Section 6.

5 646 Rings and Fields

Section 6.5
6.5 Rings and Fields

Purpose of Section To introduce the concept of an algebraic ring and an

important type of ring called a field. We also hint at the idea of a field
extension.

Introduction to Rings

In this section we study algebraic systems that can be thought of as the

ultimate generalization of what you studied in second-grade arithmetic. The
systems we study have two binary operations, which we call “addition” and
“multiplication.” We begin our study with the most commonly studied abstract
system with two binary operations called a ring1. You have seen examples of
rings before, the most common being the integers
with ordinary addition
( + ) and multiplication (× ) . In this regard you might think of a ring as a
generalization of the integers. Another example of a ring is the set of all
n × n matrices with operations of matrix addition and multiplication. The
study of rings was initiated (in part) by the German mathematician Richard
Dedekind (1831-1916) in the late 1800s.

Definition A set {R, +, ×} with two (closed) binary operations + (addition) and
× (multiplication) is called a ring if:

i ) The system with operation + forms a commutative group.

group
ii ) The operation × is associative,
associative that is

( a × b) × c = a × (b × c ) .

iii ) The operation × distributive over + both on the left and right:

a × (b + c ) = ( a × b) + ( a × c )
(b + c ) × a = (b × a ) + ( c × a )
for all a, b, c ∈ R .

We shamelessly call the ring operations + and × addition and multiplication,

although they do not necessarily denote addition and multiplication of
numbers. Also, we often denote ring multiplication by ab for short. We also

1
The word ring was coined by the German mathematician David Hilbert (1862-1943).
Section 6.5 647 Rings and Fields

call the additive identity in the ring the zero (or additive
additive identity)
identity of the ring
and often denote it by 0. A ring need not have a multiplicative identity, but
when it does, we say the ring has a multiplicative identity (or unity)
unity and it is
generally denoted by, you guessed it, 1.

Note: Roughly, a `ring' is a set of elements having two operations, normally

called addition and multiplication, which behave in many ways like the
integers. You can add, subtract, multiply, but not (in general) divide. We must
wait until we get to the general structure of a field before we can add,
subtract, multiply, and divide.

Special Kinds of Rings

• Commutative Rings A ring in which multiplication is commutative is called a

commutative ring. (We don’t worry about addition here since addition is
always commutative in a ring.)

• Rings with Multiplicative Identity: A ring which has a multiplicative

identity, called the multiplicative identity (or multiplicative unit),
unit is called a ring
with identity
identity or ring with unity.
unity

• Ring with Zero Divisors: Nonzero elements a, b ∈ R in a ring are called

zero divisors if their product is zero; that is a × b = 0 or b × a = 0 ( 0 being the
additive identity in the ring). This condition may appear strange to the reader
since the familiar rings of integers, rational, and real numbers with ordinary
addition and multiplication do not have zero divisors. But some rings do have
zero divisors; for example in rings of matrices with ordinary addition and
multiplication there are non-zero matrices whose product is the zero matrix.

Common Rings

• Example 1 {
The integers
= 0, ± 1, ± 2,... } with ordinary addition and
multiplication is a commutative ring with multiplicative identity 1.

• Example 2 The set
 x  of all polynomials in x with integer coefficients

with ordinary addition and multiplication is a commutative ring with
multiplicative identity f ( x ) = 1 .

• Example 3 {
The set 2
= 0, ± 2, ± 4,...} of even integers with ordinary
addition and multiplication is a commutative ring without multiplicative
identity.
Section 6.5 648 Rings and Fields

• Example 4 { }
The set
n = 0,1, 2,..., n − 1 with addition and multiplication
modulo n is a commutative ring with multiplicative identity 1.
1 This ring is
called the ring of integers modulo n ,

• Example 5 The set M 2 (
) of all 2 × 2 matrices with integer entries is a

non-commutative ring with multiplicative identity

1 0
 
 0 1 

• Example 6 The sets
, ,  with the usual addition and multiplication

are all rings. The additive identity in each of these rings is 0 and the
multiplicative identity is 1. As we will see shortly,  and  are also fields.

Note: You can’t always solve simple linear algebraic equations in rings. In the
ring of integers
with ordinary addition and multiplication, you can’t solve the
equation 2 x = 1 since 1/2 is not in the ring. Rings are meant for adding,
subtracting, and multiplying, not dividing.

