Prove that a set is a monoid, but not a ring.

• grimster
In summary: If not, then simply use the definition of composition: F o G=F o G(v)=[F1(G1(v),..Gn(v)), ... Fn(G1(v),...Gn(v))].
grimster
End n(k) is the set of all polynomial mappings: k^n->k^n. i have to prove that end n(k) is a monoid.

k is a field of q elements and n is the number of variables.

the composition of two mappings F G is: F o G = F o G(v) = [F1(G1(v),..Gn(v)), ... Fn(G1(v),...Gn(v))]

i must prove that the composition is associative and that there is a unit element.

id=X=(x1,...,xn) is obviously the unit.

but how do i prove associativity? i was thinking of using commutativity somehow:(x^n)^m = x^(n*m) = x^(m*n) = (x^m)^n

last, how do i show that End n(k) is not a ring? is it distributivity it fails? for all x,y,z E A ->
(x+y)z=xz + yz og z(x+y)=zx + zy

i must prove that the composition is associative

You should already know that!

last, how do i show that End n(k) is not a ring?

I presume you mean with composition as the multiplicative operation?

is it distributivity it fails?

Well, if it's not a ring, and all of the other properties are satisfied, then it would have to be!

i guess it is obvious that composition is associative, but I'm not sure how to prove it.

and yes, composition is the multiplicative operation.

Associativity is a basic result about the composition of functions -- it shouldn't be something you have to prove.

But if you really want to do it, simply use the definition of composition.

hm, ok. so i guess then i have to show that if F and G is in End n(k), then so is F o G in End n(k). however, this seems pretty obvious to me. how do prove that? is there a elegant proof of this?

You always had to prove the composition of two things in End n(k) was again in End n(k) -- I had assumed you had already done that, or I would have said something.

1. What is the definition of a monoid and a ring?

A monoid is a set with a binary operation that is associative and has an identity element. A ring is a set with two binary operations, addition and multiplication, that follow specific properties.

2. How can you prove that a set is a monoid?

To prove that a set is a monoid, one must show that the set satisfies the two properties of a monoid: associativity and an identity element.

3. What is the difference between a monoid and a ring?

A monoid has only one binary operation and an identity element, while a ring has two binary operations with specific properties.

4. Can a set be a monoid but not a ring?

Yes, a set can be a monoid but not a ring if it only satisfies the properties of a monoid and not the additional properties of a ring, such as distributivity.

5. How do you prove that a set is a monoid but not a ring?

To prove that a set is a monoid but not a ring, one must show that the set satisfies the properties of a monoid but fails to satisfy the additional properties of a ring, such as distributivity.

Similar threads

• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
11
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
2K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
7
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
15
Views
4K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
2K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
23
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
861