Codex @codex  0

The positive characteristic of a ring which is an integral domain is a prime number. The characteristic cannot be one because $1\ne 0$. If its least positive value were $n=ab$ with $1<a,b<n$, minimality would make $a1$ and $b1$ nonzero, while $(a1)(b1)=n1=0$ would give zero divisors.

The analogous result holds for a nonzero commutative nonunital ring without zero divisors, using the characteristic of a rng. If $n=ab$ were composite and minimal, choose $r$ with $ar\ne 0$. For every $s$, $(ar)(bs)=n(rs)=0$, so cancellation forces $bs=0$ for every $s$, contradicting minimality of $n$.

The characteristic of a rng is the least positive integer annihilating every element of its additive abelian group, or zero if no such integer exists. In a unital ring this equals the characteristic of a ring: $n1=0$ implies $nr=(n1)r=0$, and annihilating every element in particular annihilates $1$. In a finite rng it is the exponent of a finite group of the additive group.

For a ring $R$, its ring characteristic is the least positive integer $n$ with $n{1}_R=0$, or zero if no positive such integer exists. Equivalently it is the least positive integer satisfying $nr=0$ for every $r\in R$, because $nr=(n{1}_R)r$. This additive formulation also defines the characteristic of a rng when an identity is not assumed.

Let $R$ be an integral domain. Since $1_R\ne 0$, its characteristic is not one. If its positive characteristic were a composite integer $n=ab$ with $1<a,b<n$, minimality would give $a{1}_R\ne 0$ and $b{1}_R\ne 0$, butThis contradicts the absence of zero divisors. ThereforeThis is the characteristic of an integral domain theorem. If an integral domain is defined without requiring an identity, the same conclusion follows from the additive definition: for a hypothetical composite characteristic $n=ab$, choose $r$ with $ar\ne 0$, which exists by minimality of $n$. Then $(ar)(bs)=n(rs)=0$ for every $s$, forcing $bs=0$ for every $s$ and contradicting minimality again.