Example 7: (Special
(Special Ring
3 ) Draw the addition and multiplication tables for
the ring
3 = {0,1, 2} with addition and multiplication modulo the prime number
3,

Solution:
Solution Carrying out these operations we find
Section 6.5 649 Rings and Fields

Again the addition table forms a commutative group, and if we look at the
nonzero members {1, 2} of the multiplication table, they do form a commutative
group. This special kind of group is called a field. But not all rings are so
nice as the following example illustrates.

Example 8 (The Ring
6 ) Draw the addition and multiplication tables for the
ring
6 = {0,1, 2, 3, 4, 5} with addition and multiplication modulo 6,

Solution:
Solution Carrying out these operations we find

Although the addition table for
6 forms a commutative group with additive
identity 0, the nonzero members {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} of the multiplication table does not
since the numbers 2,3 and 4 do not have multiplicative inverses inasmuch as
there is no a ∈ {0,1, 2, 3, 4, 5} in the ring that satisfies 2 × a = 1 , 3 × a = 1 , 4 × a = 1 .

Note: Roughly, a ring is an abstract system where you can add, subtract and
multiply but not divide. To divide you need the additional structure of an
algebraic field.

Example 9: (Ring of Sets) There are many structures in mathematics that do

not involve numbers which form rings under binary operations. For example,
Section 6.5 650 Rings and Fields

the power set P ( X ) of a set X is a ring if the ring addition is defined as the
symmetric difference

A ⊕ B = ( A − B ) ∪ ( B − A)

of two sets, and multiplication as set intersection. Find the addition and
multiplication tables for this ring for the power set of X = {a, b} .

{ }
Solution: The power set is P ( X ) = ∅,{a} ,{b} ,{a, b} and the addition and
multiplication tables are

⊕ ∅ {a} {b} {a, b} ⊗=∩ ∅ {a} {b} {a, b}

∅ ∅ {a} {b} {a, b} ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅
{a} {a} ∅ {a, b} {b} {a} ∅ {a} ∅ {a}
{b} {b} {a, b} ∅ {a} {b} ∅ ∅ {b} {b}
{a, b} {a, b} {b} {a} ∅ {a, b} ∅ {a} {b} {a, b}
The empty set ∅ is the additive zero of the group. The additive inverse of
each member of the ring is itself. There is no multiplicative identity in the
ring.

Historical Note: Emmy Noether (1882-1935) was a German mathematician who

made groundbreaking contributions to ring theory and theoretical physics. She
was described by Albert Einstein as the most important woman in the history of
mathematics. Noether’s theorem has been called one of the most significant
results in theoretical physics and gives a fundamental connection between
symmetry and conservation laws.

Problem with Rings (No Division)

Although rings are important algebraic structures in the study of many

mathematical structures2, they often have too many restrictions for some
investigations. For example, it is possible that a and b are nonzero elements
of a ring but their product ab = 0 is zero. For example in the ring of 2 × 2
matrices we have

2
Ring theory is fundamental in algebraic geometry, where geometric structures are built from
algebraic structures, in particular rings.
Section 6.5 651 Rings and Fields

 1 1 0 −1  0 0 
 
 0 1   0 0 
=
 1 1    

where the product of two non-zero members of the ring have a zero product.
We also have the problem that we can not always divide by non-zero
elements. For example, in the ring of integers
under ordinary addition and
multiplication, we cannot divide 3 by 5 to obtain another member of the ring.
However, the problem can be resolved if we ensure that every member of the
ring has a multiplicative inverse. An algebraic field is a ring in which the non-
zero elements of the ring form a commutative group under multiplication,
which means if a, b belong to the field, then a / b , defined as ab −1 , is well
defined. This leads us to the study of the algebraic field.

Note: In the late 1800s and early 1900s saw a great shift in the philosophy of
mathematics. The emphasis shifted from the study of concrete objects to a
more general theory. For instance, the study of various permutation groups
morphed into the general notion of an abstract group, and questions related to
the general structure of mathematical objects came to the forefront leading to
the introductions of rings and fields.

(
Algebraic Fields +, −, ×, / )
The history of mathematics is the history of inventing new number
systems to solve existing problems which have “no solutions” in existing
number systems. The invention of the negative numbers was certainly
motivated in the desire to find solutions to certain equations, like x + 8 = 5 ,
which has a solution if we allow for negative numbers. By a similar token, the
invention of the rational numbers was motivated by seeking solutions to
equations like 3 x = 7 , which has no solution in the ring of integers, but does
have in the field of rational numbers.

Definition A field is a set F (with at least two elements) with two (closed)
binary operations + and × , such that:

i ) F is a commutative group under +

ii ) The nonzero elements of F form a commutative group under × .
iii ) × is distributive over + .

