Requirements for a*b = 0 implying a = 0 or b = 0

  • Thread starter Thread starter pyrotix
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mathematical condition where the product of two elements a and b equals zero, implying that either a or b must be zero. This condition holds true in structures known as integral domains, which include fields like real, complex, and rational numbers, where every nonzero element has an inverse. The conversation also highlights that this property does not apply to matrices, as not all matrix elements possess inverses. Additionally, the relationship between this property and the cancellation property in commutative settings is noted. Overall, the key takeaway is that specific algebraic structures, particularly integral domains and fields, are necessary for the implication a*b=0 leading to a=0 or b=0 to hold true.
pyrotix
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I can think of an proof using greater thans or less thans for an ordered field. For complex numbers I believe I know the outlines proof using properties of magnitude.

Obvious the statement isn't true for matrices. What at minimum do you need for the statement to be true? I'm thinking you may need a metric with certain properties of transformation when the * is applied.

But I'm an engineering student really, so this isn't my area of expertise.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
pyrotix said:
What at minimum do you need for the statement to be true?
The axiom
a*b=0 implies a=0 or b=0​
A trivial answer, but nonetheless the exact answer to the question you asked.

I suppose what you really mean is just to query what other sorts of properties imply this property. In ring theory, a ring with this property is called a "domain", or sometimes "integral domain". I can think of relationships of the property to the notion of a prime ideal, but I suspect that wouldn't be too useful to you.

As a special case, ring theory the complex numbers are a domain because:
  • The real numbers are a domain
  • The polynomial x^2 + 1 doesn't factor over the real numbers
And for the same reason (x^2-1 does factor over the real numbers), the split complex numbers are not a domain.

And because every complex polynomial factors into linears, there are no algebraic extensions of the complex numbers which are (commutative) domains. e.g. we cannot create a new ring with division by adding in a new number q that satisfies some algebraic identity, as we did to construct the complexes from the reals.
 
Also note that the statement

a*b=0~\Rightarrow~a=0~\text{or}~b=0

is equivalent to the cancellation property: (in commutative setting at least)

ac=bc~\Rightarrow~a=b

Furthermore, every field is an integral domain. In less high-brow terminology: if every nonzero element a has an inverse a-1 (for which of course holds aa-1=a1a=1[), then the statements above hold.

This is the reason why

a*b=0~\Rightarrow~a=0~\text{or}~b=0

holds in the real, complex and rational numbers: because every nonzero element has an inverse. In the matrices, not every element has an inverse, thus the above does not hold.

Note that not only fields satisfy

a*b=0~\Rightarrow~a=0~\text{or}~b=0

Consider the integers for example...
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top