Is a commutative ring a field? A set equipped with addition and multiplication which is abelian over those two operations and it holds distributivity of multiplication over addition?
[Math] ny difference between the definition of a commutative ring and field
abstract-algebraring-theory
Related Solutions
A ring is an ordered triple, $(R,+,\times)$, where $R$ is a set, $+\colon R\times R\to R$ and $\times\colon R\times R\to R$ are binary operations (usually written in in-fix notation) such that:
- $+$ is associative.
- There exists $0\in R$ such that $0+a=a+0=a$ for all $a\in R$.
- For every $a\in R$ there exists $b\in R$ such that $a+b=b+a=0$.
- $+$ is commutative.
- $\times$ is associative.
- $\times$ distributes over $+$ on the left: for all $a,b,c\in R$, $a\times(b+c) = (a\times b)+(a\times c)$.
- $\times$ distributes over $+$ on the right: for all $a,b,c\in R$, $(b+c)\times a = (b\times a)+(c\times a)$.
1-4 tell us that $(R,+)$ is an abelian group. 5 tells us that $(R,\times)$ is a semigroup. 6 and 7 are the two distributive laws that you mention.
We also have the following items:
a. There exists $1\in R$ such that $1\times a = a\times 1 = a$ for all $a\in R$.
b. $1\neq 0$.
c. For every $a\in R$, $a\neq 0$, there exists $b\in R$ such that $a\times b = b\times a = 1$.
d. $\times$ is commutative.
A ring that satisfies (1)-(7)+(a) is said to be a "ring with unity." Clearly, every ring with unity is also a ring; it takes "more" to be a ring with unity than to be a ring.
A ring that satisfies (1)-(7)+(a,b,c) is said to be a division ring. Again, eveyr division ring is a ring, and it takes "more" to be a division ring than to be a ring. (5)+(a)+(b)+(c) tell us that $(R-\{0\},\times)$ is a group (note that we need to remove $0$ because (c) specifies nonzero, and we need (b) to ensure we are left with something).
A ring that satisfies (1)-(7)+(a,b,c,d) is a field. Again, every field is a ring.
We do indeed have that $(R,+)$ is an abelian group, that $(R-\{0\},\times)$ is an abelian group, and that these structures "mesh together" via (6) and (7). In a ring, we have that $(R,+)$ is an abelian group, that $(R,\times)$ is a semigroup (or better yet, a semigroup with $0$), and that the two structures "mesh well".
We have that every field is a division ring, but there are division rings that are not fields (e.g., the quaternions); every division ring is a ring with unity, but there are rings with unity that are not division rings (e.g., the integers if you want commutativity, the $n\times n$ matrices with coefficients in, say, $\mathbb{R}$, $n\gt 1$, if you want noncommutativity); every ring with unity is a ring, but there are rings that are not rings with unity (strictly upper triangular $3\times 3$ matrices with coefficients in $\mathbb{R}$, for instance). So $$\text{Fields}\subsetneq \text{Division rings}\subsetneq \text{Rings with unity} \subsetneq \text{Rings}$$ and $$\text{Fields}\subsetneq \text{Commutative rings with unity}\subsetneq \text{Commutative rings}\subsetneq \text{Rings}.$$
The fraction ring (localization) $\rm\,S^{-1} R\,$ is, conceptually, the universal way of adjoining inverses of $\rm\,S\,$ to $\rm\,R.\,$ The simplest way to construct it is $\rm\,S^{-1} R = R[x_i]/(s_i x_i - 1).\,$ This allows one to exploit the universal properties of quotient rings and polynomial rings to quickly construct and derive the basic properties of localizations (avoiding the many tedious verifications always "left for the reader" in the more commonly presented pair approach). For details of this folklore see e.g. the exposition in section 11.1 of Rotman's Advanced Modern Algebra, or Voloch, Rings of fractions the hard way.
Likely Voloch's title is a joke - since said presentation-based method is by far the easiest approach. In fact both Rotman's and Voloch's expositions can be simplified. Namely, the only nonobvious step in this approach is computing the kernel of $\rm\, R\to S^{-1} R,\,$ for which there is a nice trick:
$\quad \begin{eqnarray}\rm n = deg\, f\quad and\quad r &=&\rm (1\!-\!sx)\,f(x) &\Rightarrow&\ \rm f(0) = r\qquad\,\ \ \ via\ \ coef\ x^0 \\ \rm\Rightarrow\ (1\!+\!sx\!+\dots+\!(sx)^n)\, r &=&\rm (1\!-\!(sx)^{n+1})\, f(x) &\Rightarrow&\ \rm f(0)\,s^{n+1}\! = 0\quad via\ \ coef\ x^{n+1} \\ & & &\Rightarrow&\ \rm\quad r\ s^{n+1} = 0 \end{eqnarray}$
Therefore, if $\rm\,s\,$ is not a zero-divisor, then $\rm\,r = 0,\,$ so $\rm\, R\to S^{-1} R\,$ is an injection.
For cultural background, for an outstanding introduction to universal ideas see George Bergman's An Invitation to General Algebra and Universal Constructions.
You might also find illuminating Paul Cohn's historical article Localization in general rings, a historical survey - as well as other papers in that volume: Ranicki, A.(ed). Noncommutative localization in algebra and topology. ICMS 2002.
Best Answer
A key difference between an ordinary commutative ring and a field is that in a field, all non-zero elements must be invertible. For example:
$\Bbb{Z}$ is a commutative ring but $2$ is not invertible in there so it can't be a field, whereas $\Bbb{Q}$ is a field and every non-zero element has an inverse.
Examples of commutative rings that are not fields:
The ring of polynomials in one indeterminate over $\Bbb{Q}, \Bbb{R}$, $\Bbb{C}$, $\Bbb{F}_{11}$, $\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{3})$ or $\Bbb{Z}$.
The quotient ring $\Bbb{Z}/6\Bbb{Z}$
$\Bbb{Z}[\zeta_n]$ - elements in here are linear combinations of powers of $\zeta_n$ with coefficients in $\Bbb{Z}$ (In fact this is also a finitely generated $\Bbb{Z}$ - module)
The direct sum of rings $\Bbb{R} \oplus \Bbb{R}$ that also has the additional structure of being a 2-dimensional $\Bbb{R}$ - algebra.
Let $X$ be a compact Hausdorff space with more than one point. Then $C(X)$ is an example of a commutative ring, the ring of all real valued functions on $X$.
The localisation of $\Bbb{Z}$ at the prime ideal $(5)$. The result ring, $\Bbb{Z}_{(5)}$ is the set of all $$\left\{\frac{a}{b} : \text{$b$ is not a multiple of 5} \right\}$$ and is a local ring, i.e. a ring with only one maximal ideal.
I believe when $G$ is a cyclic group, the endomorphism ring $\textrm{End}(G)$ is an example of a commutative ring.
Examples of Fields:
$\Bbb{F}_{2^5}$
$\Bbb{Q}(\zeta_n)$
$\Bbb{R}$
$\Bbb{C}$
The fraction field of an integral domain
More generally given an algebraic extension $E/F$, for any $\alpha \in E$ we have $F(\alpha)$ being a field.
The algebraic closure $\overline{\Bbb{Q}}$ of $\Bbb{Q}$ in $\Bbb{C}$.