Example of algebraic structure that is non distributive for BOTH distributive laws and how to do computation...
$begingroup$
(Apologies if this one sounds like I have not done much research, or I did not aware already have an answer, but I have been searching everywhere and all of these structures presented here, even including the highly exotic division by zero proposals such as Wheels and Meadows, they all seemed to either retain the distributive law (both side) or at least retain the right distributive law
So my question then becomes
Q1 Any famous or widely used example of an algebraic structure where BOTH right and left distributive law fails?
Q2. Suppose I have an algebraic structure on the set $S$ with the following
$$S=left{a,b,c,dright}$$
with the axiom
$$a^2=a$$
with right addition defined as
$$+:(a_1,a_2)rightarrow(a_1+a_2),a_1,a_2 in S$$
and some left operation
$$circ : (k,a)rightarrow (k^2 a), k,a in S$$
I am then interested in computing this entry in the Cayley table for $circ$
$$a circ(b+c)$$
How should I approach it since I don't have distributive laws (BOTH left and right) that allow me to simplify this expression to this and apply the axioms I know about $S$
$$a circ b+a circ c$$
abstract-algebra
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
asked Apr 1 '15 at 12:55
SecretSecret
1,0951020
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(Apologies if this one sounds like I have not done much research, or I did not aware already have an answer, but I have been searching everywhere and all of these structures presented here, even including the highly exotic division by zero proposals such as Wheels and Meadows, they all seemed to either retain the distributive law (both side) or at least retain the right distributive law
So my question then becomes
Q1 Any famous or widely used example of an algebraic structure where BOTH right and left distributive law fails?
Q2. Suppose I have an algebraic structure on the set $S$ with the following
$$S=left{a,b,c,dright}$$
with the axiom
$$a^2=a$$
with right addition defined as
$$+:(a_1,a_2)rightarrow(a_1+a_2),a_1,a_2 in S$$
and some left operation
$$circ : (k,a)rightarrow (k^2 a), k,a in S$$
I am then interested in computing this entry in the Cayley table for $circ$
$$a circ(b+c)$$
How should I approach it since I don't have distributive laws (BOTH left and right) that allow me to simplify this expression to this and apply the axioms I know about $S$
$$a circ b+a circ c$$
abstract-algebra
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
asked Apr 1 '15 at 12:55
SecretSecret
1,0951020
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
To answer Q1; yes, check out lattices. As you correctly guessed, the absence of a distributivity law makes things much harder; normal forms are more complicated, etc.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 12:58
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_form_(abstract_rewriting) Is this the normal form you are referring to?
$endgroup$
– Secret
Apr 1 '15 at 13:03
$begingroup$
More or less, but you're overcomplicating it. Look at it this way. If you've got two laws saying that multiplication distributes over addition on all sides, then you can write all your expressions as sums of products. For example, you can write $(xxx+y)x+xy$ as $xxxx+yx+xy,$ or in other words $x^4+yx+xy$. See? Its a sum of products; that's a normal form into which every such expression can be converted. Without both distributive laws, however, this doesn't work, and things can get much hairier.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 13:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(Apologies if this one sounds like I have not done much research, or I did not aware already have an answer, but I have been searching everywhere and all of these structures presented here, even including the highly exotic division by zero proposals such as Wheels and Meadows, they all seemed to either retain the distributive law (both side) or at least retain the right distributive law
So my question then becomes
Q1 Any famous or widely used example of an algebraic structure where BOTH right and left distributive law fails?
Q2. Suppose I have an algebraic structure on the set $S$ with the following
$$S=left{a,b,c,dright}$$
with the axiom
$$a^2=a$$
with right addition defined as
$$+:(a_1,a_2)rightarrow(a_1+a_2),a_1,a_2 in S$$
and some left operation
$$circ : (k,a)rightarrow (k^2 a), k,a in S$$
I am then interested in computing this entry in the Cayley table for $circ$
$$a circ(b+c)$$
How should I approach it since I don't have distributive laws (BOTH left and right) that allow me to simplify this expression to this and apply the axioms I know about $S$
$$a circ b+a circ c$$
abstract-algebra
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
asked Apr 1 '15 at 12:55
SecretSecret
1,0951020
$endgroup$
(Apologies if this one sounds like I have not done much research, or I did not aware already have an answer, but I have been searching everywhere and all of these structures presented here, even including the highly exotic division by zero proposals such as Wheels and Meadows, they all seemed to either retain the distributive law (both side) or at least retain the right distributive law
So my question then becomes
Q1 Any famous or widely used example of an algebraic structure where BOTH right and left distributive law fails?
