Can a One-Sided Identity Element in Groups Lead to Two-Sided Identity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of identity elements in group theory, specifically whether a one-sided identity element can lead to a two-sided identity element. Participants explore the implications of defining identity elements in a group as one-sided and the potential to prove two-sidedness as a theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether it is possible to define a group's identity element as one-sided and subsequently prove two-sidedness, citing difficulties in their attempts to do so.
  • Another participant points out that changing the assumption of a two-sided identity may affect the assumption regarding the existence of inverses, which is typically stated in relation to a two-sided identity.
  • A different participant clarifies that their textbook's definition of inverses does not seem to rely on the two-sidedness of the identity element, suggesting that left-handed definitions could still hold.
  • One participant proposes a weakening of group axioms to include only left identities and left inverses, providing a proof that left inverses can lead to right inverses and left identities to right identities.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the meaning of the statement regarding inverses is dependent on the definition of the identity element, indicating a potential ambiguity in notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views regarding the implications of one-sided versus two-sided identities, and it remains unresolved whether one-sided definitions can lead to two-sided identities.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the dependence of certain group properties on the definitions of identity elements and inverses, highlighting potential limitations in their arguments.

HyperActive
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
Hi
I'm taking a math course at university that covers introductory group theory. The textbook's definition of the identity element of a group defines it as two sided; that is, they say that a group ##G## must have an element ##e## such that for all ##a \in G##, ##e \cdot a = a = a \cdot e## .

Is it possible to define a group's identity element as one-sided, and then prove two-sidedness as a theorem? Or is it an intrinsic property of group identities?

I started with a left-identity ##e \cdot a = a## and tried to prove that ##e \cdot a = a = a \cdot e## and kept hitting walls, so I though I'd better check if it's doable.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you change the assumption that there exists a two-sided identity, how are you going to modify the assumption that each element has an inverse? That assumption mentions the two-sided identity.
 
Thanks for the reply Stephen Tashi. :)
In my book, the assumption that each element has an inverse is stated as follows: for all ##a \in G## , there exists a ##b \in G## such that ##a \cdot b = e##. That doesn't seem to rely on the two-sidedness of the identity element (and neither it seems to me does the left-handed version of the statement, for all ##a \in G## , there exists a ##b \in G## such that ##b \cdot a = e##). So other than noting that in these definitions ##e## refers to a left identity, I'm not seeing how I would need to modify them.

Could you please clarify this?
 
You can weaken the group axioms to require only the existence of a left inverse and a left neutral element:
(i) ## e g = g##
(ii) ## g^{-1} g = e##

Then every left inverse is a right inverse:
##g g^{-1} = e g g^{-1} = (g^{-1})^{-1} g^{-1} g g^{-1} = (g^{-1})^{-1} g^{-1} = e##
And every left neutral element is a right neutral element:
## g e = g g^{-1} g = e g = e##.
(The proof uses the fact that ##g^{-1}## is a right inverse, which I proved before.)

You can of course replace "left" by "right" and get similar results. You can't mix them, though: Having left inverses and a right neutral element doesn't suffice.
 
HyperActive said:
: for all ##a \in G## , there exists a ##b \in G## such that ##a \cdot b = e##. That doesn't seem to rely on the two-sidedness of the identity element

The point is that the meaning of the statement a \cdot b = e depends on what you mean by the notation "e".
 
Thank you both very much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K