Let $R$ be a ring. A notable theorem of **N. Jacobson** states that if the identity $x^{n}=x$ holds for every $x \in R$ and a fixed $n \geq 2$ then $R$ is a commutative ring.


The proof of the result for the cases $n=2, 3,4$ is the subject matter of several well-known exercises in **Herstein**'s *Topics in Algebra*. The corresponding proofs rely heavily on "elementary" manipulations. For instance, the proof of the case $n=3$ can be done as follows:


1) If $a, b \in R$ are such that $ab= 0$ then $ba=0$.


2) $a^{2}$ and $-a^{2}$ belong to $\mathbf{Z}(R)$ for every $a \in R$.


3) Since $(a^{2}+a)^{3} = (a^{2}+a)^{2}+(a^{2}+a)^{2}$ it follows that


$a=a+a^{2}-a^{2} = (a+a^{2})^{3}-a^{2} = (a^{2}+a)^{2}+(a^{2}+a)^{2}-a^{2}$


and whence the result. ▮


Certainly, the mind can't but boggle at the succinctness of the above solution. Actually, it is the conciseness of this argument that has prompted me to pose the present question: **is an analogous demonstration of the general theorem possible?** The one that appears in [**1**] depends on some non-trivial structure theorems for division rings.


As usual, I thank you in advance for your insightful replies, reading suggestions, web links, etc...


**References**


[**1**] I. N. Herstein, *Noncommutative rings*, The Carus Mathematical Monographs, no. 15, Mathematical Association of America, 1968.


[**2**] I. N. Herstein, Álgebra Moderna, Ed. Trillas, págs. 112, 119, and 153.



A condition that implies commutativity
For fixed $n \in \mathbb{N}$, Birkhoff's completeness theorem implies that such a proof must exist in the first-order equational theory of rings - as I mentioned here in a recent [post](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/30220/abstract-thought-vs-calculation/30273#30273). Many years ago Stan Burris told me that John Lawrence discovered such an equational proof that works uniformly for all $n$ (possibly also for Jacobson's form $x^{n(x)} = x$). I don't know if the proof is published yet, but some clues as to how it may proceed might be gleaned from their earlier joint [work [1]](http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~snburris/htdocs/MYWORKS/PAPERS/fields3.pdf)


[1](http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~snburris/htdocs/MYWORKS/PAPERS/fields3.pdf) S. Burris and J. Lawrence, Term rewrite rules for finite fields.  

International J. Algebra and Computation 1 (1991), 353-369. 
<http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~snburris/htdocs/MYWORKS/PAPERS/fields3.pdf> 


