Given a commutative ring $(R,+,\cdot)$, and a topology $\tau$ on $R$ such that for any $a\in R$ the maps
\begin{align} \cdot a: &R\to R \\ &x\mapsto a\cdot x \\\\ &\mbox{and} \\\\ +a: &R\to R \\ &x\mapsto x+a \end{align} Are continuous, is it necessarily true that $(R,+,\cdot,\tau)$ is a topological ring?
What I have tried: We need to show that the maps
\begin{align} \cdot : &R^2\to R \\ &(x,y)\mapsto x\cdot y \\\\ &\mbox{and} \\\\ +: &R^2\to R \\ &(x,y)\mapsto x+y \end{align}
are continuous. To do so, let $V \in \tau$, and let $(x,y) \in \cdot^{-1}(V)$, then since $\cdot y$ is continuous, there is some $U_x \in \tau$ such that
$$U_x \subseteq \cdot y ^{-1}(V) \subseteq \pi_1\left(\cdot^{-1}(V)\right)$$
and similarly there is some $U_y$ such that
$$ U_y \subseteq \cdot x^{-1}(V) \subseteq \pi_2\left(\cdot^{-1}(V)\right) $$
Where $\pi_1, \pi_2$ are the canonical projections, now one would be tempted to conclude that
$$U_x\times U_y \subseteq \cdot^{-1}(V)$$
But this is not obviously true, since it is not true in general that
$$\pi_1(X) \times \pi_2(X) \subseteq X$$
However my intuition from metric spaces says that we should still be able to choose $U_x$ and $U_y$ to be "small enough" to guarantee that their product is contained in $\cdot^{-1}(V)$, but this intuition might be leading me astray. I suspect that the claim is in fact false, since it would almost surely be listed on Wikipedia as an alternative characterization, but yet I cannot find a counterexample. I have found some examples showing that this is not true for general continuous functions, but it is more tricky to come up with examples where the functions also turn the underlying set into a ring.