DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter Two Ring Theory 2-1 Definitions and Examples Definition 2.1.1 a Ring R Is a Set Together with Two Binary Operation An

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter Two Ring Theory 2-1 Definitions and Examples Definition 2.1.1 a Ring R Is a Set Together with Two Binary Operation An Chapter Two Ring Theory 2-1 Definitions and examples Definition 2.1.1 A ring R is a set together with two binary operation and (called addition and multiplication defined on R) if satisfying the following axioms: (1) is an abelian group, (2) For all implies (3) . is associative: (4) the distributive law hold in R: , and Example. , are ring. Definition 2.1.2. The ring is commutative if multiplication is commutative. Definition 2.1.3. The ring is said to be ring with identity if Example: are commutative ring with identity. Definition 2.1.4. Let be a ring with identity .we say that an element has an inverse a unit element if it has the multiplicative inverse ( i.e We denoted the set of all unit elements in by Theorem 2.1.5. Let be a ring with identity. Then is a group. Proof. Since , then is a non-empty set. Now we prove that the axioms of group are satisfies: 1- let that is each of has inverse multiplication. Hence and This implies that is invers of and . Hence the set is closed under multiplication. 2- associative law are holds because is ring. 3- is identity element. 4- If , then is group. Example.(1) In we see and is an abelian group. (2) Let be a non-empty set. If is a power set of , then show that Is a commutative ring with identity. (3) Let be the square matrix of . Show that a ring with identity. Definition 2.1.6. Let be a ring. For all and for all integer define and define If R with identity, then If R with identity and a has a multiplicative inverse, then Theorem 2.1.7. Let be a ring, for and arbitrary integers n the following hold: 1- 2- 3- Theorem 2.1.8. Let be a ring and be a zero element. The for all the following hold: 1- 2- 3- 4- Proof. 1- since Hence . By cancellation law we get the result. Similarly we can proof . 2-H.w 3-By (2) we get 4-H.w Corollary 2.1.9. Let be a ring with identity such that . Then the element and are distinct. Proof. Since , there exists some nonzero element Now if , It follow that , which is contradiction. Corollary 2.1.10. Let be a ring with identity such that . Then for all the following are hold: 1- and 2- Definition 2.1.11. Let be a ring and let be a non empty subset of . If is itself a ring, then is said to a subring of Remark. Every ring has two trivial subring; for, if 0 denote the zero element of the ring , then both and the ring itself are subrings of Definition 2.1.12. Let be a ring and . Then is a subring of if and only if 1- – ( closed under differences) 2- ( closed under multiplication) Examples. 1- is a subring of and 2- is a subring of . 3- Let R denote the set of all functions The sum and the product of two function are defined by Suppose is the commutative ring of function of above. Define Definition 2.1.13. The center of a ring denoted by , is the set . Remark. If is comuutaive, then Theorem 2.1.14. Let be a ring. Then is a subring of . Proof. Since , then , hence Let . To prove that For all , then Therefore and Therefore hence is a subring of . 2-2 Some type of rings. Definition 2.2.1. A ring is said to hane divisors of zero if there exist nonzero elements such that the product . Definition 2.2.2. An integral domain is a commutative ring with identity which does not have divisors of zero. Examples. are integral domain but is not integral domain. Theorem 2.2.3. Let be a commutative ring with identity. Then is an integral domain if and only if the cancellation law holds for multiplication. Proof. We suppose that R is an integral domain . Let such that and . Hence Conversely, suppose that the cancellation law holds and . If the element , then by Theorem 2.1.6 we have , hence , consequently . That is has no divisors of zero and commutative with identity, we get is an integral domain. Corollary 2.2.4. Let be an integral domain. Then the only solution of the equation are and . Proof. Clearly 0 is the solution of the equation Now , if , since and , hence by cancellation law we get Definition 2.2.5. A ring (R, +, .) is said to be a division ring if it is a ring with identity in which every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse. Definition 2.2.6. A field is a commutative ring with identity in which each nonzero element has an inverse under multiplication. Examples: 1- are field. 