Proving the Distributive Property for Rings

  • Thread starter Thread starter ArcanaNoir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings
Click For Summary
To prove that (-x)*y = -(x*y) in a ring, one must demonstrate that (-x)*y is the additive inverse of x*y, meaning that (-x)*y + (x*y) = 0. The discussion emphasizes understanding the definition of additive inverses in the context of ring axioms, particularly that for every element a in R, there exists an element b such that a + b = 0. A key point raised is verifying that 0*y = 0, which is consistent with the properties of an abelian group. The participants confirm that the proof hinges on these foundational definitions and properties of rings. Overall, the proof is established through logical deductions based on ring axioms.
ArcanaNoir
Messages
778
Reaction score
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
If we want to know if (-x)*y is the additive inverse (x*y), what is the axiom that we should check?
 
I don't know. maybe if I knew what axiom to check I'd have a better idea how to prove it?
 
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?
 
-(a+b)= (-b)+(-a)
right?
 
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.
 
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 a is -a.

Does this look familiar?
 
(-x)y+xy=((-x)+x)y=0y=0
ta da?
 
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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K