Prove Ring with Identity on Set S with One Element x

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity Ring
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In the discussion, a user explores the properties of a set S containing a single element x, defining operations x + x = x and x * x = x. The user verifies several ring axioms, including associativity, commutativity, and identity for addition, concluding that S does not satisfy all ring properties due to the lack of distinct additive inverses. The user confirms that the additive inverse exists since both -x and 0_S are defined as x, thus satisfying the necessary conditions for a ring. The discussion emphasizes the importance of checking all ring axioms to validate the structure.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring theory and its axioms
  • Familiarity with basic algebraic operations (addition and multiplication)
  • Knowledge of identity elements in algebraic structures
  • Ability to apply distributive properties in mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the formal definition of ring axioms on Wikipedia
  • Study examples of rings with one element
  • Learn about additive and multiplicative identities in algebra
  • Explore the implications of associativity and commutativity in ring structures
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying abstract algebra, and anyone interested in the foundational properties of algebraic structures.

Stephen88
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
On a set S with exactly one element x,
define x + x = x, x*x = x. Prove that S is a ring.
The way I think about this problem is be showing that it verifies certain axioms...like associativity,commutativity,identity,inverse for addition and commutativity for multiplication and a (b + c) = ab + ac .. (a + b) c = ac + bc.
For Addition the first two i think it is obvious since
1.x+x=x+x..
2.(x+x)+x=x+(x+x)
For Identity since x+x=x then 0_S=x.
For the inverse I don't see how since the set has only one element x which equal 0_S...I guess I don't have to check the last two axioms because S is not a ring.
Am I doing this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We have x + (-x) = 0 where both -x and 0 are defined to be x, so there is no problem with an additive inverse.
 
uh sorry...yes that is true then for multiplication commutativity (x*x)*=x*(x*x) and also x(x+x)=x +x and (x+x)x=x+x again.Will this suffice or is there something else.?..because it seemed quite short.
 
StefanM said:
for multiplication commutativity (x*x)*=x*(x*x)
The fact (x * x) * x = x * (x * x) is called associativity.

StefanM said:
x(x+x)=x +x and (x+x)x=x+x again.
Distributivity says x(x+x) = x * x + x * x and (x+x) * x = x * x + x * x.

StefanM said:
Will this suffice or is there something else.?..because it seemed quite short.
Why don't you check the list of ring axioms, for example, in Wikipedia?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K