2- (Zn ,+n ,.n) is a field if and only if n is a prime number. 3- is an integral domain but not a field. Theorem2.2.7. Every field is an integral domain. Proof. Let ( be a field. Then R is a commutative ring with identity. Let . Since R is a field, then the element a has an inverse.. The hypothesis a.b =0 yields That is contains no divisors of zero. Hence is an integral domain. Theorem2.2.8. Any finite integral domain is a field. Proof. Let ( be an integral domain contains n distinct elements say . Let be any element of , consider the elements These products are all distinct because If but which is contradiction to are all distinct. Since , then for some and has multiplicative inverse and . That is is a field. Theorem 2.2.9. The ring of integers modulo n is a field if and only if n is a prime number. Proof. Suppose that is a field. To prove that is a prime number. If is not prime, then where It follows . Since This means that the system is not an integral domain and hence not a field. Conversely suppose that n is a prime number. To prove that (Zn ,+n , .n) is a field, enough to show that is an integral domain. Let and Hence has no divisors of zero, that is is an integral domain. Definition 2.2.10. Let be an arbitrary ring. If there exists a positive integer such that for all , then the least positive integer with this property is called the characteristic of the ring. If no such positive integer exists, then we say (R, +, .) has characteristic zero. Definition 2.2.11. : Let be a ring with identity. Then has characteristic if and only if is the least positive integer for which . Proof: If the ring is of characteristic , it follows that . Were , where then for every This mean The characteristic of is less than , which is contradiction. Conversely, Let be the least positive integer in which Let Then has characteristic . Corollary 2.2.12. The characteristic of an integral domain is either zero or a prime. Proof. Let be a positive characteristic n and assume that is not a prime Then n can be written as with . By Theorem 2.2.11 we have Since by hypothesis is without zero divisors, then either But this contradicts the choice of as the least positive integer such that Hence the characteristic of must be prime. Example. Show that the characteristic of the ring is equal two. Since is the zero element of the ring Now for all , then – – . From the definition of characteristic, then the characteristic of is 2. 2-3 Ideals and Quotient rings. Definition 2.3.1. A subring of the ring is an ideal of if and only if and imply both and Definition 2.3.2. Let be a ring and a non-empty subset of . Then is an ideal of if and only if (1) imply , (2) imply both Remark. In a commutative ring , every right ideal is left ideal. Examples. 1) The subring is an ideal of 2) The trivial subrings of the ring ( are both ideals. Any ideal different from is called proper ideal. 3) In the ring for a fixed integer . Then is an ideal of because where 4) is not ideal of but is a subring of Since and , then . Then is not ideal of 5) Let be the square matrix ring over the field of real number. Then is not an ideal. Definition 2.3.3. A ring which contains no ideals except trivial ideals is said to be a simple ring. Definition 2.3.4. Let be a commutative ring with identity. An ideal is called a principal ideal of the ring if generated by a single element and denoted by . Example. In the ring ( the ideal is a principal ideal generated by 2 and is a principal ideal generated by 3. Theorem 2.3.5. If is an ideal of the ring then for some nonnegative integer . Proof. If then the theorem is true. Suppose then that that is there exists Since I is an ideal, then – so contains positive integers. Let be the least positive integer in . We claim Since and is an ideal of then , for all , that is On the other hand, any integer . By division Algorithm there exists such that , where . Since are members of , it follows that . Our be a least integer implies , and consequently Therefore . Definition 2.3.6. Let be a commutative ring with identity. A ring is called a principal ideal ring if every ideal is principal. Theorem 2.3.7. Let be a ring with identity element and be an ideal of containing identity element .Then .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exercises and Solutions in Groups Rings and Fields