From the definition of a field, we know that for any two members
a, b ∈ F , a ≠ 0 the quotient a / b ≡ a × b −1 ∈ F so we now have division in the mix.
Section 6.5 652 Rings and Fields

Note: Roughly, a field is a set of elements having two operations, usually

called addition and multiplication, which behaves in many ways like the
rational, real, and complex numbers. You can add and multiply the elements in
a field and you can divide elements by any non-zero element to get another
element in the field. The prototypical field is the rational numbers  with the
usual addition and multiplication.

Although when we think of fields we are apt to think of the common infinite
fields from analysis, such as the rational numbers  , real numbers  , or
complex numbers  , it may come as a surprise that there are finite fields as
well, and these finite fields play an important role in various areas of pure
mathematics such as algebraic geometry and number theory, as well as
applied areas like coding theory and cryptography. If one of the operations
used in an encryption algorithm involves divisions, then the arithmetic must be
defined over a field.

Finite fields are classified according to order. There is a finite field of order
2, 3, 4, and 5, but not one of order six. There is a field of order 7, 8, 9 but not
one of order 10. To be more specific there is a field of order p n , n = 1, 2,...
where p is any prime number, but no others. These finite fields are called
Galois fields and denoted by GF p n ( ). 3
For example there exists fields of
2 3 2 4
orders 2, 3, 2 = 4, 5, 7, 2 = 8, 3 = 9, 11, 13, 2 = 16, 17, 19,... but no fields of order
6, 10,12,14,15,18, 20,21,… Try as you may, you will never be able to assign
binary operations of “addition” and “multiplication” to any six elements which
satisfy the axioms of an algebraic field.

There are two main classifications in the study of finite fields. The first is the
study of fields GF ( p ) of prime order (i.e. when n = 1 ), and the more involved
fields when n > 1 . When n = 1 the Galois field GF ( p ) is simply the field

p = {0,1, 2,..., p − 1} of integers with the standard operations of addition and
multiplication modulo p . Recall from Examples 7 and 8 that the set of integers

n = {0,1, 2,..., n − 1} for any n = 1, 2,... is a commutative ring with arithmetic
operations of addition and multiplication modulo n , but that members of
n ,
as we saw in
6 , did not always have inverses. However, if n is a prime
number, say n = p , we have that
p is a field. We have

3
( ) stands for Galois field in honor of the French mathematician Evariste Galois (1811-
GF p n
1832) who first studied them.
Section 6.5 653 Rings and Fields

Multiplicative Inverse in
p : For each a ∈
p , a ≠ 0 there exists a unique

−1 −1
a ∈
p such that a × a = 1 modulo p .

Example 9: Draw the addition and multiplication table for the Galois field
GF ( 7 ) =
7 . Also find the additive and multiplicative inverses of each
element 0,1,2,…, 6 in the field.

Solution: Carrying out the addition and multiplication modulo 7, we arrive at

the tables in Table 1. The additive inverse of a number can be found by
moving across the row of the number until one reaches 0 and then the additive
inverse will be the number of the column. Similarly for the multiplicative
inverse, one looks across the row of a given number until one reaches 1, and
then the multiplicative inverse is the number of the column.
Section 6.5 654 Rings and Fields

+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
2 2 3 4 5 6 0 1
3 3 4 5 6 0 1 2
4 4 5 6 0 1 2 3
5 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
6 6 0 1 2 3 4 5

Addition modulo 7

× 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 0 2 4 6 1 3 5
3 0 3 6 2 5 1 4
4 0 4 1 5 2 6 3
5 0 5 3 1 6 4 2
6 0 6 5 4 3 2 1

Multiplication modulo 7

a −a a −1
0 0 −
1 6 1
2 5 4
3 4 5
4 3 2
5 2 3
6 1 6

Additive and multiplicative inverses modulo 7

Arithmetic Operations for the field GF ( 7 ) =
7

Table 1

The reader can compare the multiplication table for
7 with the one for
6 in
Example 8. In the ring
6 , the numbers 2,3, and 4 did not have multiplicative
inverses and hence it is not a field.
Section 6.5 655 Rings and Fields

Example 10 (Subtraction and Division mod 7) Since GF ( 7 ) =
7 is a field, we

should be able to carry out all four arithmetic operations, addition, subtraction,
multiplication, division. Since Table 2 shows us how to add and multiply.
What are the values of 2 − 5 and 5/3?

