TITLE: An isomorphism between an extension $K/F$ and a subfield of the ring of $n\times n$ matrices over $F$.
QUESTION [6 upvotes]: I'm working on a problem from Dummit & Foote's Abstract Algebra and I'm a bit confused about one part of the problem. The problem reads:

Let $K$ be an extension of $F$ of degree $n$.
$\bf\text{(a)}$ For any $\alpha\in K$ prove that $\alpha$ acting by left multiplication on $K$ 
      is an $F$-linear transformation of $K$.
$\bf\text{(b)}$ Prove that $K$ is isomorphic to a $\bf\underline{subfield}$ of the ring of $n\times n$ matrices over $F$, so the ring of $n\times n$ matrices over $F$ contains an isomorphic copy of every extension of degree $\leq n$.

I've already worked out $\bf\text{(a)}$, it's the part in $\bf\text{(b)}$ about 
a "$\bf\underline{subfield}$ of the ring of $n\times n$ matrices" that I'm a bit confused on.


What I have done so far is defined a map $\psi:K\to M_{n}(F)$ from $K$ to the ring of $n\times n$ matrices over $F$ given by $\psi(\iota)=\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{B}}(T_{\iota})$ where $\iota$ is any element of $K$, $\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{B}}(T_{\iota})$ is the matrix that represents the $F$-linear transformation $T_{\iota}:K\to K$, with respect to a basis $\mathcal{B}$ of the vector space $K$. 
I can readily establish that $\psi$ is an injective homomorphism that is surjective to its image in $M_{n}(F)$ and since $K$ is a field, every nonzero $\alpha\in K$ has an inverse $\alpha^{-1}\in K$ so that $\psi(\alpha^{-1})=\psi(\alpha)^{-1}\in M_{n}(F)$.
So this establishes an isomorphism between $K$ and the image of $K$ under $\psi$. 


This is the part that I'm confused about: the elements in $\text{im}\,(\psi)$ are elements of the noncommutative ring of $n\times n$ matrices over $F$. How is it that $\text{im}\,(\psi)$ is a subfield of $M_{n}(F)$ if a subfield is commutative and $M_{n}(F)$ is a noncommutative ring?
I should mention that I'm an undergraduate student in a graduate Galois Theory course and my linear algebra is a bit weak.  So if I've left out some important or illuminating details I'd greatly appreciate having them pointed out.

REPLY [5 votes]: "Noncommutative" doesn't mean nothing commutes, it just means that things don't necessarily commute. Any noncommutative ring admits commutative subrings, for example the subrings generated by a single element. To give a more explicit example, $\mathbb{C}$ is isomorphic to a subring of $M_2(\mathbb{R})$ via the map
$$a + bi \mapsto \left[ \begin{array}{cc} a & -b \\ b & a \end{array} \right]$$
(and this is in fact a special case of the result quoted above).