    EXERCISES AND SOLUTIONS IN GROUPS RINGS AND FIELDS Mahmut Kuzucuo˘glu Middle East Technical University [email protected] Ankara, TURKEY April 18, 2012 ii iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS 0. PREFACE . v 1. SETS, INTEGERS, FUNCTIONS . 1 2. GROUPS . 4 3. RINGS . .55 4. FIELDS . 77 5. INDEX . 100 iv v Preface These notes are prepared in 1991 when we gave the abstract al- gebra course. Our intention was to help the students by giving them some exercises and get them familiar with some solutions. Some of the solutions here are very short and in the form of a hint. I would like to thank B¨ulent B¨uy¨ukbozkırlı for his help during the preparation of these notes. I would like to thank also Prof. Ismail_ S¸. G¨ulo˘glufor checking some of the solutions. Of course the remaining errors belongs to me. If you find any errors, I should be grateful to hear from you. Finally I would like to thank Aynur Bora and G¨uldaneG¨um¨u¸sfor their typing the manuscript in LATEX. Mahmut Kuzucuo˘glu I would like to thank our graduate students Tu˘gbaAslan, B¨u¸sra C¸ınar, Fuat Erdem and Irfan_ Kadık¨oyl¨ufor reading the old version and pointing out some misprints. With their encouragement I have made the changes in the shape, namely I put the answers right after the questions. 20, December 2011 vi M. Kuzucuo˘glu 1. SETS, INTEGERS, FUNCTIONS 1.1. If A is a finite set having n elements, prove that A has exactly 2n distinct subsets.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quotient Field of an Intersection of Integral Domains
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector JOURNAL OF ALGEBRA 70, 238-249 (1981) The Quotient Field of an Intersection of Integral Domains ROBERT GILMER* Department of Mathematics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306 AND WILLIAM HEINZER' Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 Communicated by J. DieudonnP Received August 10, 1980 INTRODUCTION If K is a field and 9 = {DA} is a family of integral domains with quotient field K, then it is known that the family 9 may possess the following “bad” properties with respect to intersection: (1) There may exist a finite subset {Di}rzl of 9 such that nl= I Di does not have quotient field K; (2) for some D, in 9 and some subfield E of K, the quotient field of D, n E may not be E. In this paper we examine more closely conditions under which (1) or (2) occurs. In Section 1, we work in the following setting: we fix a subfield F of K and an integral domain J with quotient field F, and consider the family 9 of K-overrings’ of J with quotient field K. We then ask for conditions under which 9 is closed under intersection, or finite intersection, or under which D n E has quotient field E for each D in 9 and each subfield E of K * The first author received support from NSF Grant MCS 7903123 during the writing of this paper. ‘The second author received partial support from NSF Grant MCS 7800798 during the writing of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Factorization Theory in Commutative Monoids 11
    FACTORIZATION THEORY IN COMMUTATIVE MONOIDS ALFRED GEROLDINGER AND QINGHAI ZHONG Abstract. This is a survey on factorization theory. We discuss finitely generated monoids (including affine monoids), primary monoids (including numerical monoids), power sets with set addition, Krull monoids and their various generalizations, and the multiplicative monoids of domains (including Krull domains, rings of integer-valued polynomials, orders in algebraic number fields) and of their ideals. We offer examples for all these classes of monoids and discuss their main arithmetical finiteness properties. These describe the structure of their sets of lengths, of the unions of sets of lengths, and their catenary degrees. We also provide examples where these finiteness properties do not hold. 1. Introduction Factorization theory emerged from algebraic number theory. The ring of integers of an algebraic number field is factorial if and only if it has class number one, and the class group was always considered as a measure for the non-uniqueness of factorizations. Factorization theory has turned this idea into concrete results. In 1960 Carlitz proved (and this is a starting point of the area) that the ring of integers is half-factorial (i.e., all sets of lengths are singletons) if and only if the class number is at most two. In the 1960s Narkiewicz started a systematic study of counting functions associated with arithmetical properties in rings of integers. Starting in the late 1980s, theoretical properties of factorizations were studied in commutative semigroups and in commutative integral domains, with a focus on Noetherian and Krull domains (see [40, 45, 62]; [3] is the first in a series of papers by Anderson, Anderson, Zafrullah, and [1] is a conference volume from the 1990s).
