Commutative Ring with Identity
How can I show that $(mathbb Q,oplus,cdot)$ is a commutative ring with identity where $oplus$ and $cdot$ are defined as, $aoplus b=a+b-1$ and $acdot b=a+b$?
According to the book, an algebraic structure $(R,oplus,cdot)$ is called a ring if the following conditions are satisfied:
$(R,oplus)$ is an abelian group.- Associativity of multiplication holds: $acdot(bcdot c) = (acdot b)cdot c$.
- The left distributive law $acdot(boplus c)=(acdot b)oplus(acdot c)$ and the right distributive law $(boplus c)cdot a=(bcdot a)oplus(ccdot a)$ are satisfied by "$oplus$" and "$cdot$".
Though I was somehow able to prove first 2 conditions, the third condition is not getting satisfied. It's an "show that..." question, so the statement is definitely true. Can someone help me?
abstract-algebra ring-theory
edited Nov 29 at 9:11
user1551
71.2k566125
asked Nov 29 at 8:40
P.Bendre
163
|
show 3 more comments
How can I show that $(mathbb Q,oplus,cdot)$ is a commutative ring with identity where $oplus$ and $cdot$ are defined as, $aoplus b=a+b-1$ and $acdot b=a+b$?
According to the book, an algebraic structure $(R,oplus,cdot)$ is called a ring if the following conditions are satisfied:
$(R,oplus)$ is an abelian group.- Associativity of multiplication holds: $acdot(bcdot c) = (acdot b)cdot c$.
- The left distributive law $acdot(boplus c)=(acdot b)oplus(acdot c)$ and the right distributive law $(boplus c)cdot a=(bcdot a)oplus(ccdot a)$ are satisfied by "$oplus$" and "$cdot$".
Though I was somehow able to prove first 2 conditions, the third condition is not getting satisfied. It's an "show that..." question, so the statement is definitely true. Can someone help me?
abstract-algebra ring-theory
edited Nov 29 at 9:11
user1551
71.2k566125
asked Nov 29 at 8:40
P.Bendre
163
1
What do you need to show for something to be a ring and commutative? Moreover, what are $I$ and $+$ in this case?
– Jonas Lenz
Nov 29 at 8:44
Welcome to MSE. Your question is phrased as an isolated problem, without any further information or context. This does not match many users' quality standards, so it may attract downvotes, or be put on hold. To prevent that, please edit the question. This will help you recognise and resolve the issues. Concretely: please provide context, and include your work and thoughts on the problem. These changes can help in formulating more appropriate answers.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 29 at 8:49
All I know that 1.it should be abelian group 2.it should follow associative and commutative law 3.it should follow left,right distributive law.Though I was able to prove first two conditions ,I am not able to figure out the 3rd condition.
– P.Bendre
Nov 29 at 8:50
Can you please show your computations for distributivity?
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:05
for instance yes - you want to expand both sides and rearrange terms such that you get equality
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:07
|
show 3 more comments
How can I show that $(mathbb Q,oplus,cdot)$ is a commutative ring with identity where $oplus$ and $cdot$ are defined as, $aoplus b=a+b-1$ and $acdot b=a+b$?
According to the book, an algebraic structure $(R,oplus,cdot)$ is called a ring if the following conditions are satisfied:
$(R,oplus)$ is an abelian group.- Associativity of multiplication holds: $acdot(bcdot c) = (acdot b)cdot c$.
- The left distributive law $acdot(boplus c)=(acdot b)oplus(acdot c)$ and the right distributive law $(boplus c)cdot a=(bcdot a)oplus(ccdot a)$ are satisfied by "$oplus$" and "$cdot$".
Though I was somehow able to prove first 2 conditions, the third condition is not getting satisfied. It's an "show that..." question, so the statement is definitely true. Can someone help me?
abstract-algebra ring-theory
edited Nov 29 at 9:11
user1551
71.2k566125
asked Nov 29 at 8:40
P.Bendre
163
How can I show that $(mathbb Q,oplus,cdot)$ is a commutative ring with identity where $oplus$ and $cdot$ are defined as, $aoplus b=a+b-1$ and $acdot b=a+b$?
According to the book, an algebraic structure $(R,oplus,cdot)$ is called a ring if the following conditions are satisfied:
$(R,oplus)$ is an abelian group.- Associativity of multiplication holds: $acdot(bcdot c) = (acdot b)cdot c$.
