Why Is {\overline{1},\overline{2},\overline{3}} Modulo 4 Not a Group?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hitmeoff
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group Set
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the set {\overline{1},\overline{2},\overline{3}} in the context of group theory, specifically examining why this set does not form a group under addition and multiplication modulo 4.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions of identity elements and inverses in the context of group properties. There are attempts to verify closure under addition and multiplication, with some participants questioning the validity of the original poster's claims about inverses and identity elements.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's assertions, providing guidance on the need to check specific cases and the closure property. There is recognition of the need to perform operations modulo 4, indicating a productive direction in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the importance of testing all elements in the set to confirm group properties, noting that the original poster may have overlooked the necessity of closure in their reasoning.

hitmeoff
Messages
260
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Why does the set {[tex]\overline{1}[/tex],[tex]\overline{2}[/tex],[tex]\overline{3}[/tex]} of nonzero classes modulo 4 fail to be a group under addition? Under multiplication?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Under addition it fails because there is no identity element such that e+s=s for s [tex]\epsilon[/tex] S. (ie 0)
And because there's no additive inverse (ie -1, -2, -3) such that -a + a = e (0)

Right?

And under multiplication if fails because there's no multiplicative inverse such that a-1[tex]\cdot[/tex]a=e

Right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
be a little careful, you need to show/check what you're stating, which in the examples you've given means testing a lot of cases.. a counter example may be easier...

for the identity element, this works, but you need to pick an element & test all otehrs to show they're not identities
for the additive inverse, note 3+2 = 1, so some additive inverses exist
for a counter example, is it closed under addition...?

for the multiplticative group
1*1 = 1
3*3 = 1
so some inverses exist... so that argument isn't solid, but can be used for 2
once again, might be worth checking closure...
 
edited & updated above for clarity
 
lanedance said:
be a little careful, you need to show/check what you;'e stating

for the additive inverse, note 3+2 = 1, so some additive inverses exist
is it closed under addition though?

for the multiplticative group
1*1 = 1
3*3 = 1
so some inverses exist...
once again, might be worth checking closure...

Ahhhh, I see.

I still have to do a mod 4 after performing the addition and multiplication operations. I knew I was wrong but wasn't sure why. Thanks.
 
So under addition: 1+3 = 0 and zero is not in the set, not closed
Under multiplication 2x2 = 0, not closed
 
Correct
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K