    [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]
  • Notes on Ring Theory
    Notes on Ring Theory by Avinash Sathaye, Professor of Mathematics February 1, 2007 Contents 1 1 Ring axioms and definitions. Definition: Ring We define a ring to be a non empty set R together with two binary operations f,g : R × R ⇒ R such that: 1. R is an abelian group under the operation f. 2. The operation g is associative, i.e. g(g(x, y),z)=g(x, g(y,z)) for all x, y, z ∈ R. 3. The operation g is distributive over f. This means: g(f(x, y),z)=f(g(x, z),g(y,z)) and g(x, f(y,z)) = f(g(x, y),g(x, z)) for all x, y, z ∈ R. Further we define the following natural concepts. 1. Definition: Commutative ring. If the operation g is also commu- tative, then we say that R is a commutative ring. 2. Definition: Ring with identity. If the operation g has a two sided identity then we call it the identity of the ring. If it exists, the ring is said to have an identity. 3. The zero ring. A trivial example of a ring consists of a single element x with both operations trivial. Such a ring leads to pathologies in many of the concepts discussed below and it is prudent to assume that our ring is not such a singleton ring. It is called the “zero ring”, since the unique element is denoted by 0 as per convention below. Warning: We shall always assume that our ring under discussion is not a zero ring.
    [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]
  • Invertible Ideals and Gaussian Semirings
    ARCHIVUM MATHEMATICUM (BRNO) Tomus 53 (2017), 179–192 INVERTIBLE IDEALS AND GAUSSIAN SEMIRINGS Shaban Ghalandarzadeh, Peyman Nasehpour, and Rafieh Razavi Abstract. In the first section, we introduce the notions of fractional and invertible ideals of semirings and characterize invertible ideals of a semidomain. In section two, we define Prüfer semirings and characterize them in terms of valuation semirings. In this section, we also characterize Prüfer semirings in terms of some identities over its ideals such as (I + J)(I ∩J) = IJ for all ideals I, J of S. In the third section, we give a semiring version for the Gilmer-Tsang Theorem, which states that for a suitable family of semirings, the concepts of Prüfer and Gaussian semirings are equivalent. At last, we end this paper by giving a plenty of examples for proper Gaussian and Prüfer semirings. 0. Introduction Vandiver introduced the term “semi-ring” and its structure in 1934 [27], though the early examples of semirings had appeared in the works of Dedekind in 1894, when he had been working on the algebra of the ideals of commutative rings [5]. Despite the great efforts of some mathematicians on semiring theory in 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s, they were apparently not successful to draw the attention of mathematical society to consider the semiring theory as a serious line of ma- thematical research. Actually, it was in the late 1960s that semiring theory was considered a more important topic for research when real applications were found for semirings. Eilenberg and a couple of other mathematicians started developing formal languages and automata theory systematically [6], which have strong connec- tions to semirings.
    [Show full text]
  • RING THEORY 1. Ring Theory a Ring Is a Set a with Two Binary Operations
    CHAPTER IV RING THEORY 1. Ring Theory A ring is a set A with two binary operations satisfying the rules given below. Usually one binary operation is denoted `+' and called \addition," and the other is denoted by juxtaposition and is called \multiplication." The rules required of these operations are: 1) A is an abelian group under the operation + (identity denoted 0 and inverse of x denoted x); 2) A is a monoid under the operation of multiplication (i.e., multiplication is associative and there− is a two-sided identity usually denoted 1); 3) the distributive laws (x + y)z = xy + xz x(y + z)=xy + xz hold for all x, y,andz A. Sometimes one does∈ not require that a ring have a multiplicative identity. The word ring may also be used for a system satisfying just conditions (1) and (3) (i.e., where the associative law for multiplication may fail and for which there is no multiplicative identity.) Lie rings are examples of non-associative rings without identities. Almost all interesting associative rings do have identities. If 1 = 0, then the ring consists of one element 0; otherwise 1 = 0. In many theorems, it is necessary to specify that rings under consideration are not trivial, i.e. that 1 6= 0, but often that hypothesis will not be stated explicitly. 6 If the multiplicative operation is commutative, we call the ring commutative. Commutative Algebra is the study of commutative rings and related structures. It is closely related to algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry. If A is a ring, an element x A is called a unit if it has a two-sided inverse y, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV (§18-24) Rings and Fields
