Can a set of units in a ring form a group under multiplication?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dogma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group Set Units
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether a set of units in a ring can form a group under multiplication. Participants explore the definitions and properties of units and groups, and how these relate to the proof of the statement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks guidance on how to demonstrate that the set of units in a ring forms a group under multiplication, outlining some known properties of units.
  • Another participant suggests writing out the definitions of a unit and a group, implying that the properties of units directly satisfy the group criteria.
  • A later reply emphasizes the importance of understanding definitions when attempting to prove mathematical statements, noting that closure under multiplication is a key aspect of the proof.
  • Participants acknowledge that the proof becomes straightforward once the definitions are clear, with one noting that the only non-trivial part of the proof is establishing closure.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the properties of units and the definitions of groups, but there is no explicit consensus on the steps to be taken in the proof, as the discussion remains exploratory.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the definitions of units and groups are not explicitly stated, and the discussion does not resolve the details of the proof process.

dogma
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Hello out there! I'm a new guy here, so don't pick on me too much...I cry easy :wink:

I want to show that a set of units in a ring forms a group under multiplication. What steps would I take to show this?

Things that my feable brain knows:

1) if [tex]a[/tex] is a unit, it is invertible and [tex]a^-^1[/tex] is also a unit.
2) the product of units is a unit.
3) and that [tex](ab)^-^1 = b^-^1 a^-^1[/tex]

How should I proceed?

Thanks in advance for any and all help.

Best!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
what does it mean for something to be a unit? now, write out the definitions of a group and by some basic algebraic manipulations show they are satisfied.

This is a reasonably elementary question, and I suspect that you've not thought long enough about it, that's all, especially as 1-2 above imply that it is a group directly.
 
ah, the light bulb is now lit (just needed a little help finding that switch).

Thanks for enlightening me (sorry for the bad pun).

Take care.
 
basically just be sure you always read and understand the definition of what you are trying to prove. I.e. a group is a set closed under an associative (binary) operation with an identity, and where every element has an inverse.

In a ring you have an associative multiplication with an identity, and the units are the elements that have multiplicative inverses, so this proof becomes easy once you know what the words mean.

Moral: before trying to prove every A is a B, always review the definitions of A and B first, as Matt advised.

Oh I guess you have to prove closure, i.e. the rpoduct of two units is a unit, which us your 3), so you had already done the only non trivial part of the proof.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K