Division ring - Open Access .click

2002
In this chapter we prove Theorem 17.3. Our goal is to show that the Cayley-Dickson algebras defined in (9.8) are the only non-associative alternative division rings. This result was first proved in [17] and [56] by R. Bruck and E. Kleinfeld. See also [3], [74] and [87]. In the proof we give here, the characteristic does not play any role.
Jacques Tits, Richard M. Weiss
openaire +1 more source

On Division Near-Rings

Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 1969
The following results (9, Exercise 26, p. 10; 1, Theorem 9.2; 8, Theorem III. 1.11) are known.(A) Let R be a ring with more than one element. Then R is a division ring ifand only if for every a ≠0 in R, there exists a unique b in R such that aba = a.(B) Let R be a near-ring which contains a right identity e ≠ 0.
openaire +2 more sources

Subnormal Subgroups of Division Rings

Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 1963
Let K be a division ring. A subgroup H of the multiplicative group K′ of K is subnormal if there is a finite sequence (H = A0, A1, . . . , An = K′) of subgroups of K′ such that each Ai is a normal subgroup of Ai+1. It is known (2, 3) that if H is a subdivision ring of K such that H′ is subnormal in K′, then either H = K or H is in the centre Z(K) of K.
Herstein, I. N., Scott, W. R.
openaire +2 more sources

pure mathematics
chemistry
organic chemistry

ring chemistry
computer science
physics

cell division
combinatorics
biology