Q2. Suppose I have an algebraic structure on the set $S$ with the following
$$S=left{a,b,c,dright}$$
with the axiom
$$a^2=a$$
with right addition defined as
$$+:(a_1,a_2)rightarrow(a_1+a_2),a_1,a_2 in S$$
and some left operation
$$circ : (k,a)rightarrow (k^2 a), k,a in S$$
I am then interested in computing this entry in the Cayley table for $circ$
$$a circ(b+c)$$
How should I approach it since I don't have distributive laws (BOTH left and right) that allow me to simplify this expression to this and apply the axioms I know about $S$
$$a circ b+a circ c$$
abstract-algebra
abstract-algebra
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
asked Apr 1 '15 at 12:55
SecretSecret
1,0951020
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
asked Apr 1 '15 at 12:55
SecretSecret
1,0951020
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
1
asked Apr 1 '15 at 12:55
SecretSecret
1,0951020
asked Apr 1 '15 at 12:55
SecretSecret
1,0951020
asked Apr 1 '15 at 12:55
SecretSecret
1,0951020
1,0951020
2
$begingroup$
To answer Q1; yes, check out lattices. As you correctly guessed, the absence of a distributivity law makes things much harder; normal forms are more complicated, etc.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 12:58
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_form_(abstract_rewriting) Is this the normal form you are referring to?
$endgroup$
– Secret
Apr 1 '15 at 13:03
$begingroup$
More or less, but you're overcomplicating it. Look at it this way. If you've got two laws saying that multiplication distributes over addition on all sides, then you can write all your expressions as sums of products. For example, you can write $(xxx+y)x+xy$ as $xxxx+yx+xy,$ or in other words $x^4+yx+xy$. See? Its a sum of products; that's a normal form into which every such expression can be converted. Without both distributive laws, however, this doesn't work, and things can get much hairier.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 13:07
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
To answer Q1; yes, check out lattices. As you correctly guessed, the absence of a distributivity law makes things much harder; normal forms are more complicated, etc.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 12:58
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_form_(abstract_rewriting) Is this the normal form you are referring to?
$endgroup$
– Secret
Apr 1 '15 at 13:03
$begingroup$
More or less, but you're overcomplicating it. Look at it this way. If you've got two laws saying that multiplication distributes over addition on all sides, then you can write all your expressions as sums of products. For example, you can write $(xxx+y)x+xy$ as $xxxx+yx+xy,$ or in other words $x^4+yx+xy$. See? Its a sum of products; that's a normal form into which every such expression can be converted. Without both distributive laws, however, this doesn't work, and things can get much hairier.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 13:07
2
2
$begingroup$
To answer Q1; yes, check out lattices. As you correctly guessed, the absence of a distributivity law makes things much harder; normal forms are more complicated, etc.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 12:58
$begingroup$
To answer Q1; yes, check out lattices. As you correctly guessed, the absence of a distributivity law makes things much harder; normal forms are more complicated, etc.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 12:58
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_form_(abstract_rewriting) Is this the normal form you are referring to?
$endgroup$
– Secret
Apr 1 '15 at 13:03
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_form_(abstract_rewriting) Is this the normal form you are referring to?
