1
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $R$ is a ring, not necessarily commutative nor associative. Assume that for every non-zero $a \in R$, the left multiplication map $$ \lambda_a \colon R \to R \colon x \mapsto ax $$ is invertible. (We do not assume that its inverse is again a left multiplication map $\lambda_b$ for some $b \in R$.)

Is such a ring $R$ necessarily unital (i.e., does it have a unit $1 \in R$), and is it then a division ring (i.e., does every element $a$ have a two-sided inverse)?

Note: if $R$ is unital and associative and every $\lambda_a$ ($a \neq 0$) is invertible, then it is indeed a division ring, and the inverse of $\lambda_a$ is equal to $\lambda_b$ where $b=a^{-1}$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor: Indeed, I meant to assume that every $\lambda_a$ with $a \neq 0$ is invertible. I've edited the question to fix this. $\endgroup$ Apr 28, 2016 at 12:02
  • $\begingroup$ I guess associativity should be some minimal requirement. $\endgroup$ Apr 28, 2016 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasThom: In what sense? $\endgroup$ Apr 28, 2016 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ In order to expect the possibility of a positive answer. $\endgroup$ Apr 28, 2016 at 12:31
  • $\begingroup$ I would have thought that maybe in the associative case there must be a unit, or at least the counterexample would be interesting. Anyway, I do not know many positive results about non-associative rings. $\endgroup$ Apr 28, 2016 at 12:36

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

What if your ring is the $\mathbf{R}$-algebra $\mathbf{R}^2$ with the bilinear law $$(x,y)(z,t)=\begin{pmatrix}2x & -y \\ y & x\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}z \\ t\end{pmatrix}=(2xz-yt,yz+xt)\quad?$$ It's even commutative.

$\endgroup$
0
2
$\begingroup$

Another example. Let $R=\mathbb{C}$ as an additive group, with multiplication $$(w,z)\mapsto\overline{wz}.$$

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ well, it's a variant of mine. More generally, you can take any linear map $f:K^n\to M_n(K)$ such that $f(x)$ is invertible for all $x\neq 0$, any linear automorphism $g$ of $K^n$ not in the range of $f$, and define the multiplication on $K^n$ $(x,y)\mapsto f(x)g^{-1}(y)$. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Apr 28, 2016 at 14:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YCor Ah, OK. The way I was thinking of my example was to take an associative unital multiplication $R\otimes|_\mathbb{Z}R\to R$ and compose with a random group automorphism $R\to R$. $\endgroup$ Apr 28, 2016 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ Ah OK. Indeed bilinear laws can be freely twisted on the right by automorphisms, this affects associativity, left/right units, but not commutativity or invertibility of left/right translations. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Apr 28, 2016 at 16:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.