Graduate A part in a solution for exercise 1.24 from Atiyah-MacDonald

  • Thread starter Thread starter mad mathematician
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explanation solution
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the equality ##a \vee (b \wedge c) = (a \vee b) \wedge (a \vee c)## in the context of Boolean rings. It highlights the property that in a Boolean ring, the equation ##a^2 = a## leads to the conclusion that ##2x = 0## for any element x. This property is crucial for simplifying the expression ##2ac + 2ab + 2abc = 2a \wedge (b \vee c)##, which is a key step in the proof. The confusion between rings, algebras, and lattices is acknowledged, emphasizing the importance of understanding these structures in abstract algebra.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Boolean rings and their properties
  • Familiarity with basic algebraic structures: rings, algebras, and lattices
  • Knowledge of the operations and identities in Boolean algebra
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic expressions involving Boolean variables
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Boolean rings in detail
  • Explore the differences between rings, algebras, and lattices
  • Learn about the implications of the identity ##a^2 = a## in various algebraic structures
  • Investigate additional proofs involving Boolean algebra and its applications
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in the properties and applications of Boolean rings and algebraic structures.

mad mathematician
Messages
137
Reaction score
23
In the part below where the author of this solution, wants to show that: ##a\vee (b\wedge c)=(a\vee b)\wedge (a\vee c)##, in the third equality he adds ##2ac+2ab+2abc=2a\wedge(b\vee c)##; can someone explain to me why can we do this here?
1731915866380.png

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In a Boolean ring ##a^2=a##, so ##2x=(2x)^2=4x^2=4x##, therefore ##2x=0##.
 
  • Like
Likes mad mathematician
Yes, I forgot about it.
Got confused between rings,algebras and lattices... :oldbiggrin:
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
505
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K