Proving the Distributive Property for Rings

  • Thread starter Thread starter ArcanaNoir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
10 replies · 3K views
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
I don't know. maybe if I knew what axiom to check I'd have a better idea how to prove it?
 
-(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?
 
well I did check that 0y=0, and a+b should equal b+a because its an abelian group. yay :) thanks again!
 
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!