Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1. Introduction
Both of us learned much of our undergraduate algebra from Topics in Algebra
[9]. Herstein is said to have remarked that one exercise in his book gave rise to more
correspondence from readers than all the other items put together. It was Exercise
19 in Chapter 3.4 on page 136, and it reads as follows:
Let R be a ring in which x3 = x, for all x R. Prove that R is a
commutative ring.
In this paper we consider various generalizations of this result, and show that
many imply commutativity, but for a few of them we give counterexamples. We also
present a variety of proofs of the original result. In the spirit of Hersteins book, the
emphasis is entirely on self-contained elementary methods, and in particular we can
avoid appealing to the powerful Jacobson structure theory for rings. Indeed we claim
that this note could protably be read by a student who has merely encountered the
axioms and elementary theory of a ring (R, +, ), and wishes to see their immense
versatility in action.
Why present a variety of proofs? We believe that just as it is important to nd
a single technique that can be used to prove many dierent theorems, it is often
equally important to nd many dierent proofs of the same theorem. There are
several reasons for holding this view of which the following are perhaps the most
signicant.
(a) The more dierent proofs one has, the more reasons one can see why a theorem is true. Additional proofs give a clearer insight into, and understanding
of, the result.
(b) Perhaps more importantly, dierent proofs show the potential for generalizing
the theorem in dierent directions. Furthermore, Proof B may have the
potential for establishing a stronger generalization than Proof A.
(c) Examining dierent proofs of the same result can introduce a student to the
much needed topics of esthetics in mathematics and the historical development of the subject. Ones rst goal should always be to nd a valid proof of
a result by hook or by crook using all available information and techniques.
A valid proof may be long, clumsy, heavy-handed, or tedious. On the other
hand, it may be short, clever, slick, or downright beautiful. How else can
the quest for a shorter, better, or more beautiful proof begin unless mathematicians consider many dierent proofs? The history of mathematics is
littered with examples of this phenomenon of revisionist proofs.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 16R50.
1
for all x, y R ,
Since (R, +) is a group, cancellation gives xy +yx = 0 = xy +xy, from above. Again
by cancellation we have xy = yx, and so R is commutative.
Theorem 1 has the following well-known generalization which will be useful in
the sequel.
Theorem 2. If x2 x Z(R), for all x R, then R is commutative.
Proof. We have
(x + y)2 (x + y) = (x2 x) + (y 2 y) + xy + yx Z(R) ,
so xy + yx Z(R). Then x(xy + yx) = (xy + yx)x, so x2 y + xyx = xyx + yx2 and
x2 y = yx2 . Thus x2 Z(R), so x2 (x2 x) = x Z(R) for all x, and so R is
commutative.
The following variant of Theorem 2 is also useful.
Theorem 3. If x2 + x Z(R), for all x R, then R is commutative.
Proof. Replacing x by x gives (x)2 x Z(R), so x2 x Z(R), and R is
commutative by Theorem 2.
We note that the conditions of Theorems 2 and 3 are both necessary and sucient
for commutativity, whereas those of Theorem 1 are sucient but not necessary. Also
note that Theorems 2 and 3 can be expressed in commutator form.
Theorem 4. A ring is commutative if and only if [x2 , y] = [x, y], for all x, y R.
Proof. If R is commutative, then [x2 , y] = 0 = [x, y], as required. For the converse,
we use the fact that [a, c] [b, c] = [a b, c] (as can be easily veried by expansion
of both sides). Thus the equation [x2 , y] = [x, y] can be rewritten as [x2 x, y] = 0
for all x, y, which implies that x2 x Z(R) for all x.
Since [x, y] = [y, x], we can similarly write Theorem 3 in the following form.
Theorem 5. A ring is commutative if and only if [x2 , y] = [y, x], for all x, y R.
Idempotents play an important role in ring commutativity theorems, often because of the following technical lemma.
Lemma 6. If e is idempotent in a ring R, then (ey eye)2 = 0 = (ye eye)2 for
all y R.
Proof. Simply expand and use idempotency:
(eyeye)2 = (ey)2 +(eye)2 (ey)(eye)(eye)(ey) = (ey)2 +(ey)2 e(ey)2 e(ey)2 = 0 .
The second part of the assertion is proved similarly.
The next result will be crucial for proving commutativity of rings satisfying x3 =
x.
Theorem 12. Let R be a ring in which x3 = x for all x R. Then x2 Z(R) for
all x R.
