2
$\begingroup$

If $R$ is a unital integral ring, then its characteristic is either $0$ or prime. If $R$ is a ring without unit, then the char of $R$ is defined to be the smallest positive integer $p$ s.t. $ pa = 0 $ for some nonzero element $a \in R$. I am not sure how to prove that the characteristic of an integral domain without a unit is still either $0$ or a prime $p$. I know that if $p$ is the char of $R$, then $px = 0 $ for all $x \in R$. If we assume $ p \neq 0 $ and $R$ has nonzero char, and $p$ factors into $nm$, then $ (nm) a = 0 $ , which means $ n (ma) = 0 $. Well $ma \neq 0$, because this would contradict the minimality of $p$ on $a$. But I don't know where to go from this point w/o invoking a unit.

Edit: I had left out the assumption that $R$ is assumed to be a integral domain. This has been corrected.

  • 0
    It is *false* that the characteristic of$a$unital ring is either $0$ or a prime. $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ has a natural structure of a unital ring for any $n\gt 1$, and its characteristic is $n$, which of course need not be a prime. The characteristic of an **integral domain** is either $0$ or a prime. Your definition of "characeristic" for nonunital rings is also, in my opinion, rather off; it should be "for all $a$", not "for some a"...2012-02-21

2 Answers 2

2

Suppose $p$ is the characteristic of $R$ and not prime, so that $p=mn$ for some positive integers $m$,~n>1. In particular, $p>n$ and $p>m$. According to the definition you are using, $p$ is the least positive number such that there exists a non-zero $a\in R$ with $pa=0$: it follows that $na\neq0$, and then that moreover $m(na)\neq0$. This is absurd, of course, because $m(na)=(mn)a=pa$ because the addition in $R$ is associative.

  • 0
    BTW, that $R$ be an integral domain has nothing to add to this. Your definition of characteristic, though, is a bit strange...2012-02-21
0

You don't need to invoke units. As your proof stated, if we assume $(nm)a = 0$ for some $a \in R$ non-zero, then $n(ma) = 0$, and since $nm$ is the least integer with the property that $m(na) = 0 = n(ma)$, then $na \neq 0 \neq ma$. Since $ 0 = 0a = ((nm)a)a = (nm)a^2 = (na)(ma) \neq 0, $ we have a contradiction (the last part is because $na \neq 0 \neq ma$ and $R$ is an integral domain).

Hope that helps,

  • 0
    When I first saw the question that's what was written there... I edited my proof to suit this definition. My comment still applies.2012-02-20