Proving the Distributive Property for Rings

  • Thread starter ArcanaNoir
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Rings
In summary, to prove that (-x)*y=-(x*y) for a ring, we need to show that (-x)*y is the additive inverse of (x*y). This is done by checking the definition of a ring, which includes the requirement that for each element a in R, there exists an element b such that a+b=b+a=0. Since (R,+) is an abelian group, a+b=b+a, and therefore, (-x)*y+xy=((-x)+x)y=0y=0. This proves that (-x)*y is the additive inverse of x*y, and thus, (-x)*y=-(x*y).
  • #1
ArcanaNoir
779
4

Homework Statement



I need to show that (-x)*y=-(x*y) for a ring. unless it's not true.

Homework Equations



A ring is a set R and operations +, * such that (R, +) is an Abelian group, * is associative, and a*(b+c)=a*b+a*c and (b+c)*a=b*a+c*a.

The Attempt at a Solution



I don't know what the first step of this proof will be, I'm looking for the *trick*, as it were.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If we want to know if (-x)*y is the additive inverse (x*y), what is the axiom that we should check?
 
  • #3
I don't know. maybe if I knew what axiom to check I'd have a better idea how to prove it?
 
  • #4
ArcanaNoir said:
I don't know. maybe if I knew what axiom to check I'd have a better idea how to prove it?

You wrote that (R,+) is an abelian group.
What is the definition of an inverse in a group?
 
  • #5
-(a+b)= (-b)+(-a)
right?
 
  • #6
That not a definition, is it? I was under the impression that "-x" was the additive inverse of x: x+ (-x)= 0. So to prove that (-x)y= -(xy), you need to show that (-x)y is the additive inverse of xy: that (-x)y+ (xy)= 0.
 
  • #7
Let's try to find the definition of a ring, and in particular the definition of the additive inverse.

On wikipedia there is an article on a ring.
It lists the requirements (aka axioms) of a ring:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_math#Formal_definition

In particular we have:
wiki on Ring said:
4. Existence of additive inverse. For each a in R, there exists an element b in R such that a + b = b + a = 0
Btw, the typical shorthand for the additive inverse of [itex]a[/itex] is [itex]-a[/itex].

Does this look familiar?
 
  • #8
(-x)y+xy=((-x)+x)y=0y=0
ta da?
 
  • #9
ArcanaNoir said:
(-x)y+xy=((-x)+x)y=0y=0
ta da?

Yes! :smile:
That's basically it.


Just a couple of things.

How do you know that 0y=0?

And the definition requires that a+b=b+a=0.
Do both equalities hold?
 
  • #10
well I did check that 0y=0, and a+b should equal b+a because its an abelian group. yay :) thanks again!
 
  • #11
ArcanaNoir said:
well I did check that 0y=0,

You're making this a bit easy on yourself, aren't you?
How did you check this?
If it is so simple, you should be able to easily reproduce the proof...
(It is not trivial!)


ArcanaNoir said:
and a+b should equal b+a because its an abelian group. yay :) thanks again!

Yep!
 

1. What is the definition of a ring?

A ring is a mathematical structure consisting of a set of elements, a binary operation of addition, and a binary operation of multiplication. These operations must follow certain rules, such as associativity, commutativity, and distributivity, for the structure to be considered a ring.

2. What is the property of rings that is being proved in this statement?

The statement "Prove (-x)y=-(xy) for rings" is proving the property of distributivity in rings, which states that for any elements x, y, and z in a ring, the following equation holds: (x+y)z = xz + yz.

3. What is the significance of the negative sign in the statement?

The negative sign in the statement represents the additive inverse in a ring, which is the element that when added to another element, results in the additive identity (usually denoted as 0). This is an important property in rings, as it allows for the existence of subtraction.

4. How is the proof of this statement carried out?

The proof for this statement typically involves using the properties of rings, such as distributivity and the existence of additive inverses, to manipulate the left and right sides of the equation until they are equal. This is usually done by breaking down each side into smaller, simpler expressions and then using the properties to rearrange and simplify them.

5. Can this proof be applied to all rings?

Yes, this proof can be applied to all rings, as long as they follow the basic rules and properties of rings. However, it is important to note that some rings may have additional properties or restrictions that could affect the proof, so it is always necessary to check the specific properties of the given ring before applying this proof.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
505
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
451
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
243
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
586
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
801
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
695
Back
Top