Equivalence of Definitions of Commutative Local Ring
Theorem
Let $A$ be a commutative ring with unity.
The following definitions of the concept of Commutative Local Ring are equivalent:
Definition 1
The ring $A$ is local if and only if it has a unique maximal ideal.
Definition 2
The ring $A$ is local if and only if it is nontrivial and the sum of any two non-units is a non-unit.
Definition 3
Let $M \subseteq A$ be the subset of the non-units of $A$.
The ring $A$ is local if and only if $M$ is a proper ideal of $A$.
Proof
Definition 1 implies Definition 2
Let $\mathfrak m \subsetneq A$ be the unique maximal ideal.
First, $A$ is nontrivial, since $1 \notin \mathfrak m$.
Secondly, let $x, y \in A$ be non-units.
Let $\ideal x$ and $\ideal y$ be the principal ideals generated by $x$ and $y$, respectively.
In view of the unique maximality, $\ideal x \subseteq \mathfrak m$ and $\ideal y \subseteq \mathfrak m$.
In particular:
- $x, y \in \mathfrak m$
which implies:
- $x + y \in \mathfrak m$
Therefore $x + y$ is a non-unit.
$\Box$
Definition 2 implies Definition 3
First, by the assumption:
- $x, y \in M \implies x + y \in M$
Secondly, let $a \in A$ and $x \in M$.
We shall show that $a x \in M$.
Aiming for a contradiction, suppose there exists a $u \in A$ such that:
- $u \paren {a x} = 1$
Thus:
- $\paren {u a} x = 1$
which means that $x$ is a unit.
This contradicts the fact that $x \in M$.
Therefore $a x \in M$.
Altogether $M$ is an ideal.
Finally, $1 \notin M$, since $A$ is nontrivial.
![]() | This article, or a section of it, needs explaining. In particular: Why? You can help $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ by explaining it. To discuss this page in more detail, feel free to use the talk page. When this work has been completed, you may remove this instance of {{Explain}} from the code. |
Therefore $M$ is a proper ideal.
$\Box$
Definition 3 implies Definition 1
Let $I$ be an arbitrary ideal such that $M \subsetneq I$.
Let $u \in I \setminus M$.
Then $u$ is a unit by the definition of $M$.
Therefore $M = A$.
Furthermore, $M$ is assumed to be a proper ideal.
Therefore $M$ is a maximal ideal.
On the other hand, let $N$ be an arbitrary maximal ideal.
As $N$ does not contain a unit:
- $N \subseteq M$
which implies:
- $N = M$
Therefore $M$ is the unique maximal ideal.
$\blacksquare$