Does n*a ALWAYS mean to a + a + + a (n times) where + is the group operation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dumbQuestion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group Mean
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the expression n*a in the context of rings, particularly focusing on the relationship between different binary operations defined within a ring, such as addition and multiplication. Participants explore whether n*a can always be equated to repeated addition and the implications of this in various algebraic structures.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about switching between n*a and a + a + ... + a (n times), questioning the validity of this generalization across all rings.
  • One participant clarifies that in a ring, n*a is defined as a added to itself n times, but raises concerns about the relationship between different operations like + and *.
  • Another participant suggests that while there may be special relationships between operations, it is uncertain if such relationships always exist, emphasizing the role of the distributive law.
  • It is noted that if the ring contains Z (the integers) as a subring, the two interpretations of n*a yield the same result; otherwise, repeated addition is the only interpretation.
  • A participant mentions that in the ring of polynomials, the standard polynomial product applies, prompting questions about the axioms of ring multiplication.
  • One participant introduces the concept of a unique ring homomorphism from Z into any ring, indicating that n&a has meaning only in that context, while n*a represents repeated addition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the generalizability of the relationship between n*a and repeated addition across various rings. Some agree on specific cases, such as when Z is a subring, while others remain uncertain about broader implications.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of operations within different rings and the unresolved nature of the relationships between operations like + and * in general cases.

dumbQuestion
Messages
124
Reaction score
0
What about in a ring where we have two binary operations defined. I get super confused when I see someone just switch from something like n*a to a + a + ... + a (n times, where * is the binary operation on the "semigroup" part of the ring, and + is the operation on the "group" part of the ring) because I freak out and think, how do I know these two things produce the same result? I mean I get it for familiar number systems like R and C and Z, but does it always work out? I just feel uneasy with generalizing it to everything! Can I? Is there a theorem for that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you have a ring, then both "addition" and "multiplication" are defined only for member of the ring so that "n*a" is NOT either of those. "n*x" is defined as "a added to itself n times". They "produce the same result" because "n*x" is defined as shorthand for that sum.
 
But what I mean is, say you have the group operation and its called + and the other operation (the binary operation on the semigroup part of the ring) say is called &. I get that the shorthand definition n*x is defined as x + x + x +... + x (n times) but is there any relationship between & and *? Or is there any way to tell when such a relationship exists or doesn't exist?
 
dumbQuestion said:
but is there any relationship between & and *? Or is there any way to tell when such a relationship exists or doesn't exist?

Are you asking if there can be examples where some special relationship exists ? (I would assume so.) Or are you asking if there is always some relationship? I think the only "always" relationships are things you can prove employing the distributive law of & over +.

Propose examples of some relationships.
 
If the ring contains Z (the integers) as a subring, then the two interpretations of the expression n*a give the same result. Otherwise, the repeated addition interpretation is the only possible one.
 
If you're dealing with the ring of polynomials in one variable, then a*b is the

standard polynomial product of a,b .

Erland: do you mean to say that defining multiplication as repeated addition in

the case where the ring contains the integers is the only way of satisfying the

axioms of ring multiplication (together with distributivity props.) ?

Never mind, Erland, sorry.
 
Last edited:
For every ring R there is a unique ring homomorphism from Z into R. So in that context, n&a only has meaning if you understand n to be the image under that homomorphism. n*a on the other hand, means addition repeated n times. They are equal because:

[itex]n*a = a+ ... + a = 1&a + ... +1&a = (1+...+1)&a = \bar{n}&a[/itex]

For example, if the ring is Z mod 8, then 23*a=7&a.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K