Solution:
To find the difference x = 2 − 5 , we seek the value of x that satisfies
x + 5 = 2 . The addition table in Table 2 shows us the value of x = 4 . To find
the quotient 5/3, we first realize that 5 / 3 = 5 × 3−1 and that 3−1 = 5 inasmuch as
3 × 5 = 1 . Hence, we have 5 / 3 = 5 × 3−1 = 5 × 5 = 4 .

We will not study fields of order p n for n > 1 in this introductory section.

Finite Fields of the Form GF 2 n ( )

We saw that the Boolean field GF ( 2 ) =
2 consisted of the integers {0,1}
where addition and multiplication were performed modulo 2, whose addition and
multiplication tables are shown in Table 2.

+ 0 1 × 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0
1 1 0 1 0 1

Arithmetic in
2
Table 2

The 1 + 1 = 0 oddity is the only difference between
2 arithmetic and the

ordinary arithmetic with 0 and 1 you learned in grade school, all other laws
being the same, such as

a + 0 = a, a + b = b + a, a × 0 = 0, a × ( b + c ) = a × b + a × c

and so on.

We now extend our thinking from arithmetic modulo 2, to arithmetic of an

extended field where arithmetic is performed modulo an irreducible polynomial of
degree 2 with coefficient in
2 . Since the only quadratic polynomials with
coefficients 0 and 1 are
Section 6.5 656 Rings and Fields

i x2 = x × x
2
i x 2 + 1 = ( x + 1)
i x 2 + x = x ( x + 1)
i x2 + x + 1

and only x 2 + x + 1 is irreducible4 in
2 (meaning x 2 + x + 1 = 0 has no root in our

number system of 0 and 1), we do what mathematicians have done for centuries,
we enlarge our number system of 0 and 1 to include a new number we call a
which satisfies5 a 2 + a + 1 = 0 . So now we enlarge our number system of 0, 1 to
0, 1, and a . However, in order that our new system satisfies the axioms of a
legitimate arithmetic system (i..e. a field), we also must include a + 1 in the mix,
getting the new field of numbers described by the following addition and
multiplication tables:

+ 0 1 a a +1 × 0 1 a a +1
0 0 1 a a +1 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 a a +1 a 1 0 1 a a +1
a a a +1 0 1 a 0 a a +1 1
a +1 a +1 a 1 0 a +1 0 a +1 1 a

Arithmetic in GF 22 ( )
Multiiplication Table 3

Note in the table we used the fact that a 2 + a + 1 = 0 which implies6 a 2 = a + 1 ,

which in turn yields the arithmetic in our new system

i a + a = a × (1× 1) = a × 0 = 0
i a × ( a + 1) = a 2 + a = ( a + 1) + a = ( a + a ) + 1 = 1
i ( a + 1) × ( a + 1) = a 2 + a + a + 1 = a 2 + 1 = a

The finite field in Table 3 is denoted by GF 22 ( ) and called the Galois field of
order 22 = 4 . We can also interpret the elements of this field as polynomials of
degree 1 or less whose coefficients are in
2 = {0,1} with addition and

2
4
We leave it to the reader to verify x 2 + 1 = ( x + 1) with coefficients in
2 . Note that x 2 + 1 is
not irreducible in the real number system since its linear factors involve complex numbers.
5
This operation should not seem strange to you; it is what mathematicians did when “inventing”
the complex number "i" x2 + 1 = 0 .
to satisfy the equation
6
Remember, we are doing the arithmetic modulo 2, so −1 = +1 .
Section 6.5 657 Rings and Fields

multiplication of polynomials is performed in
2 and multiplication reduced

modulo the irreducible polynomial x 2 + x + 1 . In other words, GF 22 ( ) consists of
the four polynomials of degree 0 or 1:

( )
GF 22 = {0,1, x, x + 1}

Hence, we the addition multiplication tables as

+ 0 1 x x +1 × 0 1 x x +1
0 0 1 x x +1 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 x +1 x 1 0 1 x x +1
x x x +1 0 1 x 0 x x +1 1
x +1 x +1 x 1 0 x +1 0 x +1 1 x

Arithmetic in the Field GF 22 ( )

Table 4

Note that multiplication is performed modulo x 2 + x + 1 . For example to

compute the product (1 + x ) × (1 + x ) we first compute

( x + 1) × ( x + 1) = ( x2 + x ) + ( x + 1) = x2 + (1 + 1) x + 1 = x 2 + 1

then divide by x 2 + x + 1 , getting

x2 + 1 x
2
= 1− 2
x + x +1 x + x +1

which gives a remainder of − x . But − x = ( −1) x = (1) x = x in
2 arithmetic

and so the product is
( x + 1) × ( x + 1) = x .

