Prove Unique Identity in Ring: Solution Explained

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that if a ring \( R \) has an element \( a \) with a unique right inverse \( a' \) such that \( aa' = 1 \), then it follows that \( a'a = 1 \). The scope includes mathematical reasoning and proof techniques within the context of ring theory.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a solution involving the identity and inverses, expressing uncertainty about the validity of the relation \( (aa')^{-1} = (a')^{-1} a^{-1} \).
  • Another participant challenges the assumption that \( (aa')^{-1} = (a')^{-1} a^{-1} \) is valid without proving the invertibility of \( a \) and \( a' \), suggesting that this assumption is circular.
  • A participant proposes that to show \( ax = 0 \) implies \( x = 0 \), one could multiply by \( a' \) through the middle, questioning if this step is sufficient for the proof.
  • Another participant argues against the concept of "multiplying through the middle," emphasizing that valid multiplication must occur on the left or right sides of an equation.
  • Further clarification is provided on how to manipulate the equation \( ax = 0 \) to utilize the uniqueness of the right inverse \( a' \) effectively.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of certain manipulations and assumptions in the proof. There is no consensus on the correctness of the initial solution or the proposed methods for proving the statement.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of ensuring that assumptions about invertibility are justified and that certain algebraic manipulations are valid within the context of ring theory.

Fantini
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody. Here's the problem:

$$\text{Let } R \text{ be a ring with identity. Let }a \in R \text{ and suppose that exists an unique } a' \in R \text{ such that }a a' =1. \text{ Prove that } a'a=1.$$

My solution:

Since we have an identity, it has an inverse (itself), which means we can do

$$(a a')^{-1} = 1^{-1} = 1,$$

but $(a a')^{-1} = (a')^{-1} a^{-1} = 1$. From this, we can multiply once through the right by $a$ getting $(a')^{-1} a^{-1} a = 1 a = a$ and from that $(a')^{-1} = a$. Finally, multiplying through the left by $a'$ we get $a' (a')^{-1} = 1 = a' a$.

Am I correct? I am particularly uneasy about stating that $(aa')^{-1} = (a')^{-1} a^{-1}$.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fantini said:
Hello everybody. Here's the problem:

$$\text{Let } R \text{ be a ring with identity. Let }a \in R \text{ and suppose that exists an unique } a' \in R \text{ such that }a a' =1. \text{ Prove that } a'a=1.$$

My solution:

Since we have an identity, it has an inverse (itself), which means we can do

$$(a a')^{-1} = 1^{-1} = 1,$$

but $\color{red}{(a a')^{-1} = (a')^{-1} a^{-1}} = 1$. From this, we can multiply once through the right by $a$ getting $(a')^{-1} a^{-1} a = 1 a = a$ and from that $(a')^{-1} = a$. Finally, multiplying through the left by $a'$ we get $a' (a')^{-1} = 1 = a' a$.
Am I correct? I am particularly uneasy about stating that $(aa')^{-1} = (a')^{-1} a^{-1}$.
The relation coloured red is only true if the elements $a$ and $a'$ are invertible. By applying that relation here, you are essentially assuming what you are trying to prove. So you are quite right to be uneasy about it.

To prove this result, start by using the uniqueness of the right inverse $a'$ to show that $ax=0$ implies $x=0.$ Then use the relation $aa'a=a$ to deduce that $a'a-1=0.$
 
Thank you, Opalg. Clarifying something: to prove that $ax=0$ implies $x=0$ would it suffice to multiply by $a'$ through the middle? This means $a \cdot (a') \cdot x = 1 \cdot x = x = 0$. If this step is correct, the problem is done.
 
no, you can't just "multiply through the middle".

here is what you CAN do:

ax = 0

ax + 1 = 1

ax + aa' = 1

a(x + a') = 1

now use the uniqueness of a' as a right-inverse.
 
You can multiply both sides of an equation on the left, and you can multiply both sides of an equation on the right, but multiplying "through the middle" is not a well-defined concept. To see why not, suppose that $a$ and $b$ are elements in a ring with identity $1$. Then $1a = a1.$ If you could multiply both sides of that equation "in the middle" by $b$ then you would get $1ba = ab1$, so that $ba=ab.$ That would "prove" that every ring is commutative, which certainly is not the case.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K