MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Dear All,

It is well-known that a group is finite iff the number of its subgroups is finite. Is there any similar result for rings and subrings ?? (Clearly we have to distinguish two cases:

  1. rings have identity and subrings have the same identity.

  2. rings and subrings in general.

share|cite|improve this question
There is a third case, namely rings have to have identities but subrings don't necessarily share them. – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 28 '12 at 9:07
up vote 4 down vote accepted

This article says that an associative ring with a finite number of subrings is finite.

As pointed out below, the result does not hold for rings with a unit as witnessed by $ \mathbb{Z}$ which has no proper subrings. Also, $ \mathbb{Z}[1/2]$ has two subrings including itself and $ \mathbb{Z}[1/6]$ has four. This shows that there is an infinite ring with $2^k$ subrings. What other examples are there which are commutative integral domains? I don't immediately see any. I think this is a ring with $3$ proper subrings: $ \mathbb{Z}[x]$ where $x^3=0\ne x^2$ and $7x=0.$ Of course $7$ can be replaced by any other prime.

share|cite|improve this answer
The article seems to be referring to the second case. The result is clearly false in the first case, e.g. because $\mathbb{Z}$ has only one unital subring. – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 28 '12 at 9:08
There is also a lot of interesting information here:… – Felix Goldberg Dec 28 '12 at 13:28

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.