One can continue extending this field to larger Galois fields GF 2 n ( ) for

( )
n > 2 and well as construct fields of order GF p n for p prime and n ≥ 2 .

Note: Groups, rings and fields are examples of what one calls “abstract
algebras.” Other abstract algebras are integral domains, vector spaces,
modules, associative algebras, Boolean algebras, skew fields, …. .
Section 6.5 658 Rings and Fields

Historical Note: The German mathematician Richard Dedekind called a set of

real or complex numbers closed under the four arithmetic operations of
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division a field. He used the German
word “korper” (body) for this concept. The word “ring” was originally used
by German mathematician David Hilbert

Roots of Equations and Field Extensions

Over the centuries mathematicians have enlarged their thinking on the

meaning of numbers, starting with the natural numbers and extending them up
the chain of sets

⊂
⊂⊂⊂⊂ ?

as problems of the day dictate. If a problem has no solution in one number

system, a new enlarged number system might be in order. We have already
seen that the field of rational numbers is a subfield of the field of real numbers
and for that reason we say the real numbers is a field extension of the rational
numbers. This fact suggests the question as to whether the field of real
numbers is the next larger field from the rational numbers, or is it true there
is a field F that satisfies  ⊂ F ⊂  ? Since the rational numbers and real
numbers are the only two infinite fields we have studied, you might be
tempted to say the real numbers is next in line from the rational numbers, but
if you thought that way you would be wrong. In fact, there are an infinite
number of algebraic fields between  and  . For example, consider the
polynomial equation

p ( x ) = x2 − 2 = 0

whose coefficients are the rational numbers7 1,-2. Since this equation does
not have roots in  (it has irrational roots x = ± 2 ), we ask if there is an
algebraic field that contains these roots but is smaller than the real numbers?
In other words, a legitimate number system (i.e. an algebraic field) where we
can add, subtract, multiply, and divide, contains the rational numbers and the
roots of p ( x ) = 0 , but is smaller than the real numbers. The answer is yes
and it is the set

 ( 2 ) = {a + b }
2 : a, b ∈ 

7
Integers are also rational numbers.
Section 6.5 659 Rings and Fields

with addition and multiplication defined in the usual algebraic way. Note that
the set contains the solutions ± 2 since we can let a = 0, b = ±1 . But is this
set an algebraic field? Clearly, addition and multiplication of members of the
set are again members of  ( 2 ) since
( a + b 2 ) + ( c + d 2 ) = ( a + c ) + (b + d ) 2 ∈  ( 2 )
( a + b 2 )( c + d 2 ) = ( ac + 2bd ) + ( ad + bc ) 2 ∈  ( 2 )
Also, any nonzero a + b 2 ∈   2  has a multiplicative inverse since
 

( a + b 2 )  a + 1b 
 =1
2

where

1  1  a −b 2 
=  
a + b 2  a + b 2   a − b 2 
a −b 2
=
a 2 − 2b 2
 a   −b 
= 2 2 
+ 2 2 
2 ∈   2 
 a − 2b   a − 2b 

The history of mathematics is a history of seeking new number systems for

problems that have no solution in existing number systems. For example, the
equation x 2 + 1 = 0 has no real root, so we extend the real numbers to a larger
field by forming

 ( ) { }
−1 = a + b −1 : a, b ∈  = {a + bi : a, b ∈ }

where we define i = −1 , and which includes the roots ± i . This field

extension of  is called the field of complex numbers and denoted by
 =  ( i ) . It has binary operations

( a + bi ) + ( c + di ) = ( a + c ) + (b + d )i
( a + bi )( c + di ) = ( ac − bd ) + ( ad + bc ) i
and any nonzero a + bi ∈  has a multiplicative inverse
Section 6.5 660 Rings and Fields

( a + bi ) 
1 
 =1
 a + bi 

which can be seen from

1  1  a − bi 
=  
a + bi  a + bi  a − bi 
a − bi
= 2
a + b2
 a   −b 
= 2 2 
+i 2 2 
∈
 a +b   a +b 

Fortunately, in 1799 with the proof of the Fundamental

Fundamental Theorem of Algebra by
Carl Gauss, that every n th order polynomial equation with complex (which
includes real) coefficients, has exactly n (included repeated) roots, which are
all complex (which includes real numbers). This shows that insofar as solving
polynomial equations, there is no need to extend number systems beyond the
complex numbers to larger number fields.

