3

I am reading a first course in algebra 7th edition written by John B. Fraleigh. I have seen the following two definitions:

1) A field is a commutative ring in which every nonzero element has multiplicative inverse.

2) An integral domain is a commutative ring with unity 1 and containing no zero divisors.

Then i saw a picture in the book that shows fields as subsets of integral domains like in the following picture:

enter image description here

My question is, how do we understand from these two definitions that fields are subsets of integral domains? In the definition of integral domain, i do not see anything saying that every element in the ring should have an inverse, it just says that there must be a multiplicative identity. Am i missing something or is there something missing in the definitions?

Thank you

2 Answers2

8

No, it is not necessarily the case that every element in an integral domain has a multiplicative inverse.

Every field is an integral domain, but not every integral domain is a field. Hence we have that the set of all fields is a proper subset of the set of all integral domains.

amWhy
  • 209,954
2

As already noticed, every field is an integral domain but the converse doesn't hold (take for example $\mathbb{Z}$). In order to show that a field $F$ is an integral domain, suppose $a,b\in F$ are such that $ab=0$ and assume $a$ is not zero. Then since every non zero element in a field is invertible, one has $$ab=0\implies a^{–1}ab=0\implies b=0. $$ Similarly if $b\neq 0$ one gets that a must be zero and hence $F$ is an integral domain.