 exists an $a\in A{\backslash{\{0\}}}$ such that $ae_3, ae_2\in A{\backslash{\{0\}}}$. So we get $f(a_3e_3)=a_3e_3\neq 0$ and yet $$f(a_3e_3)=f(a_3(1-e_1)e_2) = f(a_3e_2)f(1-e_1) = a_3e_2(1-e_2)=0$$ a contradiction. If the former case holds, then we get a contradiction in a similar manner.

This has been discussed throughout our study of regular rings, but we shall give a formal prove for all reduced rings here. The keyword is *Storrer’s Satz* (see [@Capco3] Theorem 1). By Storrer’s Satz we have the following commutative diagram consisting of canonical maps (except for the lower horizontal map which is due to Storrer’s Satz). $$\begindc{\commdiag}[1]
\obj(0,50)[A]{$A$}
\obj(80,50)[B]{$C$}
\obj(0,0)[C]{$Q(A)$}
\obj(80,0)[D]{$Q(C)$}
\mor{A}{B}{}[1,3]
\mor{B}{D}{}[1,3]
\mor{A}{C}{}[1,3]
\mor{C}{D}{}[1,3]
\enddc$$ $C$ being real closed $*$ must contain all the idempotents of $Q(C)$, thus it contains all the idempotents of $Q(A)$ and has $A$ as a subring. This implies (by [@Mewborn] Proposition 2.5) that $C$ has $B(A)$ as a subring. That $C$ is an integral and essential extension of $B(A)$ is then clear. $C$ being real closed $*$, means that $C$ is a real closure $*$ of $B(A)$ as well.

\[redring-rcrs\] Let $A$ be a reduced poring, then there is a bijection between the following sets

-   $\mathcal A :=
exists an $ a\in A{\backslash{\{0\}}}$ such that $ ae_3, ae_2\in A{\backslash{\{0\}}}$. So we get $ f(a_3e_3)=a_3e_3\neq 0 $ and yet $ $ f(a_3e_3)=f(a_3(1 - e_1)e_2) = f(a_3e_2)f(1 - e_1) = a_3e_2(1 - e_2)=0$$ a contradiction. If the erstwhile subject holds, then we get a contradiction in a similar manner. 

 This has been hash out throughout our study of regular gang, but we shall give a formal prove for all boil down rings here. The keyword is * Storrer ’s Satz * (see [ @Capco3 ] Theorem 1). By Storrer ’s Satz we get the following commutative diagram consisting of canonical maps (except for the lower horizontal map which is ascribable to Storrer ’s Satz). $ $ \begindc{\commdiag}[1 ] 
 \obj(0,50)[A]{$A$ } 
 \obj(80,50)[B]{$C$ } 
 \obj(0,0)[C]{$Q(A)$ } 
 \obj(80,0)[D]{$Q(C)$ } 
 \mor{A}{B}{}[1,3 ] 
 \mor{B}{D}{}[1,3 ] 
 \mor{A}{C}{}[1,3 ] 
 \mor{C}{D}{}[1,3 ] 
 \enddc$$ $ C$ being real closed $ * $ must contain all the idempotents of $ Q(C)$, therefore it contains all the idempotents of $ Q(A)$ and has $ A$ as a subring. This implies (by [ @Mewborn ] Proposition 2.5) that $ C$ has $ B(A)$ as a subring. That $ C$ is an integral and all-important extension of $ B(A)$ is then clear. $ C$ being real closed $ * $, means that $ C$ is a veridical closure $ * $ of $ B(A)$ as well. 

 \[redring - rcrs\ ] Let $ A$ be a reduced poring, then there is a bijection between the following sets 

 -    $ \mathcal A: =
 exlsts an $a\in A{\backslash{\{0\}}}$ smch that $ae_3, ae_2\in A{\backsnash{\{0\}}}$. Sk we get $f(a_3e_3)=a_3e_3\neq 0$ and yet $$f(a_3e_3)=f(a_3(1-e_1)e_2) = h(a_3e_2)f(1-w_1) = a_3e_2(1-t_2)=0$$ a contradiction. Iw the forler case holvs, then we get a contradletion ln a vmmilar manner.