Quaternions and Octonians

In the fall of 1843 Irish mathematician William Rowan Hamiltonian was

walking along the Royal Canal in Ireland and it was then and there that he
found a generalization of complex numbers called quaternions. Quaternions
are “numbers” of form z = a + bi + cj , where i, j are unit complex numbers.
For years Hamiltonian tried in vain to define a suitable multiplication that
would turn this system into a field, but all efforts failed. Finally, in 1843 he
stumbled upon the novel idea to “enlarge” this system to a four-dimensional
system of numbers of the form

z = a + bi + cj + dk

where i, j , k are “unit complex numbers” defined by the multiplication table

* i j k
i -1 k −j
j −k -1 i
k j −i -1
Section 6.5 661 Rings and Fields

Numbers of this form are called quaternions and Hamiltonian defined addition
and multiplication by8

( r1 + a1i + b1 j + c1k ) + ( r2 + a2i + b2 j + c2 k )

= ( r1 + r2 ) + ( a1 + a2 ) i + ( b1 + b2 ) j + ( c1 + c2 ) k

( r1 + a1i + b1 j + c1k )( r2 + a2i + b2 j + c2 k ) = See Problem 9

The important thing here is that the quaternions do not form an algebraic field
since multiplication is not commutative. (Note that ij = k , ji = − k ). However,
all other properties of a field hold, and this type of algebraic structure (field
lacking commutative multiplication) is called an integral domain.
domain

The study of quaternions has a long a colorful history. In the late 1800s and
early 1900s, there was a contentious debate whether quaternions or vectors
were the more appropriate way to describe physical systems. Both
quaternions and vectors can compute important physical quantities, such as
dot and cross products of vectors. The language of vector analysis is more
straightforward and geometric than quaternions and so quaternions have lost
much of their luster to the language of vectors, which, as any student of
multivariable calculus well knows.

After Hamilton’s discovery of quaternions, his good friend John Graves,

discovered an eight-dimensional hyper-complex number system, whose
numbers have the form

r + ai1 + bi2 + ci3 + di4 + ei5 + fi6 + gi7

where the unit complex numbers ik have a given multiplication table9. These
numbers are called octonians (or sometimes Caley’s octaves).
octaves Octaves have
one less arithmetic property than do the quaternions, namely they are not in
general associative, and so in the parlance of abstract algebra, octonians with
given two binary operations are called non-
non-associative division rings
rings.

Today, octonians are having a rebirth of sorts after 100 years of relative
obscurity, becoming popular in theoretic physics as a tool in the study of
string theory.

8
We write a quaternion in more suggestive form r + ai + bj + ck where r is called the
real part of the quaternion and ai + bj + ck is called the complex part of the quaternion.
9
An interested reader could “google” words like octonians, quaternions and find a great deal of
information on hyper-complex number systems online.
Section 6.5 662 Rings and Fields

In summary, we have algebraic fields of real and complex numbers

(dimensions 1 and 2), non-commutative quaternions of dimension 4, and non
associative, non commutative octonians. The question then arises, are there
“higher-dimensional” number systems (maybe lacking even more field
properties) of dimension 16, 32, …. The answer to this question was given in
a theorem by German mathematician Ferdinand Frobenius (1849-1917), who
proved there are exactly three associative division rings; namely the real
numbers  , the complex numbers  , and the non commutative quaternions
H . If one relaxes the condition of associativity, then there are exactly four
division rings, , , H , O where O are the non-associative octonians.
Section 6.5 663 Rings and Fields

Problems,
Problems, Section 6.5, Rings and Fields

1. (True or False)

a) A ring can be finite or infinite.

Ans: true

b) { }
In a ring R, +, × the set R with multiplication × forms a subgroup.

Ans: false

c) In a ring {R, +, ×} the set R with addition + is a group but doesn’t have
to be commutative.

Ans: false, it is an abelian group

d) The ring
11 is also a field.

Ans: true

e) The ring
8 is also a field

Ans: false

f) There are fields where a × b = 0 but neither a or b are zero.

Ans: false, this maybe be true in some rings but not fields.

g)

h)

i)

2 (Multiplicative Identity)
Identity) For each of the following rings, tell if the ring is
commutative and if there exists a multiplicative identity. If a multiplicative
identity exists, what is it?

a) The ring of integers
with usual addition and multiplication

 Section 6.5 664 Rings and Fields

Ans: The ring is commutative with multiplicative identity 1.

b) The ring of even integers 2
with usual addition and multiplication.

