Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An element that is a left or a right zero divisor is simply called a zero divisor. [2] An element a that is both a left and a right zero divisor is called a two-sided zero divisor (the nonzero x such that ax = 0 may be different from the nonzero y such that ya = 0). If the ring is commutative, then the left and right zero divisors are the same.
Any non-trivial idempotent a is a zero divisor (because ab = 0 with neither a nor b being zero, where b = 1 − a). This shows that integral domains and division rings do not have such idempotents. Local rings also do not have such idempotents, but for a different reason. The only idempotent contained in the Jacobson radical of a ring is 0.
Kaplansky's zero divisor conjecture states: The group ring K[G] does not contain nontrivial zero divisors, that is, it is a domain. Two related conjectures are known as, respectively, Kaplansky's idempotent conjecture: K[G] does not contain any non-trivial idempotents, i.e., if a 2 = a, then a = 1 or a = 0.
If one interprets the definition of divisor literally, every a is a divisor of 0, since one can take x = 0. Because of this, it is traditional to abuse terminology by making an exception for zero divisors: one calls an element a in a commutative ring a zero divisor if there exists a nonzero x such that ax = 0. [2]
Zero divisors have a topological interpretation, at least in the case of commutative rings: a ring R is an integral domain if and only if it is reduced and its spectrum Spec R is an irreducible topological space. The first property is often considered to encode some infinitesimal information, whereas the second one is more geometric.
The graph of all zero divisors is non-empty for every ring that is not an integral domain. It remains connected, has diameter at most three, [3] and (if it contains a cycle) has girth at most four. [4] [5] The zero-divisor graph of a ring that is not an integral domain is finite if and only if the ring is finite. [3]
The latter condition is that the ring have only one minimal prime. It follows that the unique minimal prime ideal of a reduced and irreducible ring is the zero ideal, so such rings are integral domains. The converse is clear: an integral domain has no nonzero nilpotent elements, and the zero ideal is the unique minimal prime ideal.
The zero ring is generally excluded from integral domains. [7] Whether the zero ring is considered to be a domain at all is a matter of convention, but there are two advantages to considering it not to be a domain. First, this agrees with the definition that a domain is a ring in which 0 is the only zero divisor (in particular, 0 is required to ...