Show that this ring is semi-simple











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let $mathbb{F}_q$ be a field of order $q = p^m$, where $p$ is the characteristic of the field; a prime.



Consider the ring $$R_n = mathbb{F}_q[x]/langle x^n - 1 rangle $$ Now, I've read that this ring is semi-simple when $p$ does not divide $n$, but no proof was given.



Does anyone know how to prove it or somewhere where I can read the proof? Thank you.










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $mathbb{F}_q$ be a field of order $q = p^m$, where $p$ is the characteristic of the field; a prime.



    Consider the ring $$R_n = mathbb{F}_q[x]/langle x^n - 1 rangle $$ Now, I've read that this ring is semi-simple when $p$ does not divide $n$, but no proof was given.



    Does anyone know how to prove it or somewhere where I can read the proof? Thank you.










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $mathbb{F}_q$ be a field of order $q = p^m$, where $p$ is the characteristic of the field; a prime.



      Consider the ring $$R_n = mathbb{F}_q[x]/langle x^n - 1 rangle $$ Now, I've read that this ring is semi-simple when $p$ does not divide $n$, but no proof was given.



      Does anyone know how to prove it or somewhere where I can read the proof? Thank you.










      share|cite|improve this question













      Let $mathbb{F}_q$ be a field of order $q = p^m$, where $p$ is the characteristic of the field; a prime.



      Consider the ring $$R_n = mathbb{F}_q[x]/langle x^n - 1 rangle $$ Now, I've read that this ring is semi-simple when $p$ does not divide $n$, but no proof was given.



      Does anyone know how to prove it or somewhere where I can read the proof? Thank you.







      abstract-algebra reference-request ring-theory semi-simple-rings






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 3 at 13:58









      the man

      672715




      672715






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          5
          down vote













          One way to look at it is that if $C={1, c, c^2,ldots, c^{n-1}}$ is the cyclic group of order $n$, then $xmapsto c$ is an isomorphism of $R_nto F_q[C]$, the group ring of $C$ over $F_q$.



          Maschke's theorem says that if $|G|=n<infty$, then $F[G]$ is semisimple exactly when $|G|$ is a unit in $F$, and this would be the case only when $gcd(p,n)=1$.





          Another way to prove it would be to show that $x^n-1$ is square-free when factorized over $F_q$. This says that the ring is semiprime, and since it is already obviously Artinian, that would make it semisimple. Sorry to say my cyclotomic factorization knowledge is too rusty to spell this out, but the same is true.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
            – peter a g
            Dec 3 at 14:28












          • @peterag Thanks for filling that in!
            – rschwieb
            Dec 3 at 14:31












          • Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
            – the man
            Dec 3 at 16:29










          • @theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
            – rschwieb
            Dec 3 at 16:46


















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          I'll give a proof. First we'll need some facts.



          Fact 1



          A commutative ring (possibly without identity) is semisimple if and only if it is a direct sum of fields.



          Proof:



          It is clear that a direct sum of fields is semisimple, so assume $R$ is a commutative semisimple ring. Then note that since $R$ is commutative maximal left ideals are simply maximal ideals of $R$, so every simple left $R$ module is in fact a quotient ring of $R$.



          Now let $phi : Rto bigoplus_i S_i$ be the isomorphism demonstrating semisimplicity of $R$, with all of the $S_i$ simple. Let $m_i$ be the kernel of the composite map $Rto bigoplus_i S_ito S_i$, so that we can identify $phi$ with the canonical map $Rto bigoplus_i R/m_i$. However, this canonical map is a ring homomorphism. Since $phi$ was a bijection, and we can identify it with this map, this canonical map is a bijection. Thus $Rcong bigoplus_i R/m_i$.



          Fact 2



          An Artinian ring is a finite product of (necessarily Artinian) local rings.



          Proof sketch: See e.g. Atiyah and MacDonald for more details, but the idea is to prove the following lemma: An Artinian ring with no nontrivial idempotents is local. Then this implies that we can recursively break the ring up into a product of rings until we arrive at a local ring, and this process must terminate since the ring is Artinian.



          Fact 3



          An Artinian local ring is either a field or has nilpotents.



          Proof: Let $m$ be the maximal ideal of the Artinian local ring. Since the descending chain $msupseteq m^2 supseteq cdots supseteq m^nsupseteq cdots $ must stabilize,
          for some $n$, we have $m^n=m^{n+1}$, so by Nakayama's lemma, we have $m^n=0$. Thus $m^n$ is nilpotent. Thus any nonzero element of $m$ is nilpotent, so either $m=0$ and the ring is a field, or the ring has nilpotents.



          Conclusion



          Combining facts 1, 2, and 3 we see that a commutative Artinian ring is semisimple if and only if it is reduced.



