Is {S,+,.} with S = {matrix(a,b,a-b,a)|a,b ∊ R} a Field?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sam_0017
  • Start date Start date
sam_0017
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
true or false ..
The system {S,+,.} with S = { matrix (a,b,a-b,a)|a,b ∊ R)
is not a field under matrix addition (+) and matrix multiplication (.)





i find that the statement is false .
since : 1. {S,+} is Abelian group.
2. {S,.} : is Abelian group.

is my finding is true ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, Sam,
if by matrix(a,b,a-b,a) you mean\left( \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ a-b & a \end{array} \right)and multiplication is the usual matrix multiplication, then try to multiply two such matrices, to see that the result may not have the same form. For example,\left( \begin{array}{cc} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 2 \end{array} \right)^2 = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 5 & 4 \\ 4 & 5 \end{array} \right)but 5-4 is not 4.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top