Proof. Suppose that x2 = 0 for some x R. Then x = x3 = x2 x = 0 so x2 = 0
implies x = 0. By Theorem 7, all idempotents are central. But (x2 )2 = x4 = x3 x =
x x = x2 . Thus x2 is an idempotent, and so central, for all x R.
We are now ready to give a variety of proofs of the following result.
Theorem 13. Let R be a ring in which x3 = x for all x R. Then R is commutative.
Proof 1. Let x, y R. Expansion of the equation (x + y)3 = x + y gives
x2 y + xyx + yx2 + y 2 x + yxy + xy 2 = 0
Putting y in place of y gives
x2 y xyx yx2 + y 2 x + yxy + xy 2 = 0
Adding we get
2y 2 x + 2yxy + 2xy 2 = 0 Z(R) ,
and so
which implies that 3(x2 + x) = 0 Z(R). But by the above 2(x2 + x) Z(R), so
subtraction gives x2 + x Z(R). By Theorem 3, R is commutative.
Proof 2. As in Proof 1, we have
2y 2 x + 2yxy + 2xy 2 = 0 .
If we multiply on the left by y, we get
2(y 3 x + yxy 2 + y 2 xy) = 0
while if we multiply instead on the right by y, we get
2(y 2 xy + xy 3 + yxy 2 ) = 0
Subtracting we get 2yx = 2xy, so 2(xy yx) = 0.
As in Proof 1, 3(x2 + x) = 0, so
0 = 3((x + y)2 + (x + y)) = 3((x2 + x) + (y 2 + y) + (xy + yx)) .
Thus 3(xy + yx) = 0. But 6yx = 0 by Theorem 11, so 3(xy yx) = 0. Combining
this with 2(xy yx) = 0, we get xy yx = 0, so R is commutative.
[This proof has been attributed to Hanna Neumann [14], but the source is unknown.]
Proof 3. By Theorem 12, (x2 + x)2 Z(R), so x4 + 2x3 + x2 = 2(x2 + x) Z(R).
As in Proof 1, 3(x2 + x) Z(R). Thus x2 + x = 3(x2 + x) 2(x2 + x) Z(R). By
Theorem 3, R is commutative.
[This is a y-less proof in the sense that we do not have to expand expressions
involving both x and y. However it depends on Theorem 3 which does involve both
x and y.]
Proof 4. As in Proofs 1 and 2, we have 2(xy yx) = 0 for all x, y. Also 3(x2 +x) = 0
and so 3x2 = 3x since 6x = 0. Now consider T = {3x | x R}. It can easily be
seen that T is a subring of R since 3a 3b = 3(a b) and (3a)(3b) = 9ab = 3(3ab).
Now for t T ,
t2 = (3x)2 = 9x2 = 3x2 = 3x = t .
Thus T is a Boolean ring and so is commutative. Thus (3x)(3y) = (3y)(3x), so
9(xy yx) = 0. Since also 2(xy yx) = 0, we deduce that xy yx = 0 and so R is
commutative.
Proof 5. By Theorem 12, all squares lie in the center of R, so R satises the identities
x3 = x and x2 y = yx2 . Thus
yx = (yx)3 = y(xy)2 x = (xy)2 yx = xyxyyx = xyxxyy = xyx2 y 2 = x3 y 3 = xy .
Proof 6. In this proof we exploit the fact that R satises the condition ab = 0
ba = 0. Now
0 = yx yx = yx y 3 x = y(x y 2 x) .
Thus
(x y 2 x)y = 0 = x2 (x y 2 x)y = x3 x2 y 2 xy
so xy = x2 y 2 xy. Thus
0 = x2 y 2 xy xy = x2 y 2 xy (xy)3 = [x(xy yx)yx]y = [yx(xy yx)]yx
= (yx)2 (xy yx) = (xy yx)(yx)2 = (xy yx)(yx)3 = (xy yx)yx .
Finally,
(xy yx)2 = (xy yx)xy (xy yx)yx = (yx xy)xy (xy yx)yx = 0 ,
and R is commutative.
[This proof is based on a proof of Ted Herman [4].]
Our nal proof is perhaps the slickest.
Proof 7. (x2 + x)2 Z(R), so x4 + 2x3 + x2 Z(R), and so 2x3 = 2x Z(R). Also
x2 + x = (x2 + x)3 = x6 + 3x5 + 3x4 + x3 , so 3x + 3x2 = 0 Z(R). But 3x2 Z(R),
and so 3x Z(R). Since also 2x Z(R), R is commutative.