Ans:
Ans The ring is commutative but it does not have a multiplicative identity.

c) The ring C (  ) of real-valued continuous functions defined on  .

Ans: The ring is commutative with multiplicative identity f ( x ) = 1 .

d)
  {
The ring of the sets
 2  = m + n 2 : m, n ∈
} with usual addition and
multiplication.

Ans: The ring is commutative with multiplicative identity 1.

e) The ring
 x  of all polynomials in x with integer coefficients with

ordinary addition and multiplication.

Ans Yes the ring is commutative with multiplicative identify f ( x ) = 1 .

Ans:

f) The ring  of rational numbers with ordinary addition and multiplication.

Ans: Yes, it is commutative and the multiplicative identity is 1. In fact  is a

field.

a) The ring consisting of the set
3 = {0,1, 2} where addition and

multiplication are defined modulo 3.

Ans The ring is commutative and has multiplicative identity 1. In fact
3 is a

field.

3. (Rings Lacking Properties) Find rings which lack the given property.

a) Ring without multiplicative identity.. Ans: even integers 2
.

b) Ring without multiplicative commutativity. Ans: matrices.

Section 6.5 665 Rings and Fields

c) Ring without multiplicative associativity.. Ans: octonians10.

d) Ring without multiplicative inverse. Ans: integers.

4. Ring of Matrices) Show that the set of all 2 × 2 matrices

a b  
R =   : a, b, c, d ∈

 c d  

is a ring under matrix addition and matrix multiplication is a ring with a

multiplicative element, but it is not commutative and it is not a field.

Ans: Not a field since not all matrices (i.e. singular matrices) have
multiplicative inverses.

5. (Rings which are not Fields) Why are the following rings not fields ?

a) The ring of polynomials with real coefficients with the usual addition and
multiplication.

b) The ring of n × n matrices with the usual matrix addition and

multiplication.

c) The set
n = {0,1, 2,..., n − 1} , where addition and multiplication are

performed modulo n , where n s a composite number.

Ans:

a) The ring of polynomials with real coefficients with the usual addition and
multiplication is a ring but not a field since polynomials do not in general
have multiplicative inverses. For example p( x) = x 2 + 2 x + 1 has no
multiplicative inverse (i.e. no polynomial q ( x ) so that p ( x ) q ( x ) = 1 .for all
x.

b) The ring of n × n matrices with the usual matrix addition and multiplication
is a ring, but not a field since matrices with zero determinant do not have
multiplicative inverses.

10
Octonians are eight dimensional hyper-complex numbers which are extensions of the
two dimensional field of complex numbers.
Section 6.5 666 Rings and Fields

c) The set
n = {0,1, 2,..., n − 1} , where addition and multiplication are

performed modulo n , where n s a composite number (not a prime) is a ring
but not a field. Example 8 illustrates this idea for composite n = 4 .

6. (Mod
Mod 3 Field) The addition and multiplication tables for
3 is shown
below. What are the additive and multiplicative inverses (if they exist) for
every member of the field.

+ 0 1 2 × 0 1 2
0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
1 1 2 0 1 0 1 2
2 2 0 1 2 0 2 1

Ans: The additive and multiplicative inverses of the members of the field are
displayed in the table

a −a a −1
0 0 -
1 2 1
2 1 2

For instance 0 has no multiplicative inverse since only the non-zero elements
of the field are considered in the multiplication table.

7. (Arithmetic in
3 ) In the field GF ( 3) =
3 compute the following

a) 1+ 2 Ans:
Ans: 0

b) 1 − 2 Ans: If x = 1 − 2 , we seek an x that satisfies x + 2 = 0 . From the

addition table for
3 we see x = 1 − 2 = 2 .

c) 2× 2 Ans: 1
d) 1/ 2 Ans: 1 / 2 = 1× 2 −1 = 1× 2 = 2

8. (Modular Arithmetic) Find an integer x such that

a) 2 x = 1( mod 3) , x ∈
3 Ans: x = 1× 2−1 = 1× 2 = 2

b) 3 x = 2 ( mod 5 ) , x ∈
5 Ans: x = 2 × 3−1 = 2 × 2 = 4
Section 6.5 667 Rings and Fields

c) 4 x = 3 ( mod 7 ) , x ∈
7 Ans: x = 3 × 4 −1 = 3 × 2 = 6

9.. ( )
(Galois Field GF 23 ) The members of the Galois field GF 23 ( ) are the 8
elements

( ) { }
GF 23 = 0, 1, x, x + 1, x 2 , x 2 + 1, x 2 + x, x 2 + x + 1

where addition and multiplication are carried out in
2 and multiplication is

reduced modulo the polynomial x 3 + x + 1 . Construct part of the addition and
multiplication tables for this field.

