Prove if a ring has a unity, then it is unique

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SomeRandomGuy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ring Unity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the uniqueness of the unity element in a ring. Participants explore the implications of having two distinct unity elements within a ring and the conditions under which they may or may not be equal. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and proof techniques relevant to ring theory.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a proof by assuming the existence of two distinct unities, a and b, in a ring R, and explores the implications of their definitions.
  • Another participant suggests that if both a and b are unities, then the equations ab = a and ab = b imply a = b.
  • A later reply clarifies that since a is a unity, setting x = b leads to ab = b, and since b is also a unity, setting x = a leads to ab = a, reinforcing the conclusion that a = b.
  • One participant acknowledges a misunderstanding in their earlier deduction and expresses gratitude for the clarification provided by others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that if a ring has a unity, it must be unique. However, there are nuances in the understanding and presentation of the proof that lead to some confusion among participants.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions and the implications of their deductions, indicating that their understanding may depend on specific definitions or contexts within ring theory.

SomeRandomGuy
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Prove if a ring has a unity, then it is unique:

Here is what I have so far:
Proof: Assume there exists a ring R that contains two distinct unity's, call a and b, where a != b. By the definition of a unity, we get ax = xa = x and bx = xb = x for all x != 0 in R. So, ax = xa = bx = xb = x. If the ring is an integral domain, we get a = b because there are no zero divisors.

Problem occurs for the case of an integral domain. Thanks for help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This might be not work, since I don't remember all the definitions off-hand... But if a and b are both unities in some ring R, then ab = a and ab = b. Hence a = b.
 
Muzza said:
This might be not work, since I don't remember all the definitions off-hand... But if a and b are both unities in some ring R, then ab = a and ab = b. Hence a = b.

I believe that's what we are trying to prove. If a and b are both unity's in a ring, then a = b.
 
Apparently my deduction wasn't explicit enough, or you looked past one of the sentences in my post.

Since a was a unity in R, ax = x for all x in R. In particular, it must hold if we set x = b. Hence ab = b.

But b was also a unity in R, so that xb = x for all x in R. In particular, it must hold if we set x = a, so that ab = a.

So we have proved that ab = a and ab = b. By transitivity, we must have that a = b.
 
Last edited:
Muzza said:
Apparently my deduction wasn't explicit enough, or you looked past one of the sentences in my post.

Since a was a unity in R, ax = x for all x in R. In particular, it must hold if we set x = b. Hence ab = b.

But b was also a unity in R, so that xb = x for all x in R. In particular, it must hold if we set x = a, so that ab = a.

So we have proved that ab = a and ab = b. By transitivity, we must have that a = b.

Your right. I didn't even read the sentence ab = a and ab = b. My bad, sorry for the confusion and tanks very much for the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K