[This is a completely y-less proof depending only on Theorem 7.]
Many variations on the above proofs are possible, and we would be pleased to
hear from readers who have other proofs. Other proofs in the literature include
those in [1], [3], and [11].
4. Generalizations
Proof 5 of Theorem 13 verbatim yields the following result since that proof does
not use the additive operation in R.
Theorem 14. If (S, ) is a semigroup which satisfies the identities x3 = x and
x2 y = yx2 for all x, y S, then S is commutative.
Theorem 15. Let R be a ring such that (xy)3 = xy for all x, y R. Then R is
commutative.
Proof. Putting x = y we get x6 = x2 . If yx = 0 then x(yx)2 y = 0, and so xy =
(xy)3 = 0. Thus idempotents are central and, since ((xy)2 )2 = (xy)2 , we have
(xy)2 Z(R). Putting x = y, we have x4 Z(R). Now (x2 x)3 = x2 x, so x9 = x3 ,
and so x12 = x6 = x2 . Thus x12 = x4 = x2 , so x2 Z(R). As in [13], this implies
that (xy)2 = (yx)2 since
(xy)2 = x(yxy) = x[(yx)2 + y 2 (yx y)2 y 2 x]
= [(yx)2 + y 2 (yx y)2 y 2 x]x = (yxy)x = (yx)2 .
Next [x(x2 + x)]3 = x(x2 + x), or [x3 + x2 ]3 = x3 + x2 , gives 3x8 + 3x7 = 0, and
so 3x2 + 3x3 = 0. In particular, 3(xy)2 + 3(xy)3 = 0 and, since 3(xy)2 Z(R), we
conclude that 3xy Z(R).
Now [x(x + y)]2 = [(x + y)x]2 , or (x2 + xy)2 = (x2 + yx)2 . Using (xy)2 = (yx)2
and the centrality of squares, this reduces to 2x3 y = 2yx3 , so 2x3 Z(R). Thus
2xy = 2(xy)3 Z(R). But 3xy Z(R) from above, so xy Z(R). Since all
products are central, we deduce that
xy = (xy)3 = x(yxyxy) = (yxyxy)x = (yx)3 = yx .
Rings satisfying x = x for all x are not just commutative rings, but rather special
commutative rings. However this condition can be weakened to give necessary and
sucient conditions for commutativity in rings. We now state and prove two such
theorems.
Theorem 16. A ring R is commutative if and only if x3 x Z(R), for all x R.
Theorem 16 is of course equivalent to the following:
Theorem 16 A ring R is commutative if and only if [x3 , y] = [x, y], for all x, y R.
Taking the exponent 3 outside in this last result gives us another theorem:
Theorem 17. A ring R is commutative if and only if [x, y]3 = [x, y], for all x, y R.
Proof of Theorem 16. We dene f (x) = x3 x. Clearly all commutative rings satisfy
f (x) Z(R), so it suces to show that rings satisfying f (x) Z(R) for all x, are
commutative.
Suppose therefore that f (x) Z(R), x R. Expanding and simplifying
f (x + y) f (x y) 2f (y) Z(R)
gives A = 2(x2 y + xyx + yx2 ) Z(R). Now Ax = xA simplies to y(2x3 ) = (2x3 )y.
Thus 2x3 Z(R) and so 2x3 2f (x) = 2x Z(R).
y = c2 d2 y ,
z = c2 d 2 z ,
c = c2 d2 c = cd2 ,
d = c2 d2 d = dc2 .
f := ec ,
g := ed ,
then we can reduce the task to getting a contradiction from the non-commutativity
of f and g. Note that f, g lie in the subring S := eR = Re, and that e is a nonzero
unity for S with f 2 = g 2 = (f + g)2 = (f g)2 = e.
Part 2: C(3) rings are commutative.
Now (f + g)2 = e, and by expansion we see that
(20)
e = (f + g)2 2e = f 2 + g 2 + f g + gf 2e = f g + gf .
0 a b
x = 0 0 c ,
a, b, c R .
0 0 0
Then R is not commutative: for
0 1 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
instance
0
1 =
0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 .
0 0 0
0 0 0
We mention without proof a more advanced example which can also be used to
deduce Theorem 21. First dene H9 , the ring consisting of formal sums a 1 +
bi + cj + dk of quaternions with coecients in Z9 , i.e. (H9 , +) is a direct sum of
four copies of Z9 , and multiplication is dened as we would expect: for instance,
(bi)(cj) = (bc)k, where bc is a Z9 product. If we now dene a new multiplication
by the rule x y = 3xy, then (H9 , +, ) is a non-commutative ring satisfying the
equation x y z = 0 for all x, y, z R.
