The number of divisors of $0$ in a finite ring

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite













Let $(A,+,•)$ be a ring with unity, which is not a division ring, and $|A|=25.$ Let $a$ be the number of divisors of $0$ in this ring. Then
a) $a=1;$
b) $a=2;$
c) $a=3;$
d) $a geq 4.$




I guess that the answer is d), since this would be the case if we let $A=mathbbZ/25 mathbbZ.$ However, I couldn't prove it for general $A.$



I know that a finite ring with $0 neq 1$ which doesn't have divisors of $0$ is a division ring. Hence, our $A$ must have divisors of 0. I tried to use the characteristic and I got that it can only be $5$ or $25,$ but this is where I got stuck.










share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite













    Let $(A,+,•)$ be a ring with unity, which is not a division ring, and $|A|=25.$ Let $a$ be the number of divisors of $0$ in this ring. Then
    a) $a=1;$
    b) $a=2;$
    c) $a=3;$
    d) $a geq 4.$




    I guess that the answer is d), since this would be the case if we let $A=mathbbZ/25 mathbbZ.$ However, I couldn't prove it for general $A.$



    I know that a finite ring with $0 neq 1$ which doesn't have divisors of $0$ is a division ring. Hence, our $A$ must have divisors of 0. I tried to use the characteristic and I got that it can only be $5$ or $25,$ but this is where I got stuck.










    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite












      Let $(A,+,•)$ be a ring with unity, which is not a division ring, and $|A|=25.$ Let $a$ be the number of divisors of $0$ in this ring. Then
      a) $a=1;$
      b) $a=2;$
      c) $a=3;$
      d) $a geq 4.$




      I guess that the answer is d), since this would be the case if we let $A=mathbbZ/25 mathbbZ.$ However, I couldn't prove it for general $A.$



      I know that a finite ring with $0 neq 1$ which doesn't have divisors of $0$ is a division ring. Hence, our $A$ must have divisors of 0. I tried to use the characteristic and I got that it can only be $5$ or $25,$ but this is where I got stuck.










      share|cite|improve this question














      Let $(A,+,•)$ be a ring with unity, which is not a division ring, and $|A|=25.$ Let $a$ be the number of divisors of $0$ in this ring. Then
      a) $a=1;$
      b) $a=2;$
      c) $a=3;$
      d) $a geq 4.$




      I guess that the answer is d), since this would be the case if we let $A=mathbbZ/25 mathbbZ.$ However, I couldn't prove it for general $A.$



      I know that a finite ring with $0 neq 1$ which doesn't have divisors of $0$ is a division ring. Hence, our $A$ must have divisors of 0. I tried to use the characteristic and I got that it can only be $5$ or $25,$ but this is where I got stuck.







      abstract-algebra group-theory ring-theory finite-groups






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Sep 9 at 9:21









      AndrewC

      923213




      923213




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          If $eneq 0$ is a left zero divisor in $A$, then the set of zero divisors contains the left ideal $Ae$. Since this ideal is non-trivial (it contains $e$) and it is not equal to $A$ (it doesn't contain $1$) it is of size $5$. Thus you have at least $4$ zero divisors.






          share|cite|improve this answer


















          • 4




            Great answer. I think it suffices to consider the additive subgroup generated by $e$ by the way. :)
            – awllower
            Sep 9 at 9:36






          • 1




            Why would the ideal only have zero divisors? Consider the ring of 2x2 matrices over a field. The diagonal matrix $e$ with entries 1 and 0 is a zero divisor. But the ideal it generates is the whole ring because the matrix ring is simple.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 9:38










          • True, there are no such matrix rings of 25 elements, but... you need to dig deeper to prove that. I will take @awllower's comment!
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 9:39











          • @JyrkiLahtonen I considered the ring to be commutative, but you are right, I don't have this information. So we assume that $e$ is a left zero divisor and $langle erangle$ is the left ideal. Thanks!
            – SMM
            Sep 9 at 9:46










          • A nice fix. Sorry about jumping the gun a bit.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 10:05










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2910585%2fthe-number-of-divisors-of-0-in-a-finite-ring%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          If $eneq 0$ is a left zero divisor in $A$, then the set of zero divisors contains the left ideal $Ae$. Since this ideal is non-trivial (it contains $e$) and it is not equal to $A$ (it doesn't contain $1$) it is of size $5$. Thus you have at least $4$ zero divisors.






          share|cite|improve this answer


















          • 4




            Great answer. I think it suffices to consider the additive subgroup generated by $e$ by the way. :)
            – awllower
            Sep 9 at 9:36






          • 1




            Why would the ideal only have zero divisors? Consider the ring of 2x2 matrices over a field. The diagonal matrix $e$ with entries 1 and 0 is a zero divisor. But the ideal it generates is the whole ring because the matrix ring is simple.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 9:38










          • True, there are no such matrix rings of 25 elements, but... you need to dig deeper to prove that. I will take @awllower's comment!
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 9:39











          • @JyrkiLahtonen I considered the ring to be commutative, but you are right, I don't have this information. So we assume that $e$ is a left zero divisor and $langle erangle$ is the left ideal. Thanks!
            – SMM
            Sep 9 at 9:46










          • A nice fix. Sorry about jumping the gun a bit.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 10:05














          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          If $eneq 0$ is a left zero divisor in $A$, then the set of zero divisors contains the left ideal $Ae$. Since this ideal is non-trivial (it contains $e$) and it is not equal to $A$ (it doesn't contain $1$) it is of size $5$. Thus you have at least $4$ zero divisors.






