concept emerged from not one, but two theories: commutative ring theory and noncommutative ring the- ory. These two theories originated in different problems, were developed by different people and flourished in different directions. Still, these theories have much in com- mon and together form the foundation of today's ring theory. Specifically, modern commutative ring theory has its roots in problems of algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry. On the other hand, noncommutative ring theory originated from an attempt to expand the complex numbers to a variety of hypercomplex number systems. 2. Noncommutative Rings We will begin with noncommutative ring theory and its main originating ex- ample: the quaternions. According to Israel Kleiner's article \The Genesis of the Abstract Ring Concept," [2]. these numbers, created by Hamilton in 1843, are of the form a + bi + cj + dk (a; b; c; d 2 R) where addition is through its components 2 2 2 and multiplication is subject to the relations i =pj = k = ijk = −1.
    [Show full text]