Natural numbers Z?

  • Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date
  • #1
2,255
1

Main Question or Discussion Point

Do people usually prove that Z is an abelian group under (normal) addition or is it the definition of the natural numbers Z?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
radou
Homework Helper
3,115
6
Do people usually prove that Z is an abelian group under (normal) addition or is it the definition of the natural numbers Z?
What exactly is your question? (Z, +) is an abelian group. I don't believe the integers are defined that way. They only "fit into this given definition".
 
  • #3
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,810
934
Do people usually prove that Z is an abelian group under (normal) addition or is it the definition of the natural numbers Z?
First, the "natural numbers" are NOT Z. The natural numbers include only the positive integers (some texts include 0) while Z is all integers. Obviously the natural numbers does NOT form a group since they do not have additive inverses. Typically, Z is defined in terms of natural numbers (say, as equivalence classes of pairs of natural numbers) and then the fact that they form an abelian group is proved.
 
  • #4
30
0
That + is abelian follows from

(x + y)z = xz + yz
x(y + z) = xy + xz (both proved by Peano i think)

Given a, b in Z.

(a + b)(1 + 1) = a(1 + 1) + b(1 + 1) = a + a + b + b,
(a + b)(1 + 1) = (a + b)1 + (a + b)1 = a + b + a + b


this implicates

a + b + a + b = a + a + b + b

so

a + b = b + a

so + is abelian
 
Last edited:
  • #5
radou
Homework Helper
3,115
6
That + is abelian follows from

(x + y)z = xz + yz
x(y + z) = xy + xz (both proved by Peano i think)

Given a, b in Z.

(a + b)(1 + 1) = a(1 + 1) + b(1 + 1) = a + a + b + b,
(a + b)(1 + 1) = (a + b)1 + (a + b)1 = a + b + a + b


this implicates

a + b + a + b = a + a + b + b

so

a + b = b + a

so + is abelian
This shows that it's not necessary to assume that, in a ring with addition, addition is commutative, since it follows from the other ring axioms.

The distributive law is an axiom, btw, there's nothing to prove.
 
  • #6
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,810
934
An axiom in what system? Certainly the distributive law is part of the definition of "ring" and so a axiom in that sense. The fact that the distributive law is true for the natural numbers, integers, rational numbers, etc. can be proved.
 
  • #7
radou
Homework Helper
3,115
6
An axiom in what system? Certainly the distributive law is part of the definition of "ring" and so a axiom in that sense.
Yes, that's what I meant. I assumed Ultraworld was referring to a ring, since there's multiplication and addition in his post.
 

Related Threads on Natural numbers Z?

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
6K
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Top