          share|cite|improve this answer


















          • 4




            Great answer. I think it suffices to consider the additive subgroup generated by $e$ by the way. :)
            – awllower
            Sep 9 at 9:36






          • 1




            Why would the ideal only have zero divisors? Consider the ring of 2x2 matrices over a field. The diagonal matrix $e$ with entries 1 and 0 is a zero divisor. But the ideal it generates is the whole ring because the matrix ring is simple.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 9:38










          • True, there are no such matrix rings of 25 elements, but... you need to dig deeper to prove that. I will take @awllower's comment!
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 9:39











          • @JyrkiLahtonen I considered the ring to be commutative, but you are right, I don't have this information. So we assume that $e$ is a left zero divisor and $langle erangle$ is the left ideal. Thanks!
            – SMM
            Sep 9 at 9:46










          • A nice fix. Sorry about jumping the gun a bit.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 10:05












          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted






          If $eneq 0$ is a left zero divisor in $A$, then the set of zero divisors contains the left ideal $Ae$. Since this ideal is non-trivial (it contains $e$) and it is not equal to $A$ (it doesn't contain $1$) it is of size $5$. Thus you have at least $4$ zero divisors.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          If $eneq 0$ is a left zero divisor in $A$, then the set of zero divisors contains the left ideal $Ae$. Since this ideal is non-trivial (it contains $e$) and it is not equal to $A$ (it doesn't contain $1$) it is of size $5$. Thus you have at least $4$ zero divisors.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Sep 9 at 9:47

























          answered Sep 9 at 9:33









          SMM

          2,03049




          2,03049







          • 4




            Great answer. I think it suffices to consider the additive subgroup generated by $e$ by the way. :)
            – awllower
            Sep 9 at 9:36






          • 1




            Why would the ideal only have zero divisors? Consider the ring of 2x2 matrices over a field. The diagonal matrix $e$ with entries 1 and 0 is a zero divisor. But the ideal it generates is the whole ring because the matrix ring is simple.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 9:38










          • True, there are no such matrix rings of 25 elements, but... you need to dig deeper to prove that. I will take @awllower's comment!
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 9:39











          • @JyrkiLahtonen I considered the ring to be commutative, but you are right, I don't have this information. So we assume that $e$ is a left zero divisor and $langle erangle$ is the left ideal. Thanks!
            – SMM
            Sep 9 at 9:46










          • A nice fix. Sorry about jumping the gun a bit.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 10:05












          • 4




            Great answer. I think it suffices to consider the additive subgroup generated by $e$ by the way. :)
            – awllower
            Sep 9 at 9:36






          • 1




            Why would the ideal only have zero divisors? Consider the ring of 2x2 matrices over a field. The diagonal matrix $e$ with entries 1 and 0 is a zero divisor. But the ideal it generates is the whole ring because the matrix ring is simple.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 9:38










          • True, there are no such matrix rings of 25 elements, but... you need to dig deeper to prove that. I will take @awllower's comment!
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 9:39











          • @JyrkiLahtonen I considered the ring to be commutative, but you are right, I don't have this information. So we assume that $e$ is a left zero divisor and $langle erangle$ is the left ideal. Thanks!
            – SMM
            Sep 9 at 9:46










          • A nice fix. Sorry about jumping the gun a bit.
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Sep 9 at 10:05







          4




          4




          Great answer. I think it suffices to consider the additive subgroup generated by $e$ by the way. :)
          – awllower
          Sep 9 at 9:36




          Great answer. I think it suffices to consider the additive subgroup generated by $e$ by the way. :)
          – awllower
          Sep 9 at 9:36




          1




          1




          Why would the ideal only have zero divisors? Consider the ring of 2x2 matrices over a field. The diagonal matrix $e$ with entries 1 and 0 is a zero divisor. But the ideal it generates is the whole ring because the matrix ring is simple.
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Sep 9 at 9:38




          Why would the ideal only have zero divisors? Consider the ring of 2x2 matrices over a field. The diagonal matrix $e$ with entries 1 and 0 is a zero divisor. But the ideal it generates is the whole ring because the matrix ring is simple.
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Sep 9 at 9:38












          True, there are no such matrix rings of 25 elements, but... you need to dig deeper to prove that. I will take @awllower's comment!
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Sep 9 at 9:39





          True, there are no such matrix rings of 25 elements, but... you need to dig deeper to prove that. I will take @awllower's comment!
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Sep 9 at 9:39













          @JyrkiLahtonen I considered the ring to be commutative, but you are right, I don't have this information. So we assume that $e$ is a left zero divisor and $langle erangle$ is the left ideal. Thanks!
          – SMM
          Sep 9 at 9:46




          @JyrkiLahtonen I considered the ring to be commutative, but you are right, I don't have this information. So we assume that $e$ is a left zero divisor and $langle erangle$ is the left ideal. Thanks!
          – SMM
          Sep 9 at 9:46












          A nice fix. Sorry about jumping the gun a bit.
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Sep 9 at 10:05




          A nice fix. Sorry about jumping the gun a bit.
          – Jyrki Lahtonen
          Sep 9 at 10:05

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2910585%2fthe-number-of-divisors-of-0-in-a-finite-ring%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

          Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

          Strongly p-embedded subgroups and p-Sylow subgroups.