Tuesday, 15 August 2006

ra.rings and algebras - A condition that implies commutativity

Let $R$ be a ring. A notable theorem of N. Jacobson states that if the identity $x^{n}=x$ holds for every $x in R$ and a fixed $n geq 2$ then $R$ is a commutative ring.



The proof of the result for the cases $n=2, 3,4$ is the subject matter of several well-known exercises in Herstein's Topics in Algebra. The corresponding proofs rely heavily on "elementary" manipulations. For instance, the proof of the case $n=3$ can be done as follows:



1) If $a, b in R$ are such that $ab= 0$ then $ba=0$.



2) $a^{2}$ and $-a^{2}$ belong to $mathbf{Z}(R)$ for every $a in R$.



3) Since $(a^{2}+a)^{3} = (a^{2}+a)^{2}+(a^{2}+a)^{2}$ it follows that



$a=a+a^{2}-a^{2} = (a+a^{2})^{3}-a^{2} = (a^{2}+a)^{2}+(a^{2}+a)^{2}-a^{2}$



and whence the result. ▮



Certainly, the mind can't but boggle at the succinctness of the above solution. Actually, it is the conciseness of this argument that has prompted me to pose the present question: is an analogous demonstration of the general theorem possible? The one that appears in [1] depends on some non-trivial structure theorems for division rings.



As usual, I thank you in advance for your insightful replies, reading suggestions, web links, etc...



References



[1] I. N. Herstein, Noncommutative rings, The Carus Mathematical Monographs, no. 15, Mathematical Association of America, 1968.



[2] I. N. Herstein, Álgebra Moderna, Ed. Trillas, págs. 112, 119, and 153.

No comments:

Post a Comment