          Then $k[x]/(x^n-1)$ is reduced if the characteristic of $k$ doesn't divide $n$, so being artinian, it is semisimple.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3024091%2fshow-that-this-ring-is-semi-simple%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            5
            down vote













            One way to look at it is that if $C={1, c, c^2,ldots, c^{n-1}}$ is the cyclic group of order $n$, then $xmapsto c$ is an isomorphism of $R_nto F_q[C]$, the group ring of $C$ over $F_q$.



            Maschke's theorem says that if $|G|=n<infty$, then $F[G]$ is semisimple exactly when $|G|$ is a unit in $F$, and this would be the case only when $gcd(p,n)=1$.





            Another way to prove it would be to show that $x^n-1$ is square-free when factorized over $F_q$. This says that the ring is semiprime, and since it is already obviously Artinian, that would make it semisimple. Sorry to say my cyclotomic factorization knowledge is too rusty to spell this out, but the same is true.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
              – peter a g
              Dec 3 at 14:28












            • @peterag Thanks for filling that in!
              – rschwieb
              Dec 3 at 14:31












            • Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
              – the man
              Dec 3 at 16:29










            • @theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
              – rschwieb
              Dec 3 at 16:46















            up vote
            5
            down vote













            One way to look at it is that if $C={1, c, c^2,ldots, c^{n-1}}$ is the cyclic group of order $n$, then $xmapsto c$ is an isomorphism of $R_nto F_q[C]$, the group ring of $C$ over $F_q$.



            Maschke's theorem says that if $|G|=n<infty$, then $F[G]$ is semisimple exactly when $|G|$ is a unit in $F$, and this would be the case only when $gcd(p,n)=1$.





            Another way to prove it would be to show that $x^n-1$ is square-free when factorized over $F_q$. This says that the ring is semiprime, and since it is already obviously Artinian, that would make it semisimple. Sorry to say my cyclotomic factorization knowledge is too rusty to spell this out, but the same is true.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
              – peter a g
              Dec 3 at 14:28












            • @peterag Thanks for filling that in!
              – rschwieb
              Dec 3 at 14:31












            • Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
              – the man
              Dec 3 at 16:29










            • @theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
              – rschwieb
              Dec 3 at 16:46













            up vote
            5
            down vote










            up vote
            5
            down vote









            One way to look at it is that if $C={1, c, c^2,ldots, c^{n-1}}$ is the cyclic group of order $n$, then $xmapsto c$ is an isomorphism of $R_nto F_q[C]$, the group ring of $C$ over $F_q$.



            Maschke's theorem says that if $|G|=n<infty$, then $F[G]$ is semisimple exactly when $|G|$ is a unit in $F$, and this would be the case only when $gcd(p,n)=1$.





            Another way to prove it would be to show that $x^n-1$ is square-free when factorized over $F_q$. This says that the ring is semiprime, and since it is already obviously Artinian, that would make it semisimple. Sorry to say my cyclotomic factorization knowledge is too rusty to spell this out, but the same is true.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            One way to look at it is that if $C={1, c, c^2,ldots, c^{n-1}}$ is the cyclic group of order $n$, then $xmapsto c$ is an isomorphism of $R_nto F_q[C]$, the group ring of $C$ over $F_q$.



            Maschke's theorem says that if $|G|=n<infty$, then $F[G]$ is semisimple exactly when $|G|$ is a unit in $F$, and this would be the case only when $gcd(p,n)=1$.





            Another way to prove it would be to show that $x^n-1$ is square-free when factorized over $F_q$. This says that the ring is semiprime, and since it is already obviously Artinian, that would make it semisimple. Sorry to say my cyclotomic factorization knowledge is too rusty to spell this out, but the same is true.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 3 at 14:16









            rschwieb

            104k1299241




            104k1299241








            • 1




              if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
              – peter a g
              Dec 3 at 14:28












            • @peterag Thanks for filling that in!
              – rschwieb
              Dec 3 at 14:31












            • Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
              – the man
              Dec 3 at 16:29










            • @theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
              – rschwieb
              Dec 3 at 16:46














            • 1




              if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
              – peter a g
              Dec 3 at 14:28












            • @peterag Thanks for filling that in!
              – rschwieb
              Dec 3 at 14:31












            • Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
              – the man
              Dec 3 at 16:29










            • @theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
              – rschwieb
              Dec 3 at 16:46








            1




            1




            if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
            – peter a g
            Dec 3 at 14:28






            if $p$ does not divide $n$, then the derivative of $x^n-1$ does not vanish at the roots of $x^n-1$, so the monic $x^n-1$ is square-free. Reference: theorem 4.5 Jacobson BA1. (+1 by the way)
            – peter a g
            Dec 3 at 14:28














