1
$\begingroup$

I am stuck on a question, how does one show that for any ring $R$ if for all $a \in R$ there exists $n(a)>1$ natural such that $a^{n(a)}=a$ then $R$ is semi-primitive?

I suppose one should show that this implies that each element is not quasi-regular and thus the Jacobson radical is 0, but I am at a total loss on how to achieve this.

  • 0
    Taking a non-semiprimitive ring $R$ and trivial function $n(a) = 1$ for all $a \in R$ yields a counterexample for your claim.2017-02-27

1 Answers 1

2

After thinking a bit about your original comment of proving only $0$ was quasiregular, I realize that leads to a very straightforward solution.

If $a$ is nonzero and right quasiregular, then $1-ar$ is a unit for every $r\in R$. But we always have that $a(1-ar)=0$ where $r=a^{n(a)-2}$. That prevents $1-ar$ from being a unit, and shows that the Jacobson radical is zero.


Original overkill:

Assuming you meant that $n(a) >1$ for all $a$, then it is obvious that the ring does not have any nonzero nilpotent elements. For, if $a$ were a nonzero nilpotent, then there is a power $a^i$, label it $b$, such that $b\neq 0$ and $b^2=0$. But since $n(b)\geq 2$, this says $b^{n(b)}=b=0$, a contradiction. Therefore the ring has no nonzero nilpotent elements (= a reduced ring.) The intersection of prime ideals is therefore the zero ideal.

Furthermore by a theorem of Jacobson, the ring is commutative.

Now let $P$ be a prime ideal. Then $R/P$ is a domain with the same property on its elements. In the quotient, whenever $0\neq a=a^{n(a)}$, we cancel a power of $a$ from both sides to get $1=aa^{n(a)-2}$ and see that $a$ is a unit. Therefore $R/P$ is a field, and $P$ is a maximal ideal.

Thus the intersection of maximal ideals is the zero ideal, and the ring is semiprimitive.

  • 0
    Hey sorry, I meant that for each a there exists n(a)>1, so your initial assumption is correct.2017-02-28
  • 0
    @edupppz Updated after thinking more about your original strategy.2017-02-28
  • 1
    The proof of Jacobson's theorem relies on the fact that such a ring is semiprimitive: the ring is a subdirect product of primitive rings having the property, and these are shown to be commutative. At least this is how it's done in Herstein's small book. Herstein starts off with your new argument, by the way.2017-02-28