    Part IV (§18-24) Rings and Fields Satya Mandal University of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045 USA January 22 18 Rings and Fields Groups dealt with only one binary operation. You are used to working with two binary operation, in the usual objects you work with: Z, R. Now we will study with such objects, with two binary operations: additions and multiplication. 18.1 Defintions and Basic Properties Definition 18.1. A Ring hR, +, ·i is a set with two binary operations +, ·, which we call addition and multiplication, defined on R such that 1. hR, +, ·i is an abelian group. The additive identiy is denoted by zero 0. 2. Multiplication is associative. 3. The distributive property is satiesfied as follows: ∀ a,b,c ∈ R a(b + c)= ab + ac and (b + c)a = ba + ca. 1 Further, A ring hR, +, ·i is called a commutative ring, if the multipli- cation is commutative. That means, if ∀ a,b ∈ R ab = ba. Definition 18.2. Let hR, +, ·i be a ring. If R has a multiplicative identity, then we has hR, +, ·i is a ring with unity. The multiplicative unit is denoted by 1. Recall, it means ∀ x ∈ R 1 · x = x · 1= x. Barring some exceptions (if any), we consider rings with unity only. Lemma 18.3. Suppose hR, +, ·i is a ring with unity. Suppse 0=1. then R = {0}. Proof. Suppose x ∈ R. Then, x = x · 1= x · 0= x · (0+0) = x · 0+ x · 0= x · 1+ x · 1= x + x. So, x + x = x and hence x = 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Studying Monoids Is Not Enough to Study Multiplicative Properties of Rings: an Elementary Approach
    Arab. J. Math. (2015) 4:29–34 DOI 10.1007/s40065-014-0118-1 Arabian Journal of Mathematics Marco Fontana · Muhammad Zafrullah Studying monoids is not enough to study multiplicative properties of rings: an elementary approach Received: 15 April 2014 / Accepted: 27 August 2014 / Published online: 25 September 2014 © The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The aim of these notes is to indicate, using very simple examples, that not all results in ring theory can be derived from monoids and that there are results that deeply depend on the interplay between “+”and “·”. Mathematics Subject Classification 20M14 · 20M12 · 20M25 · 13A15 · 13G05 In a commutative unitary ring (R, +, ·), with 0 = 1, there are two binary operations, denoted by “+”, addition, and by “·”, multiplication, at work. So, in particular, we can consider R as an algebraic system closed under one of the binary operations, that is (R, +) or (R, ·). In both cases, R is at least a monoid. This state of affairs could lead one to think that perhaps it is sufficient to study monoids to get a handle on ring theory. The aim of these notes is to indicate, using elementary and easily accessible results available in literature, that not all results in ring theory can be derived separately from semigroups or monoids and that there are results that deeply depend on the interplay between “+”and“·”. Following the custom, we choose to use the simplest examples that can be developed with a minimum of jargon to establish our thesis. We shall restrict our attention to integral domains and to results of multiplicative nature, as that is our area of interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Notes
    270 Chapter 5 Rings, Integral Domains, and Fields 270 Chapter 5 Rings, Integral Domains, and Fields 5.2 Integral5.2 DomainsIntegral Domains and Fields and Fields In the precedingIn thesection preceding we definedsection we the defined terms the ring terms with ring unity, with unity, commutative commutative ring, ring,andandzerozero 270 Chapter 5 Rings, Integral Domains, and Fields 5.2divisors. IntegralAll Domains threedivisors. of and theseAll Fields three terms ! of these are usedterms inare defining used in defining an integral an integral domain. domain. Week 13 Definition 5.14DefinitionI Integral 5.14 IDomainIntegral Domain 5.2 LetIntegralD be a ring. Domains Then D is an andintegral Fields domain provided these conditions hold: Let D be a ring. Then D is an integral domain provided these conditions hold: In1. theD ispreceding a commutative section ring. we defined the terms ring with unity, commutative ring, and zero 1. D is a commutativedivisors.2. D hasAll a ring. unity three eof, and thesee 2terms0. are used in defining an integral domain. 2. D has a unity3. De,has and noe zero2 0 divisors.. Definition 5.14 I Integral Domain 3. D has no zero divisors. Note that the requirement e 2 0 means that an integral domain must have at least two Let D be a ring. Then D is an integral domain provided these conditions hold: Remark. elements. Note that the1. requirementD is a commutative e 2 0ring. means that an integral domain must have at least two elements. Example2. D has a1 unityThe e, ring andZe of2 all0. integers is an integral domain, but the ring E of all even in- tegers3.
    [Show full text]