- The left distributive law $acdot(boplus c)=(acdot b)oplus(acdot c)$ and the right distributive law $(boplus c)cdot a=(bcdot a)oplus(ccdot a)$ are satisfied by "$oplus$" and "$cdot$".
Though I was somehow able to prove first 2 conditions, the third condition is not getting satisfied. It's an "show that..." question, so the statement is definitely true. Can someone help me?
abstract-algebra ring-theory
abstract-algebra ring-theory
edited Nov 29 at 9:11
user1551
71.2k566125
asked Nov 29 at 8:40
P.Bendre
163
edited Nov 29 at 9:11
user1551
71.2k566125
asked Nov 29 at 8:40
P.Bendre
163
edited Nov 29 at 9:11
user1551
71.2k566125
edited Nov 29 at 9:11
user1551
71.2k566125
edited Nov 29 at 9:11
user1551
71.2k566125
71.2k566125
asked Nov 29 at 8:40
P.Bendre
163
asked Nov 29 at 8:40
P.Bendre
163
asked Nov 29 at 8:40
P.Bendre
163
163
1
What do you need to show for something to be a ring and commutative? Moreover, what are $I$ and $+$ in this case?
– Jonas Lenz
Nov 29 at 8:44
Welcome to MSE. Your question is phrased as an isolated problem, without any further information or context. This does not match many users' quality standards, so it may attract downvotes, or be put on hold. To prevent that, please edit the question. This will help you recognise and resolve the issues. Concretely: please provide context, and include your work and thoughts on the problem. These changes can help in formulating more appropriate answers.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 29 at 8:49
All I know that 1.it should be abelian group 2.it should follow associative and commutative law 3.it should follow left,right distributive law.Though I was able to prove first two conditions ,I am not able to figure out the 3rd condition.
– P.Bendre
Nov 29 at 8:50
Can you please show your computations for distributivity?
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:05
for instance yes - you want to expand both sides and rearrange terms such that you get equality
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:07
|
show 3 more comments
1
What do you need to show for something to be a ring and commutative? Moreover, what are $I$ and $+$ in this case?
– Jonas Lenz
Nov 29 at 8:44
Welcome to MSE. Your question is phrased as an isolated problem, without any further information or context. This does not match many users' quality standards, so it may attract downvotes, or be put on hold. To prevent that, please edit the question. This will help you recognise and resolve the issues. Concretely: please provide context, and include your work and thoughts on the problem. These changes can help in formulating more appropriate answers.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 29 at 8:49
All I know that 1.it should be abelian group 2.it should follow associative and commutative law 3.it should follow left,right distributive law.Though I was able to prove first two conditions ,I am not able to figure out the 3rd condition.
– P.Bendre
Nov 29 at 8:50
Can you please show your computations for distributivity?
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:05
for instance yes - you want to expand both sides and rearrange terms such that you get equality
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:07
1
1
What do you need to show for something to be a ring and commutative? Moreover, what are $I$ and $+$ in this case?
– Jonas Lenz
Nov 29 at 8:44
What do you need to show for something to be a ring and commutative? Moreover, what are $I$ and $+$ in this case?
– Jonas Lenz
Nov 29 at 8:44
Welcome to MSE. Your question is phrased as an isolated problem, without any further information or context. This does not match many users' quality standards, so it may attract downvotes, or be put on hold. To prevent that, please edit the question. This will help you recognise and resolve the issues. Concretely: please provide context, and include your work and thoughts on the problem. These changes can help in formulating more appropriate answers.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 29 at 8:49
Welcome to MSE. Your question is phrased as an isolated problem, without any further information or context. This does not match many users' quality standards, so it may attract downvotes, or be put on hold. To prevent that, please edit the question. This will help you recognise and resolve the issues. Concretely: please provide context, and include your work and thoughts on the problem. These changes can help in formulating more appropriate answers.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 29 at 8:49
All I know that 1.it should be abelian group 2.it should follow associative and commutative law 3.it should follow left,right distributive law.Though I was able to prove first two conditions ,I am not able to figure out the 3rd condition.
– P.Bendre
Nov 29 at 8:50
All I know that 1.it should be abelian group 2.it should follow associative and commutative law 3.it should follow left,right distributive law.Though I was able to prove first two conditions ,I am not able to figure out the 3rd condition.
– P.Bendre
Nov 29 at 8:50
Can you please show your computations for distributivity?
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:05
Can you please show your computations for distributivity?
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:05
for instance yes - you want to expand both sides and rearrange terms such that you get equality
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:07
for instance yes - you want to expand both sides and rearrange terms such that you get equality
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:07
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It is obviously not a ring. In what follows, $0$ and $1$ refer to the neutral elements of the original ring addition and multiplication, respectively.
