Explaining Why a Set with Operation * Does Not Define a Group

  • Thread starter Thread starter coderot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explanation Group
coderot
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm having trouble understanding why the follow composition table for the set \left\{ a, b, c, d \right\} with operation * doesn't define a group.
<br /> \begin{array}{c|cccc}<br /> * &amp; a &amp; b &amp; c &amp; d \\ \hline<br /> a &amp; c &amp; d &amp; a &amp; b \\ <br /> b &amp; d &amp; c &amp; b &amp; a \\ <br /> c &amp; a &amp; b &amp; c &amp; d \\ <br /> d &amp; b &amp; a &amp; d &amp; c \\ <br /> \end{array}<br />
Firstly I know that the operation is closed since every element in the set is in the table. The operation is commutative because it's symmetrical about the leading diagonal and the identity element is c (the third row).

However according to the example the operation isn't associative. This is what I'm having trouble with. According to the book (New Comprehensive Mathematics for 'O' Level) the example says that b * (d * a) = b * b = b and this is what I don't understand. Why is the result of this operation not c?. From the table is says that b * b = c. Any help please thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks like there is a misprint. As you say, from the table b * b = c and as (b * d) * a = a * a = c this not an example of non-associativity.
 
That is what I thought. However there is another example of this in the accompanying exercises. Here is the table. I'm asked to state why this isn't a group.
<br /> \begin{array}{c|ccc}<br /> * &amp; 0 &amp; 2 &amp; 4 \\ \hline<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 2 &amp; 4 \\ <br /> 2 &amp; 2 &amp; 0 &amp; 2 \\ <br /> 4 &amp; 4 &amp; 2 &amp; 0 \\<br /> \end{array}<br />
Again the result states that the set \left\{0, 2, 4\right\} isn't a group for this operation because is isn't associative. Which makes me believe that I'm not understanding something about this property of groups.
 
coderot said:
That is what I thought. However there is another example of this in the accompanying exercises. Here is the table. I'm asked to state why this isn't a group.
<br /> \begin{array}{c|ccc}<br /> * &amp; 0 &amp; 2 &amp; 4 \\ \hline<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 2 &amp; 4 \\ <br /> 2 &amp; 2 &amp; 0 &amp; 2 \\ <br /> 4 &amp; 4 &amp; 2 &amp; 0 \\<br /> \end{array}<br />
Again the result states that the set \left\{0, 2, 4\right\} isn't a group for this operation because is isn't associative. Which makes me believe that I'm not understanding something about this property of groups.

(2x4)x4 = 2x4 = 2
2x(4x4) = 2x0 = 0
 
Another example: Try (2*2)*4 vs 2*(2*4).

In an actual group, the equation g*X = h has the unique solution X = g^{-1} *h
In this set, the equation 2*X = 4 has no solution.
In a real group you can multiply an equation on both sides by the same group element without changing the solution set.

So 2*X = 4 would have the solution X = 2^{-1}*4 = 2*4

Substituting this back into the equation 2*X = 4 we have
2*(2*4) = 4 which suggested to me that there is some problem with evaluating the product 2*2*4.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your responses guys. You've cleared this one up for me. :)
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Back
Top