4

I have a problem to solve the following problem: If $1=e_1+e_2$ with non-units $e_1,e_2 \in R$ and if $e_1e_2$ is nilpotent, then there is an idempotent element $e\not =0$,$e\not =1$. Perhaps it is a straightforward problem, but I could not solve it so far.

rschwieb
  • 160,592
  • 5
    What kind of ring is $R$? (You haven't even mentioned that it's a ring). Please add the details, and tell us what you have tried. – M. Vinay Apr 04 '19 at 08:12
  • 1
    This has been solved on this site already (google "nontrivial idempotent"). – Dietrich Burde Apr 04 '19 at 08:16
  • 2
    @DietrichBurde Do you have a direct link? I think my google prioritizes results differently than yours, because I don't get this question up when I google "nontrivial idempotent". – Arthur Apr 04 '19 at 08:20
  • 2
    @Arthur Well, I thought of Daniel's answer, resp. user38268's answer here, but there are better references, I suppose. Also, the OP has not yet answered what $R$ really is. – Dietrich Burde Apr 04 '19 at 08:25
  • Regarding M.Vinay answer, yes, it is a ring, I forgot write it. Regarding @DietrichBurde, when I was writting the question I looked at the titles of the suggestions that appeared and I thought that they awsered different things, sorry. Nevertheless, with the link provided and the answer below, I have been able to figure it out. Thanks to all. – Hakim Ziyech Apr 04 '19 at 09:28

2 Answers2

7

Set $e:=e_1$ so that $e_2=1-e$. Given that $e_1e_2$ is nilpotent there exists $k\in\Bbb{N}$ such that $$0=(e_1e_2)^k=(e(1-e))^k=e^k(1-e)^k,$$ because of course $e$ and $1-e$ commute. Setting $f:=e^k$ and $g:=(1-e)^k$ yields $fg=0$. Moreover $e$ and $1-e$ both divide $f+g-1$ and hence $f+g-1$ is also nilpotent. It follows that $f+g$ is a unit and for $u:=(f+g)^{-1}$ we have $$uf=uf\cdot u(f+g)=(uf)^2+uf\cdot ug=(uf)^2+u^2fg=(uf)^2,$$ where $u$ and $f$ commute because $f$ and $g$ do. This shows that $uf$ is idempotent. Note that $uf\in\{0,1\}$ if and only if $f=0$ or $g=0$, in which case either $e_1$ or $e_2$ is nilpotent, and so the other is a unit, contradicting the assumption that $e_1$ and $e_2$ are non-units.

Servaes
  • 67,306
  • 8
  • 82
  • 171
  • 4
    The subring of $R$ generated by $e$ is anyway commutative, and this construction can be performed inside this subring, hence it also applies to noncommutative rings. – Sasha Apr 04 '19 at 10:58
  • 1
    @Sasha You are right; I was hesitant because I wasn't sure whether $u$ and $f$ commuted, but indeed they do. I have updated my answer. – Servaes Apr 04 '19 at 11:02
3

This is not as concrete as Servaes's answer, but it makes use of a useful lemma:

Idempotents lift modulo a nil ideal. That is, if every element of $I$ is nilpotent, and $(e+I)(e+I)\equiv e+I\in R/I$ then there exists $f\in R$ such that $f^2=f$ and $f+I=e+I$.

See this and this for example.)

Step 1: reduce to a commutative subring $S$

As mentioned earlier, the hypotheses on $R$ apply to the subring of $R$ generated by $e_1$ (which includes $e_2=1-e_1$), and this subring is commutative. If we can find a nontrivial idempotent of that subring, we will have found a nontrivial idempotent of $R$. So if we prove the theorem for commutative rings, we will get it for free for noncommutative rings. Let $S$ denote the subring.

Step 2: Look at $S/(e_1e_2)$ to find an idempotent of $S$

We have the equation $1=e_1+e_2$ in $S$, and consequently also $e_1=e_1^2+e_1e_2$. Now, $I\lhd S$ given by $I=e_1e_2S$ is a nilpotent ideal, since it is generated by a nilpotent element. Modulo $I$, the equation above becomes $e_1+I\equiv e_1^2+I$, so $e_1+I$ is an idempotent of $S/I$.

By the lemma I cited above, there must exist an $f\in S$ such that $f^2=f$ and $f+I=e_1+I$. The only thing left to show is that $f\notin\{0,1\}$, but both cases are eliminated by the original hypotheses, as we shall see.

Step 3: confirm $f$ works

If $f=0$ so that $e_1+I=I$, then $e_1\in I$, which you recall is a nilpotent ideal, so $e_1$ is nilpotent. But then $1-e_1=e_2$ is a unit, which contradicts the assumption $e_2$ is not a unit.

Similarly if $f=1$, then $e_1+I=1+I$ implies $e_2=e_1-1\in I$, whence $e_2$ is nilpotent and $e_1=1-e_2$ is a unit by the same logic as in the previous case.

So in fact $f\notin \{0,1\}$, and it is a nontrivial idempotent of $S$, and hence of $R$.


I am sure the lemma I am using just hides Servaes's details under the rug, and that would be a fair thing to say. But perhaps breaking the problem apart across this lemma is a good thing, because the lemma is useful elsewhere. Two for one!

rschwieb
  • 160,592
  • 1
    A few years ago I was writing up a proof for the fact that if $R$ is a connected ring then so is $R/N$, where $N\lhd R$ is the nilradical. I then wanted to make my original very inconcrete proof (through the spectra of the rings) entirely concrete by constructing the relevant idempotents. The construction I found is precisely my answer here. So I would say yes, your lemma indeed hides my details under the rug. But I would say that's a great thing because the lemma is much more valuable than explicit constructions for the idempotents (in my experience). – Servaes Apr 04 '19 at 15:08