            @peterag Thanks for filling that in!
            – rschwieb
            Dec 3 at 14:31






            @peterag Thanks for filling that in!
            – rschwieb
            Dec 3 at 14:31














            Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
            – the man
            Dec 3 at 16:29




            Why does $x^n - 1$ being square free imply that the ring is semiprime?
            – the man
            Dec 3 at 16:29












            @theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
            – rschwieb
            Dec 3 at 16:46




            @theman Prove it! More generally if $p(x)in F[x]$, $F[x]/(p(x))$ is semiprime iff $p(x)$ is square free. If it is square free, you can apply the Chinese Remainder theorem, and if it isn't square free you can find a nonzero nilpotent.
            – rschwieb
            Dec 3 at 16:46










            up vote
            2
            down vote













            I'll give a proof. First we'll need some facts.



            Fact 1



            A commutative ring (possibly without identity) is semisimple if and only if it is a direct sum of fields.



            Proof:



            It is clear that a direct sum of fields is semisimple, so assume $R$ is a commutative semisimple ring. Then note that since $R$ is commutative maximal left ideals are simply maximal ideals of $R$, so every simple left $R$ module is in fact a quotient ring of $R$.



            Now let $phi : Rto bigoplus_i S_i$ be the isomorphism demonstrating semisimplicity of $R$, with all of the $S_i$ simple. Let $m_i$ be the kernel of the composite map $Rto bigoplus_i S_ito S_i$, so that we can identify $phi$ with the canonical map $Rto bigoplus_i R/m_i$. However, this canonical map is a ring homomorphism. Since $phi$ was a bijection, and we can identify it with this map, this canonical map is a bijection. Thus $Rcong bigoplus_i R/m_i$.



            Fact 2



            An Artinian ring is a finite product of (necessarily Artinian) local rings.



            Proof sketch: See e.g. Atiyah and MacDonald for more details, but the idea is to prove the following lemma: An Artinian ring with no nontrivial idempotents is local. Then this implies that we can recursively break the ring up into a product of rings until we arrive at a local ring, and this process must terminate since the ring is Artinian.



            Fact 3



            An Artinian local ring is either a field or has nilpotents.



            Proof: Let $m$ be the maximal ideal of the Artinian local ring. Since the descending chain $msupseteq m^2 supseteq cdots supseteq m^nsupseteq cdots $ must stabilize,
            for some $n$, we have $m^n=m^{n+1}$, so by Nakayama's lemma, we have $m^n=0$. Thus $m^n$ is nilpotent. Thus any nonzero element of $m$ is nilpotent, so either $m=0$ and the ring is a field, or the ring has nilpotents.



            Conclusion



            Combining facts 1, 2, and 3 we see that a commutative Artinian ring is semisimple if and only if it is reduced.



            Then $k[x]/(x^n-1)$ is reduced if the characteristic of $k$ doesn't divide $n$, so being artinian, it is semisimple.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              2
              down vote













              I'll give a proof. First we'll need some facts.



              Fact 1



              A commutative ring (possibly without identity) is semisimple if and only if it is a direct sum of fields.



              Proof:



              It is clear that a direct sum of fields is semisimple, so assume $R$ is a commutative semisimple ring. Then note that since $R$ is commutative maximal left ideals are simply maximal ideals of $R$, so every simple left $R$ module is in fact a quotient ring of $R$.



              Now let $phi : Rto bigoplus_i S_i$ be the isomorphism demonstrating semisimplicity of $R$, with all of the $S_i$ simple. Let $m_i$ be the kernel of the composite map $Rto bigoplus_i S_ito S_i$, so that we can identify $phi$ with the canonical map $Rto bigoplus_i R/m_i$. However, this canonical map is a ring homomorphism. Since $phi$ was a bijection, and we can identify it with this map, this canonical map is a bijection. Thus $Rcong bigoplus_i R/m_i$.



              Fact 2



              An Artinian ring is a finite product of (necessarily Artinian) local rings.



              Proof sketch: See e.g. Atiyah and MacDonald for more details, but the idea is to prove the following lemma: An Artinian ring with no nontrivial idempotents is local. Then this implies that we can recursively break the ring up into a product of rings until we arrive at a local ring, and this process must terminate since the ring is Artinian.



              Fact 3



              An Artinian local ring is either a field or has nilpotents.



              Proof: Let $m$ be the maximal ideal of the Artinian local ring. Since the descending chain $msupseteq m^2 supseteq cdots supseteq m^nsupseteq cdots $ must stabilize,
              for some $n$, we have $m^n=m^{n+1}$, so by Nakayama's lemma, we have $m^n=0$. Thus $m^n$ is nilpotent. Thus any nonzero element of $m$ is nilpotent, so either $m=0$ and the ring is a field, or the ring has nilpotents.



