Prove if a ring has a unity, then it is unique

  • Thread starter Thread starter SomeRandomGuy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ring Unity
Click For Summary
In a ring R with two distinct unities, a and b, it is shown that both must be equal. The proof begins by assuming a and b are unities, leading to the equations ax = x and bx = x for all x in R. Setting x to b results in ab = b, and setting x to a gives ab = a. Since both equations hold, it follows by transitivity that a = b. Thus, if a ring has a unity, it is unique.
SomeRandomGuy
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Prove if a ring has a unity, then it is unique:

Here is what I have so far:
Proof: Assume there exists a ring R that contains two distinct unity's, call a and b, where a != b. By the definition of a unity, we get ax = xa = x and bx = xb = x for all x != 0 in R. So, ax = xa = bx = xb = x. If the ring is an integral domain, we get a = b because there are no zero divisors.

Problem occurs for the case of an integral domain. Thanks for help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This might be not work, since I don't remember all the definitions off-hand... But if a and b are both unities in some ring R, then ab = a and ab = b. Hence a = b.
 
Muzza said:
This might be not work, since I don't remember all the definitions off-hand... But if a and b are both unities in some ring R, then ab = a and ab = b. Hence a = b.

I believe that's what we are trying to prove. If a and b are both unity's in a ring, then a = b.
 
Apparently my deduction wasn't explicit enough, or you looked past one of the sentences in my post.

Since a was a unity in R, ax = x for all x in R. In particular, it must hold if we set x = b. Hence ab = b.

But b was also a unity in R, so that xb = x for all x in R. In particular, it must hold if we set x = a, so that ab = a.

So we have proved that ab = a and ab = b. By transitivity, we must have that a = b.
 
Last edited:
Muzza said:
Apparently my deduction wasn't explicit enough, or you looked past one of the sentences in my post.

Since a was a unity in R, ax = x for all x in R. In particular, it must hold if we set x = b. Hence ab = b.

But b was also a unity in R, so that xb = x for all x in R. In particular, it must hold if we set x = a, so that ab = a.

So we have proved that ab = a and ab = b. By transitivity, we must have that a = b.

Your right. I didn't even read the sentence ab = a and ab = b. My bad, sorry for the confusion and tanks very much for the help.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
864
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
934
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K