TRUE or FALSE: If R is a commutative ring with unity, then the set of units in R forms a subring

Question

As I though if R is a ring, then the set of all units of R is not a subring of R because the zero element is not a unit. How about R is a commutative with unity?

You appear to be overlooking a basic fact of logic here. If you show that it is not true for all rings with identity then asking the same question about special cases of rings (like commutative rings) is a waste of time. — rschwieb, Mar 05 '13 at 18:43
If $R$ has a $1$, the units form a group with respect to the multiplication. That's all. And you do not need $R$ to be commutative. — Julien, Mar 05 '13 at 18:44
Sometimes the set of non-units form not only a subring but a (maximal) ideal, in which case we have a local ring. — anon, Mar 05 '13 at 18:57

score 4 · Answer 1 · answered Mar 05 '13 at 18:50

You are correct that zero poses a problem. Note also that the sum of two units need not be a unit.

Example:

$R=\mathbb{Z}$. Then $1$ is a unit, but $1+1=2$ is not.

However, as others have mentioned, the set of nonzero units form a group under multiplication.

score 1 · Answer 2 · edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21

1

As said, there are easy counterexamples. But there are also interesting cases where it's true, e.g this question has proofs that a finite ring is a field if its units $\cup \{0\}\,$ form a field of characteristic $\ne 2.$

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21

Community

1

answered Mar 05 '13 at 19:01

Math Gems

20,090

TRUE or FALSE: If R is a commutative ring with unity, then the set of units in R forms a subring

2 Answers2