2 added 14 characters in body

A different proof would be to show that a Weyl algebra is not semisimple, that is, that it is not a direct sum of simple submodules as a left module over itself. However, note that there is an infinite descending chain of left submodules of a Weyl algebra given by $A_n\supseteq A_nd\supseteq A_nd^2\supseteq A_nd^3\supseteq...$ where $d$ is any non-invertible element. A direct sum of a finite number of simple modules can't have an infinite descending chain of submodules. Then, by the converse of Artin-Wedderburn, $A_n$ is not a direct sum of matrix algebras over a divsion ring.

Of course, showing this sequence of submodules never stabilizes can be done by looking at the associated graded algebra, and noting that the $d^n$ \overline{A_nd^n}$are always distinct there. However, then this answer starts getting closer to David's answer, so maybe this wasn't a truly different proof. 1 A different proof would be to show that a Weyl algebra is not semisimple, that is, that it is not a direct sum of simple submodules as a left module over itself. However, note that there is an infinite descending chain of left submodules of a Weyl algebra given by$A_n\supseteq A_nd\supseteq A_nd^2\supseteq A_nd^3\supseteq...$where$d$is any non-invertible element. A direct sum of a finite number of simple modules can't have an infinite descending chain of submodules. Then, by the converse of Artin-Wedderburn,$A_n$is not a direct sum of matrix algebras over a divsion ring. Of course, showing this sequence of submodules never stabilizes can be done by looking at the associated graded algebra, and noting that the$d^n\$ are always distinct there. However, then this answer starts getting closer to David's answer, so maybe this wasn't a truly different proof.