              Conclusion



              Combining facts 1, 2, and 3 we see that a commutative Artinian ring is semisimple if and only if it is reduced.



              Then $k[x]/(x^n-1)$ is reduced if the characteristic of $k$ doesn't divide $n$, so being artinian, it is semisimple.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote









                I'll give a proof. First we'll need some facts.



                Fact 1



                A commutative ring (possibly without identity) is semisimple if and only if it is a direct sum of fields.



                Proof:



                It is clear that a direct sum of fields is semisimple, so assume $R$ is a commutative semisimple ring. Then note that since $R$ is commutative maximal left ideals are simply maximal ideals of $R$, so every simple left $R$ module is in fact a quotient ring of $R$.



                Now let $phi : Rto bigoplus_i S_i$ be the isomorphism demonstrating semisimplicity of $R$, with all of the $S_i$ simple. Let $m_i$ be the kernel of the composite map $Rto bigoplus_i S_ito S_i$, so that we can identify $phi$ with the canonical map $Rto bigoplus_i R/m_i$. However, this canonical map is a ring homomorphism. Since $phi$ was a bijection, and we can identify it with this map, this canonical map is a bijection. Thus $Rcong bigoplus_i R/m_i$.



                Fact 2



                An Artinian ring is a finite product of (necessarily Artinian) local rings.



                Proof sketch: See e.g. Atiyah and MacDonald for more details, but the idea is to prove the following lemma: An Artinian ring with no nontrivial idempotents is local. Then this implies that we can recursively break the ring up into a product of rings until we arrive at a local ring, and this process must terminate since the ring is Artinian.



                Fact 3



                An Artinian local ring is either a field or has nilpotents.



                Proof: Let $m$ be the maximal ideal of the Artinian local ring. Since the descending chain $msupseteq m^2 supseteq cdots supseteq m^nsupseteq cdots $ must stabilize,
                for some $n$, we have $m^n=m^{n+1}$, so by Nakayama's lemma, we have $m^n=0$. Thus $m^n$ is nilpotent. Thus any nonzero element of $m$ is nilpotent, so either $m=0$ and the ring is a field, or the ring has nilpotents.



                Conclusion



                Combining facts 1, 2, and 3 we see that a commutative Artinian ring is semisimple if and only if it is reduced.



                Then $k[x]/(x^n-1)$ is reduced if the characteristic of $k$ doesn't divide $n$, so being artinian, it is semisimple.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                I'll give a proof. First we'll need some facts.



                Fact 1



                A commutative ring (possibly without identity) is semisimple if and only if it is a direct sum of fields.



                Proof:



                It is clear that a direct sum of fields is semisimple, so assume $R$ is a commutative semisimple ring. Then note that since $R$ is commutative maximal left ideals are simply maximal ideals of $R$, so every simple left $R$ module is in fact a quotient ring of $R$.



                Now let $phi : Rto bigoplus_i S_i$ be the isomorphism demonstrating semisimplicity of $R$, with all of the $S_i$ simple. Let $m_i$ be the kernel of the composite map $Rto bigoplus_i S_ito S_i$, so that we can identify $phi$ with the canonical map $Rto bigoplus_i R/m_i$. However, this canonical map is a ring homomorphism. Since $phi$ was a bijection, and we can identify it with this map, this canonical map is a bijection. Thus $Rcong bigoplus_i R/m_i$.



                Fact 2



                An Artinian ring is a finite product of (necessarily Artinian) local rings.



                Proof sketch: See e.g. Atiyah and MacDonald for more details, but the idea is to prove the following lemma: An Artinian ring with no nontrivial idempotents is local. Then this implies that we can recursively break the ring up into a product of rings until we arrive at a local ring, and this process must terminate since the ring is Artinian.



                Fact 3



                An Artinian local ring is either a field or has nilpotents.



                Proof: Let $m$ be the maximal ideal of the Artinian local ring. Since the descending chain $msupseteq m^2 supseteq cdots supseteq m^nsupseteq cdots $ must stabilize,
                for some $n$, we have $m^n=m^{n+1}$, so by Nakayama's lemma, we have $m^n=0$. Thus $m^n$ is nilpotent. Thus any nonzero element of $m$ is nilpotent, so either $m=0$ and the ring is a field, or the ring has nilpotents.



                Conclusion



                Combining facts 1, 2, and 3 we see that a commutative Artinian ring is semisimple if and only if it is reduced.



                Then $k[x]/(x^n-1)$ is reduced if the characteristic of $k$ doesn't divide $n$, so being artinian, it is semisimple.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 3 at 14:38









                jgon

                11.9k21840




                11.9k21840






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3024091%2fshow-that-this-ring-is-semi-simple%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                    Mont Emei