$endgroup$
– Secret
Apr 1 '15 at 13:03
$begingroup$
More or less, but you're overcomplicating it. Look at it this way. If you've got two laws saying that multiplication distributes over addition on all sides, then you can write all your expressions as sums of products. For example, you can write $(xxx+y)x+xy$ as $xxxx+yx+xy,$ or in other words $x^4+yx+xy$. See? Its a sum of products; that's a normal form into which every such expression can be converted. Without both distributive laws, however, this doesn't work, and things can get much hairier.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 13:07
$begingroup$
More or less, but you're overcomplicating it. Look at it this way. If you've got two laws saying that multiplication distributes over addition on all sides, then you can write all your expressions as sums of products. For example, you can write $(xxx+y)x+xy$ as $xxxx+yx+xy,$ or in other words $x^4+yx+xy$. See? Its a sum of products; that's a normal form into which every such expression can be converted. Without both distributive laws, however, this doesn't work, and things can get much hairier.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 13:07
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Consider linear functions over $Bbb{R}$ of the form $f(x)=mx+b.$
This is visibly a vector space, and we may go further to obtain an associative algebra-like-object by giving this vector space a "multiplicative" binary operation defined by composition. This defines a left and right binary operation on this vector space.
That is $f_1 =m_1 x + b_1$ and $f_2 =m_2 x + b_2,$ then define
$$f_1circ f_2 =m_1 m_2 x + m_1b_2+b_1.$$
Further, given $f_3=m_3 x + b_3,$ then
$$f_1circ f_3 =m_1 m_3 x + m_1b_3+b_1,$$
and $$f_1circ f_2+f_1circ f_3 = m_1(m_2 +m_3)x+ m_1(b_2 +b_3)+2b_1.$$
Where
$$f_1circ (f_2+ f_3)= f_1circ[(m_2+m_3 )x+b_2+b_3] =m_1(m_2+m_3)x+m_1(b_2+b_3)+b_1 $$
so
$$[f_1circ f_2+f_1circ f_3]-[f_1circ (f_2+ f_3)]=b_1.$$
Choosing any $b_1ne0,$ yields an element $f_1$ which will not possess the distributive property.
So we have all the desirable properties of an algebra, without the left or right distributive property.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 1:20
ChickenmancerChickenmancer
3,314724
$endgroup$
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%2f1215781%2fexample-of-algebraic-structure-that-is-non-distributive-for-both-distributive-la%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
$begingroup$
Consider linear functions over $Bbb{R}$ of the form $f(x)=mx+b.$
This is visibly a vector space, and we may go further to obtain an associative algebra-like-object by giving this vector space a "multiplicative" binary operation defined by composition. This defines a left and right binary operation on this vector space.
That is $f_1 =m_1 x + b_1$ and $f_2 =m_2 x + b_2,$ then define
$$f_1circ f_2 =m_1 m_2 x + m_1b_2+b_1.$$
Further, given $f_3=m_3 x + b_3,$ then
$$f_1circ f_3 =m_1 m_3 x + m_1b_3+b_1,$$
and $$f_1circ f_2+f_1circ f_3 = m_1(m_2 +m_3)x+ m_1(b_2 +b_3)+2b_1.$$
Where
$$f_1circ (f_2+ f_3)= f_1circ[(m_2+m_3 )x+b_2+b_3] =m_1(m_2+m_3)x+m_1(b_2+b_3)+b_1 $$
so
$$[f_1circ f_2+f_1circ f_3]-[f_1circ (f_2+ f_3)]=b_1.$$
Choosing any $b_1ne0,$ yields an element $f_1$ which will not possess the distributive property.
So we have all the desirable properties of an algebra, without the left or right distributive property.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 1:20
ChickenmancerChickenmancer
3,314724
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider linear functions over $Bbb{R}$ of the form $f(x)=mx+b.$
This is visibly a vector space, and we may go further to obtain an associative algebra-like-object by giving this vector space a "multiplicative" binary operation defined by composition. This defines a left and right binary operation on this vector space.
That is $f_1 =m_1 x + b_1$ and $f_2 =m_2 x + b_2,$ then define
$$f_1circ f_2 =m_1 m_2 x + m_1b_2+b_1.$$
Further, given $f_3=m_3 x + b_3,$ then
$$f_1circ f_3 =m_1 m_3 x + m_1b_3+b_1,$$
and $$f_1circ f_2+f_1circ f_3 = m_1(m_2 +m_3)x+ m_1(b_2 +b_3)+2b_1.$$
Where
$$f_1circ (f_2+ f_3)= f_1circ[(m_2+m_3 )x+b_2+b_3] =m_1(m_2+m_3)x+m_1(b_2+b_3)+b_1 $$
so
$$[f_1circ f_2+f_1circ f_3]-[f_1circ (f_2+ f_3)]=b_1.$$
Choosing any $b_1ne0,$ yields an element $f_1$ which will not possess the distributive property.
