Every finite division ring is a field Chapter 5 Rings are important structures in modem algebra. If a ring has a rqul- tiplicative unit element I and every nonzero element has a maltiplicative inverse, then R is called a division ring. So, all that is missing in R from being a field is the commutativity of multiplication. ‘The best-known exam- ple of a non-commutative division ring is the ring of quaternions discovered by Hamilton, But, as the chapter title says, every such division ring must of necessity be infinite. If is finite, then the axioms force the multiplication to be commutative ‘This result which is now a classic has caught the imagination of many math- ‘ematicians, because, as Herstein writes: “It ie so unexpectedly interrelating two seemingly unrelated things, the number of elements in a certain alge- braic system and the multiplication of that system.” ‘Theorem. Every finite division ring Ris commutative. Emnat Wit ‘This beautiful theorem which is usually attributed to MacLagan Wedder- burn has been proved by many people using a variety of different ideas. ‘Wedderburn himself gave three proofs in 1905, and another proof was given by Leonard E. Dickson in the same year. More proofs were later given by Emil Artin, Hans Zassenhaus, Nicolas Bourbaki, and many others. One proof stands out forits simplicity and elegance. It was found by Ernst Witt in 1931 and combines two elementary ideas towards a glorious finish. Proof, Our fisst ingredient comes from a blend of linear algebra and basic group theory. For an arbitrary element s © R, let ©, be the set {2 © Rs x8 = sz} of elements which commute with s; C, is called the centralizer of s, Clearly, C, contains 0 and 1 and is a sub-division ring ‘of R. The center Z is the set of elements which commute with all elements Of R, thus Z =),¢ Cs. In particular, all elements of Z commute, O and 1 are in Z, and so is finite field. Let us set Z| = 4. We can regard R and C, as vector spaces over the field Z and deduce that -R| = q”, where n is the dimension of the vector space R over Z, and similarly (C,| = q” for suitable integers n, > 1. Now let us assume that R is not a field. This means that for some « @ R the centralizer Cy, is not all of R, or, what is the same, ng 2 Consider now for s © * the map fz :x+—+ 2 sx from Rt ‘onto 4. For 2 y € A we find ele = yey (yee = sly es ye le Cl a ye Cin, for Cd += C,\{0}, where Clx = {20 : = © Cr} has size [C7]. Hence any ‘element 2°" ar is the image of precisely |C3)'= q™ — 1 elements in under the map f,, and we deduce |*| = |g] C2). In particular, we note that vel gat = LEE a vantage forts ial 7 ear! : We know that te equivalence clases pation A, We now group the Cental elements 2° topeer and denote BY yy. ce the equaence Classes containing more than one element. ‘By our assumption we know £ > 1. Since [R| = [2°] + 32.1 [dal we have proved the so-called clas formula sgh Pate g-teye ? a ‘ where wehave 1 < 2h € N forall k With (1) we have left abstract algebra and are back to the natural numbers. Next we claim that q”™ —1 | q"—1 implies nx | m. Indeed, writen = ang +r with 0 |o—0 Every finite division ring isa field we find ~ Vos +p © % By assumption, all dg, -.-,a,~1 (and all pj) are in Z. Thus pag and hence ‘ax must algo be integers, since py is Lor 1 We are ready for the coup de grace. Let ng |n be one of the numbers appearing in (1). Then a1 = T] gale) = dene) TT date. ain A lndinasaen We conclude that in 2 we have the divisibility relations Sula) (a1 and onl) | io ‘Since (5) holds forall k, we deduce from the class formula (1) onlabla~ but this cannot be. Why? We know gz) = [](@ — A) where A runs through all roots of 2” — 1 of order n. Let \ = a+ ib be one of those root, By rt > 1 (because of R # Z) we have X # 1, which implies that the real part ais smaller than 1. Now [3]? = a2 45? = 1, and hence la-A? = (g-a—ibP? = (q—a)? +? = ga 2agsa? $0? = g?- 20941 > q—2qg+1 — (becauseofa <1) = @-1y, and so |g ~ 3] > q— 1 holds for aif 100ts of order n, This implies oa(ail = []lg->-1 which means that gn(q) cannot be a divisor of ¢ 1, contradiction and end of proef. o References [1] LE. DICKSON: On finite algebras, Nachrichten der Akad. Wissenschaften Goisingen Math -Phys, Klasse (1905), 1-36; Collected Mathematical Papess Vol Il, Chelsea Publ. Comp, The Bronx, NY 1975, 539-574 [2] J. HLM. WeppeRsuan: A theorem on finite algebros, Trans. Amer, Math Soc. 6 (1908), 349-352, [3] B. Wirt: Gher die Kommuarivitty endlicher SchiefkOrper, Ab. Math, Sem, Unis, Hamburg 8 (1931), 413,