Proving the Distributive Property for Rings

  • Thread starter Thread starter ArcanaNoir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the distributive property for rings, specifically the expression (-x)*y = -(x*y). Participants are exploring the properties of rings, particularly focusing on the additive inverse and the axioms that govern ring operations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to identify the necessary axioms to prove the statement, questioning what constitutes an additive inverse in the context of a ring. There is also exploration of the implications of the properties of an abelian group.

Discussion Status

Some participants have made progress in understanding the proof structure, suggesting that (-x)y should be shown as the additive inverse of xy. There is ongoing dialogue about verifying the properties of zero in the context of the proof, and some participants express uncertainty about the simplicity of the checks involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants are referencing definitions and axioms from ring theory, including the existence of additive inverses and the properties of operations within a ring. There is a focus on ensuring that all necessary conditions are met for the proof to hold.

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 [itex]a[/itex] is [itex]-a[/itex].

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
3K
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