So we have all the desirable properties of an algebra, without the left or right distributive property.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 1:20
ChickenmancerChickenmancer
3,314724
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider linear functions over $Bbb{R}$ of the form $f(x)=mx+b.$
This is visibly a vector space, and we may go further to obtain an associative algebra-like-object by giving this vector space a "multiplicative" binary operation defined by composition. This defines a left and right binary operation on this vector space.
That is $f_1 =m_1 x + b_1$ and $f_2 =m_2 x + b_2,$ then define
$$f_1circ f_2 =m_1 m_2 x + m_1b_2+b_1.$$
Further, given $f_3=m_3 x + b_3,$ then
$$f_1circ f_3 =m_1 m_3 x + m_1b_3+b_1,$$
and $$f_1circ f_2+f_1circ f_3 = m_1(m_2 +m_3)x+ m_1(b_2 +b_3)+2b_1.$$
Where
$$f_1circ (f_2+ f_3)= f_1circ[(m_2+m_3 )x+b_2+b_3] =m_1(m_2+m_3)x+m_1(b_2+b_3)+b_1 $$
so
$$[f_1circ f_2+f_1circ f_3]-[f_1circ (f_2+ f_3)]=b_1.$$
Choosing any $b_1ne0,$ yields an element $f_1$ which will not possess the distributive property.
So we have all the desirable properties of an algebra, without the left or right distributive property.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 1:20
ChickenmancerChickenmancer
3,314724
$endgroup$
Consider linear functions over $Bbb{R}$ of the form $f(x)=mx+b.$
This is visibly a vector space, and we may go further to obtain an associative algebra-like-object by giving this vector space a "multiplicative" binary operation defined by composition. This defines a left and right binary operation on this vector space.
That is $f_1 =m_1 x + b_1$ and $f_2 =m_2 x + b_2,$ then define
$$f_1circ f_2 =m_1 m_2 x + m_1b_2+b_1.$$
Further, given $f_3=m_3 x + b_3,$ then
$$f_1circ f_3 =m_1 m_3 x + m_1b_3+b_1,$$
and $$f_1circ f_2+f_1circ f_3 = m_1(m_2 +m_3)x+ m_1(b_2 +b_3)+2b_1.$$
Where
$$f_1circ (f_2+ f_3)= f_1circ[(m_2+m_3 )x+b_2+b_3] =m_1(m_2+m_3)x+m_1(b_2+b_3)+b_1 $$
so
$$[f_1circ f_2+f_1circ f_3]-[f_1circ (f_2+ f_3)]=b_1.$$
Choosing any $b_1ne0,$ yields an element $f_1$ which will not possess the distributive property.
So we have all the desirable properties of an algebra, without the left or right distributive property.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 1:20
ChickenmancerChickenmancer
3,314724
answered Dec 14 '18 at 1:20
ChickenmancerChickenmancer
3,314724
answered Dec 14 '18 at 1:20
ChickenmancerChickenmancer
3,314724
answered Dec 14 '18 at 1:20
ChickenmancerChickenmancer
3,314724
3,314724
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.
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%2f1215781%2fexample-of-algebraic-structure-that-is-non-distributive-for-both-distributive-la%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
2
$begingroup$
To answer Q1; yes, check out lattices. As you correctly guessed, the absence of a distributivity law makes things much harder; normal forms are more complicated, etc.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 12:58
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_form_(abstract_rewriting) Is this the normal form you are referring to?
$endgroup$
– Secret
Apr 1 '15 at 13:03
$begingroup$
More or less, but you're overcomplicating it. Look at it this way. If you've got two laws saying that multiplication distributes over addition on all sides, then you can write all your expressions as sums of products. For example, you can write $(xxx+y)x+xy$ as $xxxx+yx+xy,$ or in other words $x^4+yx+xy$. See? Its a sum of products; that's a normal form into which every such expression can be converted. Without both distributive laws, however, this doesn't work, and things can get much hairier.
$endgroup$
– goblin
Apr 1 '15 at 13:07