Since both of the conditions x3 x Z(R) and (xy)3 = xy imply commutativity,
one might hope that (xy)3 xy Z(R) would imply commutativity. Alternatively
since (xy yx)3 = xy yx implies commutativity, one might hope that
(xy yx)3 (xy yx) Z(R)
would imply commutativity. However neither of these implications work, since even
the stronger condition xy Z(R) does not guarantee commutativity.
Theorem 22. There exist noncommutative rings R such that xy Z(R) for all
x, y R.
Proof. The same ring R as in the proof of Theorem 21 suces. It is readily veried
that every product xy has the form
0 0 d
0 0 0 ,
d R,
0 0 0
As before, a more advanced example with quaternions can be used to prove the
above theorem. Dene (H8 , +, ), the ring of quaternions over Z8 , in a manner
analogous to the earlier denition of (H9 , +, ). By dening x y = 2xy, we get
a noncommutative ring (H8 , +, ) in which all products are central. We leave the
details to the reader.
We remark that the problem of showing that a ring satisfying x3 = x is commutative has been used as a test example for computer algorithms which use rewrite
rules and reduction theory for polynomial rings in non-commuting variables. What
the machine programs lack in subtlety, they make up for in persistence, often negotiating hundreds of steps until the equation xy yx = 0 is achieved. For details, see
[15].
Finally, we note that much stronger versions of Theorems 13, 16, and 17 can be
proved using the structure theory of rings. Jacobson [10] proved that rings satisfying
xn(x) = x for all x R are commutative; see also [7]. Herstein also proved using
structure theory that if xn(x) x Z(R) for all x R, or if [x, y]n(x,y) = [x, y] for
all x, y R, then R is commutative; see [5] and [6]. In all these results, n(x) and
n(x, y) can be any integers greater than 1. We recommend [8] for an account of
structure theory, and proofs of results of this type.
References
[1] R. Ayoub, C. Ayoub, On the commutativity of rings, Amer. Math. Monthly 71 (1964), 267
271.
[2] H.E. Bell, Certain near-rings are rings, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 4 (1971), 264270.
[3] R. Gross, post on sci.math (22 December 1993); included in
http://www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/~sillke/PUZZLES/herstein (18 September
2011).
[4] T. Herman, On a theorem of Jacobson, in Beauty is our Business: A birthday salute to
Edsger W. Dijkstra, Eds. W.H.J. Feijen, A.J.M. van Gasteren, D. Gries, J. Misra, Texts and
Monographs in Computer Science, 1990, Sect. 20, 176181.
[5] I.N. Herstein, A generalization of a theorem of Jacobson III, Amer. J. Math. 75 (1953), 105
111.
[6] I.N. Herstein, A condition for the commutativity of rings, Canad. J. Math. 9 (1957), 583586.
[7] I.N. Herstein, Wedderburns theorem and a theorem of Jacobson, Amer. Math. Monthly 68
(1961), 249251.
[8] I.N. Herstein, Noncommutative rings, Carus Mathematical Monographs, Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1968.
[9] I.N. Herstein, Topics in Algebra, 2nd edition, John Wiley and sons, New York, 1975.
[10] N. Jacobson, Structure theory for algebraic algebras of bounded degree, Ann. Math. 46 (1945),
695707.
[11] J. Luh, An elementary proof of a theorem of Herstein, Math. Mag. 38 (1965), 105106.
[12] D. MacHale, Rings that are nearly Boolean, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. Sect. A 80 (1980), 4146.
Searcoid, Two Elementary Generalizations of Boolean Rings, Amer.
[13] D. MacHale and M. O
Math. Monthly 93 (1986), 121122.
[14] A. van der Poorten, Concerning computing, letter in Austral. Math. Soc. Gaz. 21 (1994), 68.
10
[15] J.J. Wavrik, Commutativity Theorems: Examples in Search of Algorithms in: ISSAC 99
Proceedings of the 1999 international symposium on Symbolic and algebraic computation
(1999), 3136.
S.M. Buckley:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, National University of Ireland Maynooth,
Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland.
E-mail address: stephen.buckley@maths.nuim.ie
D. MacHale:
School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
E-mail address: d.machale@ucc.ie