How to Prove that (Z,+) is a Group?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Edgardo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axioms Group
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof that the set of integers under addition, denoted as (Z,+), forms a group. Participants explore the definitions and properties required to establish this, particularly focusing on the associative law and closure property of addition within the integers.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant queries how to prove that (Z,+) is a group, specifically asking about the associative law and closure property.
  • Another participant suggests that proving these properties requires a definition of addition on integers, which in turn depends on how integers are constructed from natural numbers.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of defining integers correctly, noting that in some contexts, integers might be defined as "the free ring on zero generators," leading to a trivial additive group structure.
  • There is a discussion about whether the ring with zero generators is trivial, with one participant asserting that it is not free due to nontrivial relations among its elements.
  • Participants explore the implications of free rings and generators, discussing how the empty set can generate Z and how Z can also be generated by 1 or -1 in the context of groups.
  • There is a clarification that the free ring on one generator would be Z[x], and participants agree on the nature of generating sets in both ring and group contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of free rings and generators, indicating that there is no consensus on the characterization of (Z,+) as a group without further clarification of foundational definitions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in definitions and assumptions regarding the construction of integers and the nature of free rings, which remain unresolved.

Edgardo
Messages
707
Reaction score
17
It is known that "the integers under addition" form a group,
that is (Z,+).
I have always wondered how to actually proof that (Z,+) is a group?

Definitions for a group from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics)#Basic_definitions

I'm especially interested in two things:
1) Why does the associative law hold for (Z,+), that is
a+(b+c) = (a+b)+c for a,b,c in Z.

And moreover:
2) Why is closure fulfilled?
That is, if a and b in Z, then a+b is also in Z.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In order to prove that addition on integers is commutative and that they are closed under addition, you need to use the definition of addition on the integers. However, in order to define addition you need to know how the integers are constructed.

You can construct the natural numbers as a sequence of sets, and define addition. You can then construct the integers from the natural numbers, and define addition on the integers using the addition you've already defined on the natural numbers. The wikipedia pages on natural numbers and integers have some of the details.
 
Just to emphasize the importance of stating from which definition you're working -- in many contexts I would define the integers as "the free ring on zero generators"... in which case the additive group structure is trivial.
 
Hurkyl said:
Just to emphasize the importance of stating from which definition you're working -- in many contexts I would define the integers as "the free ring on zero generators"... in which case the additive group structure is trivial.
How is that the case? Don't the integers have one generator? Either 1 or -1. Why isn't the ring with zero generators the trivial ring?
 
Why isn't the ring with zero generators the trivial ring?
Because it's not free -- it satisfies a nontrivial relation amongst its elements. (in particular, 0 = 1)

For a ring R to be freely generated by the empty set, that means:

For any ring S, any function {} --> S extends uniquely to a homomorphism R --> S.

(There is, of course, only one function {} --> S)

If you plug in R = Z, you'll find the above is satisfied. If you plug in R = 0, you'll find it's not satisfied. (In fact, if 0 --> S is a homomorphism, then S = 0)
 
Hurkyl said:
Because it's not free -- it satisfies a nontrivial relation amongst its elements. (in particular, 0 = 1)

For a ring R to be freely generated by the empty set, that means:

For any ring S, any function {} --> S extends uniquely to a homomorphism R --> S.

(There is, of course, only one function {} --> S)

If you plug in R = Z, you'll find the above is satisfied. If you plug in R = 0, you'll find it's not satisfied. (In fact, if 0 --> S is a homomorphism, then S = 0)
So is this equivalent to saying that R has a basis? That was what I thought a free ring was.

And how does Z have zero generators?
 
And how does Z have zero generators?
Because it's generated by the empty set. ({1} is also a generating set for Z, of course, but Z is not the free ring on one object)

{} is clearly a subset of Z. What is the subring of Z generated by {}? Recall that it's the intersection of all subrings of Z that contain every element in {}. The only subring of Z is Z itself -- so {} generates Z.
 
Hurkyl said:
Because it's generated by the empty set. ({1} is also a generating set for Z, of course, but Z is not the free ring on one object)
Okay, I think I see this. I was thinking of generating sets in terms of groups, and was trying to generate Z with addition. But that's not right. So the free ring on one generator would be Z[x], right?


{} is clearly a subset of Z. What is the subring of Z generated by {}? Recall that it's the intersection of all subrings of Z that contain every element in {}. The only subring of Z is Z itself -- so {} generates Z.
On the level of groups, 1 or -1 generate Z, correct? So Z is the free group on one generator.
 
So the free ring on one generator would be Z[x], right?
Sounds right; I think things don't get annoying until you have two generators. (Unless you specify "free commutative ring" -- then everything remains nice. :smile:)

On the level of groups, 1 or -1 generate Z, correct? So Z is the free group on one generator.
Yep.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K