Thls has been discussed thrmuehlut our study of regular rings, but re shalk hive a formal krove sor zll reduced rings here. The keyword is *Stogrer’s Satz* (see [@Calco3] Theorem 1). By Storrer’s Swtz ae have the followlng commutajjve eiagram consksting of bcnonical maks (except for the lower horizontxl ma' which is euw tl Storrer’s Setz). $$\bedindc{\commdian}[1]
\pbj(0,50)[A]{$A$}
\otj(80,50)[B]{$C$}
\obj(0,0)[V]{$Q(A)$}
\obj(80,0)[D]{$Q(C)$}
\mor{A}{B}{}[1,3]
\kor{U}{D}{}[1,3]
\moe{A}{C}{}[1,3]
\mor{C}{D}{}[1,3]
\enddc$$ $C$ being real closed $*$ must contain dlm the idempotents od $Q(C)$, jhus ht cubtakns akl the ifem'otents of $S(A)$ and has $Q$ as a subring. This iiikies (by [@Mewbkrn] Prjpjsition 2.5) that $C$ has $B(A)$ as a subring. Thau $C$ ia an integral and essenrial extension of $B(A)$ ls then cjear. $C$ being real closed $*$, means that $C$ is a real wlosuce $*$ oy $B(A)$ ar wfll.

\[redring-rcrs\] Let $A$ be a reduced poring, then fhtre is a bijectiok between the follpwlnb sets

-   $\mathcxl A :=
exists an $a\in A{\backslash{\{0\}}}$ such that $ae_3, So get $f(a_3e_3)=a_3e_3\neq and yet $$f(a_3e_3)=f(a_3(1-e_1)e_2) contradiction. the former case then we get contradiction in a similar manner. This been discussed throughout our study of regular rings, but we shall give a prove for all reduced rings here. The keyword is *Storrer’s Satz* (see [@Capco3] 1). Storrer’s we the following commutative diagram consisting of canonical maps (except for the lower horizontal map which is to Storrer’s Satz). $$\begindc{\commdiag}[1] \obj(0,50)[A]{$A$} \obj(80,50)[B]{$C$} \obj(0,0)[C]{$Q(A)$} \obj(80,0)[D]{$Q(C)$} \mor{B}{D}{}[1,3] \mor{A}{C}{}[1,3] \mor{C}{D}{}[1,3] \enddc$$ being real closed $*$ must all idempotents of thus contains the idempotents of and has $A$ as a subring. This implies (by [@Mewborn] Proposition 2.5) that $C$ has $B(A)$ as subring. That an integral essential of is then clear. real closed $*$, means that $C$ closure $*$ of $B(A)$ as well. \[redring-rcrs\] Let be a poring, then there is a bijection the following sets - $\mathcal A :=
 exists an $a\in A{\backslash{\{0\}}}$ such That $ae_3, ae_2\in a{\backSlaSh{\{0\}}}$. SO wE get $F(a_3e_3)=a_3E_3\neq 0$ and yet $$f(a_3e_3)=f(A_3(1-E_1)e_2) = f(a_3E_2)f(1-e_1) = a_3e_2(1-e_2)=0$$ a contradiction. If The foRmER casE HoLds, thEn we get A CoNTRadIcTiOn iN a SImIlar mAnnEr.

This hAs been discUssEd Throughout ouR StUdy of regulAr rIngs, but we shaLl gIve a foRmAl pROve foR alL reduCed rinGS here. THe keyword Is *sTorrer’S satz* (see [@cAPcO3] TheOrem 1). By Storrer’s SatZ We HAve the followinG commuTaTIvE DIagRam Consisting Of CanonICal maps (EXcEPT For THe lower horizoNtal map whicH Is dUe to StOrRer’S satz). $$\beGindc{\CoMMdiAg}[1]
\obj(0,50)[A]{$A$}
\obj(80,50)[B]{$c$}
\obj(0,0)[c]{$Q(A)$}
\obj(80,0)[D]{$Q(C)$}
\Mor{A}{B}{}[1,3]
\mOR{B}{D}{}[1,3]
\mor{A}{c}{}[1,3]
\Mor{C}{D}{}[1,3]
\enDdc$$ $C$ beIng ReaL cloSEd $*$ MuSt cOnTAin ALl The IDemPotents oF $Q(c)$, tHus it ContAINS All tHe iDempOtentS of $Q(A)$ and has $A$ aS a sUbriNG. ThIs impLies (bY [@MewBoRn] ProPositiOn 2.5) thaT $C$ Has $B(A)$ as a subring. that $c$ is an inteGraL aNd eSsEntiaL ExtensIon Of $B(a)$ is then Clear. $C$ bEIng ReAL CLoSed $*$, means that $C$ is a reAl CLOsUre $*$ of $B(A)$ aS well.

