Proving a Ring with 0=1 has Only One Element

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Ring
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that a ring R, where 1_R = 0_R, contains only one element. Participants clarify that for any element a in R, the equation a*0 = a*1 leads to the conclusion that a must equal 0. The key takeaway is that since both the additive and multiplicative identities are equal, the only element in the ring is 0, confirming that R has a single element.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring theory and its definitions, particularly the concepts of additive and multiplicative identities.
  • Familiarity with basic algebraic operations within a ring.
  • Knowledge of the properties of zero and one in algebraic structures.
  • Ability to follow logical proofs and reasoning in abstract algebra.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of rings, focusing on the definitions of identities and zero elements.
  • Explore examples of rings with trivial structures, such as the zero ring.
  • Learn about the implications of having a ring where 1 = 0 on its structure and operations.
  • Investigate other algebraic structures, such as fields and groups, to compare their properties with rings.
USEFUL FOR

Students of abstract algebra, mathematicians interested in ring theory, and educators teaching algebraic structures will benefit from this discussion.

Stephen88
Messages
60
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let R be a ring in which 1_R = 0_R .Show that R has only one element.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I'm trying to show that a*0_r=a*1_r implies a*0_r=0_r.
if 0=0+0=>a*0=a*(0+0)=a*0+a*0=a*1_r+a*1_r=2a=>a*0=2a= >a=0...is this correct? If not
Is there something I should do?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Stephen88! :smile:
Stephen88 said:
I'm trying to show that a*0_r=a*1_r implies a*0_r=0_r.

No, you should be trying to prove that a = 0.

Hint: what, by definition, is a*0 ?

what, by definition, is a*1 ? :wink:
 
yes a = 0 is something I need to prove that was just I way that I thought it would be possible.
For instance a*0=a*(0+0)=a*0+a*0=a*1+a*1=2a=>a*0=2a= >a=0..otherwise 2=0 which is a contradiction.Is this correct?
 
Stephen88 said:
For instance a*0=a*(0+0)=a*0+a*0=a*1+a*1=2a=>a*0=2a= >a=0..otherwise 2=0 which is a contradiction.Is this correct?

Sorry, but this is fantasy …

there is no "2", is there?

All you're allowed to play with is a 0 and 1.

what, by definition, is a*0 ?

what, by definition, is a*1 ?​
 
Uh sorry about that...I;m used to integers and real numbers...hmm..given the context both represent the identity of the ring so a*0=a*1=a
 
what, by definition, is a*0 ?
 
a product of a and the multiplicative identity?
 
Stephen88 said:
a product of a and the multiplicative identity?

0 is the additive identity

(the multiplicative zero)
 
Yes normally 0 is the additive identity and 1 the multp. one...but here they are both the same.
So if 1=0->1*a=0*a=a=>a=1=0?
If not I'm confused
 
  • #10
I can't tell whether you've got it or not … you need to make it clear. :redface:

Let's spell it out. :smile:

a*0 by definition is always 0

a*1 by definition is always a

but 0 = 1

so a*0 = a*1

so 0 = a :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
991
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
934
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K