Just note that $1$ is the neutral element for $oplus$, and so it should satisfy $acdot 1=1$ for all $ain R$, if $R$ is to be a ring. (This is because we know the additive identity is multiplicatively absorbing in a ring.)
But it does not: $acdot 1:=a+1neq 1$, for any $aneq 0$.
In case you have radically mistyped your problem, I would encourage you to search for duplicates before asking. This and this and this are all similar, and may explain the answer to you faster than re-asking.
answered Nov 29 at 14:22
rschwieb
105k1299243
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018369%2fcommutative-ring-with-identity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It is obviously not a ring. In what follows, $0$ and $1$ refer to the neutral elements of the original ring addition and multiplication, respectively.
Just note that $1$ is the neutral element for $oplus$, and so it should satisfy $acdot 1=1$ for all $ain R$, if $R$ is to be a ring. (This is because we know the additive identity is multiplicatively absorbing in a ring.)
But it does not: $acdot 1:=a+1neq 1$, for any $aneq 0$.
In case you have radically mistyped your problem, I would encourage you to search for duplicates before asking. This and this and this are all similar, and may explain the answer to you faster than re-asking.
answered Nov 29 at 14:22
rschwieb
105k1299243
add a comment |
It is obviously not a ring. In what follows, $0$ and $1$ refer to the neutral elements of the original ring addition and multiplication, respectively.
Just note that $1$ is the neutral element for $oplus$, and so it should satisfy $acdot 1=1$ for all $ain R$, if $R$ is to be a ring. (This is because we know the additive identity is multiplicatively absorbing in a ring.)
But it does not: $acdot 1:=a+1neq 1$, for any $aneq 0$.
In case you have radically mistyped your problem, I would encourage you to search for duplicates before asking. This and this and this are all similar, and may explain the answer to you faster than re-asking.
answered Nov 29 at 14:22
rschwieb
105k1299243
add a comment |
It is obviously not a ring. In what follows, $0$ and $1$ refer to the neutral elements of the original ring addition and multiplication, respectively.
Just note that $1$ is the neutral element for $oplus$, and so it should satisfy $acdot 1=1$ for all $ain R$, if $R$ is to be a ring. (This is because we know the additive identity is multiplicatively absorbing in a ring.)
But it does not: $acdot 1:=a+1neq 1$, for any $aneq 0$.
In case you have radically mistyped your problem, I would encourage you to search for duplicates before asking. This and this and this are all similar, and may explain the answer to you faster than re-asking.
answered Nov 29 at 14:22
rschwieb
105k1299243
It is obviously not a ring. In what follows, $0$ and $1$ refer to the neutral elements of the original ring addition and multiplication, respectively.
Just note that $1$ is the neutral element for $oplus$, and so it should satisfy $acdot 1=1$ for all $ain R$, if $R$ is to be a ring. (This is because we know the additive identity is multiplicatively absorbing in a ring.)
But it does not: $acdot 1:=a+1neq 1$, for any $aneq 0$.
In case you have radically mistyped your problem, I would encourage you to search for duplicates before asking. This and this and this are all similar, and may explain the answer to you faster than re-asking.
answered Nov 29 at 14:22
rschwieb
105k1299243
edited Nov 29 at 14:27
answered Nov 29 at 14:22
rschwieb
105k1299243
answered Nov 29 at 14:22
rschwieb
105k1299243
answered Nov 29 at 14:22
rschwieb
105k1299243
105k1299243
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018369%2fcommutative-ring-with-identity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
What do you need to show for something to be a ring and commutative? Moreover, what are $I$ and $+$ in this case?
– Jonas Lenz
Nov 29 at 8:44
Welcome to MSE. Your question is phrased as an isolated problem, without any further information or context. This does not match many users' quality standards, so it may attract downvotes, or be put on hold. To prevent that, please edit the question. This will help you recognise and resolve the issues. Concretely: please provide context, and include your work and thoughts on the problem. These changes can help in formulating more appropriate answers.
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 29 at 8:49
All I know that 1.it should be abelian group 2.it should follow associative and commutative law 3.it should follow left,right distributive law.Though I was able to prove first two conditions ,I am not able to figure out the 3rd condition.
– P.Bendre
Nov 29 at 8:50
Can you please show your computations for distributivity?
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:05
for instance yes - you want to expand both sides and rearrange terms such that you get equality
– Stockfish
Nov 29 at 9:07