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
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if a ring \( R \) has an identity and an element \( a \) possesses a unique right inverse \( a' \) such that \( aa' = 1 \), then it follows that \( a'a = 1 \). The solution involves demonstrating the uniqueness of the right inverse and using properties of multiplication in rings. A critical point raised is the incorrect assumption that \( (aa')^{-1} = (a')^{-1} a^{-1} \) without confirming the invertibility of both elements. The correct approach involves manipulating the equation \( ax = 0 \) to show \( x = 0 \) using the uniqueness of \( a' \).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring theory and the definition of a ring with identity.
  • Familiarity with the concept of inverses in algebraic structures.
  • Knowledge of properties of multiplication in rings.
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic equations involving elements of a ring.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of unique inverses in rings, focusing on right and left inverses.
  • Learn about the implications of the cancellation property in rings.
  • Explore examples of rings with identity and their inverses, such as matrix rings.
  • Investigate the concept of non-commutative rings and their properties.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebra students, and anyone studying abstract algebra, particularly those interested in ring theory and the properties of inverses within algebraic structures.

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
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K