4

$AB \subseteq A \cap B$ is clear. I have seen reverse inclusion proven thus,

Let $x \in A\cap B$. Since $A+B=R$, there exist $a \in A$, $b \in B$, such that $a+b=1$. Then $x= axa + axb + bxa + bxb$. Therefore, $A \cap B \subseteq AB$.

My problem: I cannot see why $bxa \in AB$.

Edit: If this does not hold for noncommutative rings, give a counterexample

Rachmaninoff
  • 2,650

1 Answers1

5

I will modify your reverse inclusion statement. Let us suppose we have $a+b = 1$ for $a \in A$ and $b \in b$. Then for $x \in A \cap B$ we have $xa+xb = x$. Note that $xa \in AB$ because $x \in A \cap B$ (see note below) and similarly $xb \in AB$. Thus $x$ is the sum of two elements in $AB$. Thus, $x \in AB$, and so we have reverse inclusion.

As mentioned by Potato above a Commutative Ring is needed here (I use it implicitly when I say $xa \in AB$, because $xa$ is really in $BA$, but by being in a commutative ring, $BA = AB$).

As a counterexample, take the ring of $2 \times 2$ upper triangular matrices over $\mathbb{R}$. Take $A = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 \\ \end{pmatrix}$, $B = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 \\ \end{pmatrix}$, $I = (A), J = (B)$ (as left ideals). Now all matrices of $I$ are of the form $ \begin{pmatrix} a & 0 \\ b & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and the matrices of $J$ are of the form $ \begin{pmatrix} 0 & c \\ 0 & d \end{pmatrix}, \forall a,b,c ,d \in \mathbb{R}$. Now $A+B = Id$, so $I+J = R$. Yet, $I \cap J = 0$ and if $C = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \in J$, $AC = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \in IJ$.

S.S
  • 1,207
srvasude
  • 181
  • 1
    Do you happen to have a counterexample for the noncommutative case? – Potato Apr 10 '13 at 04:24
  • 1
    Here is an example I found: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/47212/is-the-product-of-ideals-commutative Note that $IJ$ = 0, but $I \cap J$ are strictly triangular matrices with their second row being zero. Now if $IJ = JI$ the proof should still go through. – srvasude Apr 10 '13 at 04:24
  • 1
    $I+J \neq R$ in this example since $R$ contains the matrix with nonzero entry at $(2,2)$ – Rachmaninoff Apr 10 '13 at 04:37
  • I was not thinking straight, my mistake. Here is a counterexample which should work this time. Take again the ring of $2\times2$upper triangular matrices, except over $\mathbb{R}$. Take the ideal $I$ generated by the matrix $A$ with a 1 in the upper left corner, and zero everywhere else, and $J$ generated by the matrix $B$ with a 1 in the lower left corner, and zero everywhere else (left ideals). – srvasude Apr 10 '13 at 05:59
  • 2
    Now $A+B=1$ so $I+J=R$. However $I$ has matrices which have the second column zero, and $J$ has matrices which have the first column zero, so $I \cap J = 0$. Yet, $IJ$ is non zero (take $A$ and multiply by matrix with zero's in first column and 1's in second column and get a matrix that is zero except for a 1 in the upper right corner) – srvasude Apr 10 '13 at 06:10
  • I think this works for left ideals. Could you edit your answer and append the counterexample and i will accept it – Rachmaninoff Apr 10 '13 at 06:51
  • Can you explain why two elements being in AB gives that their sum is also an element of AB? I cant make sense of this. – drfrankie Oct 27 '21 at 23:41