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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a ring R, where the multiplicative identity equals the additive identity (1_R = 0_R), contains only one element. Participants are exploring the implications of this equality within the context of ring theory.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to show that if a*0_R = a*1_R, then a must equal 0. There are discussions regarding the definitions of multiplication by zero and one, and how these relate to the identities in the ring.

Discussion Status

Some participants are providing hints and clarifications about the definitions of the identities in the ring. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of the equality 1 = 0, but no consensus has been reached on the correctness of the reasoning presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the definitions and properties of elements in the ring, particularly in light of the unusual situation where the multiplicative and additive identities are equal. There is an acknowledgment of confusion stemming from conventional arithmetic concepts.

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