Ans:

Vectors11)
10. (Quaternions and Vectors This problem shows some connections
between quaternions and three-dimensional vectors. For a quaternion

11
This problem shows the close connection between quaternions and three-dimensional vectors. Today
vector analysis has prevailed over quaternions in applied mathematics and science due to its more ease of
use and geometric flavor.
Section 6.5 668 Rings and Fields

q = r + ai + bj + ck

the number r is called the real part of the quaternion, and the ai + bj + ck is
called the complex part of the quaternion. The dot and cross product of two
vectors v1 = ( a, b, c ) , v2 = ( d , e, f ) in  3 can be found by multiplying the two
“corresponding” quaternions (with no real part)

q1 = ai + bj + ck , q2 = di + ej + fk

The real part of the product q1q2 will be − ( v1 ⋅ v2 ) , the negative of the dot
product of v1 and v2 , and the complex part of q1q2 will be the cross product
v1 × v2 of the vectors. Verify these facts for the vectors

v1 = (1, 0,1) , v2 = ( 0,1, 2 ) .

Hint: Recall the dot ( i ) and cross product (× ) of two vectors

v1 = ( a, b, c ) , v2 = ( d , e, f )
are defined by

v1 i v2 = ad + be + cf
v1 × v2 = ( bd − ce, cd − ad , ae − bd )

Find the product of the quaternions

( 3i + j + 2k )(1 + i − k )

Hint: Use the multiplication table for i, j , k and use the distributive property.

Ans: The dot product ( 3,1, 2) i (1, 0, −1) = ( 3)(1) + (1)( 0 ) + ( 2)( −1) = 1 and so its
negative is −1 . The cross product is

i j k
( 3,1, 2) × (1, 0, −1) = 3 1 2 = ( −1,5, −1)
1 0 −1

and so the product of the quaternions is

Section 6.5 669 Rings and Fields

( 3i + j + 2k )(1 + i − k ) = −1 − i + 5 j − k

11. (Multiplicative Inverse) The integers
under ordinary addition and

multiplication form a commutative ring with unity 1. Do any members of this
ring have multiplicative inverses ? If so, what are they ?

Ans:
Ans 1 and -1 have multiplicative inverses, namely themselves since
(1)(1) = 1 and ( −1)( −1) = 1 .
Ring) The set {0, a, b, c} with addition and multiplication defined by
12. (Type of Ring)
the following Cayley tables forms a ring. Is this group commutative and does it
have a multiplicative identity?

⊕ 0 a b c ⊗ 0 a a c
0 0 a b c 0 0 0 0 0
a a 0 c b a 0 a b c
b b c 0 a b 0 a b c
c c b a 0 c 0 0 0 0

Ans: No to both. Commutative refers to the multiplication table which is clearly

not commutative.

Zero Divisors and Integral Domains

In some rings things don’t obey the arithmetic you learned in grade
school. For example, in the ring
4 = {0,1, 2, 3} modulo arithmetic we found
2 × 2=0. Here we say that 2 is a zero divisor for this ring. In general, an
element a ∈ R in a ring is a zero divisor if there is a nonzero element b ∈ R in the
ring such that ab = 0 . Matrix rings also have zero divisors.

13.. (Zero Divisors) Are there zero divisors in the ring of 3 × 3 matrices with
integer entries using the usual operations of addition and multiplication?

Ans:
Ans Yes, the matrix

0 0 1
 
0 0 0
0 0 0
 
Section 6.5 670 Rings and Fields

since

0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0
    
0 0 00 0 0 = 0 0 0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
    

14. (Integral Domains: Rings with Cancelation) We say that an element a ∈ R in

(Integral Domains:
a ring is a zero divisor if if there is a nonzero element b ∈ R in the ring such that
ab = 0 . A commutative ring R with multiplicative identity that has no divisors of
zero is called an integral domain.
domain Show that in any ring that is an integral domain
for which a, b, c ∈ R , a ≠ 0 , the cancellation law

ab = ac ⇒ b = c

holds. Are the rings
, ,  with ordinary addition and multiplication integral
domains?

Ans: If ab = ac we have a ( b − c ) = 0 and since a ≠ 0 and since there are no zero

divisors, we must have b − c = 0 or b = c .