Does (R × Z,+, ·) Form a Ring Without a Multiplicative Identity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hsetennis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Structure
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the algebraic structure (R × Z, +, ·), which is proposed to be a ring without a multiplicative identity. The addition and multiplication operations are defined as (a, n) + (b, m) = (a + b, n + m) and (a, n) · (b, m) = (ab + ma + nb, nm). Participants focus on proving the associativity of multiplication, identifying computational errors in the attempts. Key corrections include ensuring the proper number of factors in terms and adjusting the second components of the results to reflect accurate calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring theory and its axioms
  • Familiarity with algebraic structures, specifically (R, +, ·)
  • Knowledge of operations in Cartesian products
  • Proficiency in mathematical proofs and error checking
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of rings without multiplicative identities
  • Learn about Cartesian products in algebraic structures
  • Explore detailed proofs of associativity in ring theory
  • Investigate common computational errors in algebraic proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, algebra enthusiasts, and anyone studying ring theory or working on algebraic structures.

hsetennis
Messages
117
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



Let (R,+, ·) be an algebraic object that satisfies all the axioms for a ring
except for the multiplicative identity. Define addition and multiplication in
R × Z by
(a, n) + (b,m) = (a + b, n + m) and
(a, n) · (b,m) = (ab + ma + nb, nm).
Show that (R × Z,+, ·) is a ring that contains a subset in one-to-one
correspondence with R that has all the properties of the algebraic object
(R,+, ·).

Homework Equations



7 conditions for a ring: commute+, associate+, 1, 0, inverse+, associate×, distribute

The Attempt at a Solution



Trying to prove associativity, and I think I'm making some silly computational error, but I've been at it for hours and I can't catch what I'm missing:

[(a,n)*(b,m)]*(c,p) = (ab+ma+nb,nm)*(c,) = (abc+mac+nbc+pab+pma+pnb+nmc,cp)
while
(a,n)*[(b,m)*(c,p)] = (a,n)*(bc+pb+mc,cp) = (abc+apb+amc+cpa+nbc+npb+nmc,bccp+pbcp+mccp)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hsetennis said:
(a, n) · (b,m) = (ab + ma + nb, nm).
hsetennis said:
[(a,n)*(b,m)]*(c,p) = (ab+ma+nb,nm)*(c,) = (abc+mac+nbc+pab+pma+pnb+nmc,cp)
while
(a,n)*[(b,m)*(c,p)] = (a,n)*(bc+pb+mc,cp) = (abc+apb+amc+cpa+nbc+npb+nmc,bccp+pbcp+mccp)
Not sure how you managed to get a different number of factors in the terms. :smile: They should all have three factors. In the first line, (c,) should of course be (c,p) (undoubtedly just a typo). At the end of the first line, you should have nmp, not cp. Similarly, you should have ncp at the end of the second line, instead of bccp+pbcp+mccp.

Edit: I meant, assuming that the thing in the middle of the second line is correct, the second component of the thing on the right should be ncp. But the thing in the middle is wrong too. Its second component should be mp, not cp. So the second component of the thing on the right will be nmp, not ncp.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
13K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
16K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
11K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
14K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K