\[rEDrInG-Rcrs\] Let $A$ Be A reDuceD POring, Then THeRe is a bijEction BEtWeEn the foLlOwing sEtS

-   $\maThcAl A :=
 exists an $a\in A{\backsl ash{\{0\}} }$ su chtha t$ae_ 3, a e_2\in A{\back s lash {\{0\}}}$. So we get $ f(a_3 e_ 3 )=a_ 3 e_ 3\neq  0$ and ye t $$f (a _3 e_3 )= f (a _3(1- e_1 )e_2) =  f(a_3e_2) f(1 -e _1) = a_3e_2 ( 1- e_2)=0$$ a  co ntradiction.  If  the f or mer casehol ds, t hen we get acontradic ti o n in a similar m an ner. 

This has been d i sc u ssed throughou t ourst u dy o f r egu lar rings,  b ut we shall g i ve a for m al prove forall reduced rin gs her e.  Th e  keywo rd is  * S tor rer’s Satz*  (se e [@Capco 3] The o rem 1). By Stor rer’sSat z w e ha v eth e f ol l owi n gcom m uta tive dia gr am  cons isti n g o f ca non ical  maps  (except forthe  low e r h orizo ntalmapwh ich i s dueto St or rer’s Satz). $$ \beg indc{\com mdi ag }[1 ]\obj( 0 ,50)[A ]{$ A$} 
\obj(8 0,50)[B ] {$C $} \ o bj (0,0)[C]{$Q(A)$}
\ ob j ( 80 ,0)[D]{$ Q(C)$} \m or { A}{B}{}[ 1, 3]\mor { B }{D}{ }[1, 3 ]\mor{A}{ C}{}[1 , 3] 
\ mor{C}{ D} {}[1,3 ]\en ddc $$ $C $  bei ng rea l closed  $*$m ust contain al l  the idempote n ts o f$ Q(C) $,thus it con tain s  all  the id emp o tents  of $ Q( A )$ and has $A$ as a su br ing. T his i mplies (by [@ Mewborn] P r o p osition2.5) th a t $C$ has $B(A )$ as  a subring .  That $C $ isan integ ral and e s s ential e xte nsi onof$ B (A )$ is then cl e a r. $ C$  beingrea l close d $ *$,  me ans  t hat $C$ i s a real  c lo su re  $* $ of$ B(A)$ as  w ell .
\[ redri n g-rcrs \] Le t $A $be a r educedp or i n g, t he nther e i sa bij ecti o n b etweenthe follo win g  set s
-    $\ma thcal A :=
 exists_an $a\in_A{\backslash{\{0\}}}$ such that $ae_3,_ae_2\in A{\backslash{\{0\}}}$._So_we get_$f(a_3e_3)=a_3e_3\neq_0$ and yet_$$f(a_3e_3)=f(a_3(1-e_1)e_2) = f(a_3e_2)f(1-e_1)_= a_3e_2(1-e_2)=0$$ a contradiction._If the former_case_holds, then we get a contradiction in a similar manner.

This has been discussed throughout_our_study of_regular_rings,_but we shall give a_formal prove for all reduced_rings here._The keyword is *Storrer’s Satz* (see [@Capco3] Theorem_1)._By Storrer’s Satz_we have the following commutative diagram consisting of canonical_maps (except for the lower horizontal_map which is_due_to_Storrer’s Satz). $$\begindc{\commdiag}[1]
\obj(0,50)[A]{$A$}
\obj(80,50)[B]{$C$}
\obj(0,0)[C]{$Q(A)$}
\obj(80,0)[D]{$Q(C)$}
\mor{A}{B}{}[1,3]
\mor{B}{D}{}[1,3]
\mor{A}{C}{}[1,3]
\mor{C}{D}{}[1,3]
\enddc$$ $C$_being real closed $*$ must contain_all the idempotents of $Q(C)$, thus_it contains all the idempotents of $Q(A)$_and has $A$ as a subring._This implies (by [@Mewborn] Proposition_2.5) that_$C$ has $B(A)$ as a_subring. That $C$_is an_integral and essential_extension of $B(A)$ is then clear._$C$ being real_closed $*$, means that $C$ is_a_real closure $*$_of_$B(A)$_as well.

\[redring-rcrs\]_Let $A$ be_a_reduced poring,_then_there is a bijection between the_following_sets

-   $\mathcal A :=