Is it possible to have an Abelian group under two different binary operations but the binary operations are not distributive?Are there broad or powerful theorems of rings that do not involve the familiar numerical operations (+) and (*) in some fundamental way?Are the axioms for abelian group theory independent?A question about groups: may I substitute a binary operation with a function?Question about the definition of a field…Is a ring closed under both operations?Non-commutative or commutative ring or subring with $x^2 = 0$Can a group have a subset that is stable under all automorphisms, but not under inverse?Using a particular definition of a field to argue that $0$ commutes with the other elements in the field under multiplicationExample of a communtative ring with two operations where the identity elements are not distinct?In abstract algebra, what is an intuitive explanation for a field?

What wound would be of little consequence to a biped but terrible for a quadruped?

Why is this plane circling around the Lucknow airport every day?

Unreachable code, but reachable with exception

Do Bugbears' arms literally get longer when it's their turn?

String reversal in Python

Replacing Windows 7 security updates with anti-virus?

Should I tell my boss the work he did was worthless

Word for a person who has no opinion about whether god exists

How much attack damage does the AC boost from a shield prevent on average?

How does airport security verify that you can carry a battery bank over 100 Wh?

How do I deal with a powergamer in a game full of beginners in a school club?

A three room house but a three headED dog

Making a sword in the stone, in a medieval world without magic

Why does Deadpool say "You're welcome, Canada," after shooting Ryan Reynolds in the end credits?

How did Alan Turing break the enigma code using the hint given by the lady in the bar?

Is it true that real estate prices mainly go up?

Why would one plane in this picture not have gear down yet?

Could a cubesat propel itself to Mars?

Peter's Strange Word

Offered promotion but I'm leaving. Should I tell?

Why don't MCU characters ever seem to have language issues?

Algorithm to convert a fixed-length string to the smallest possible collision-free representation?

How much stiffer are 23c tires over 28c?

Examples of a statistic that is not independent of sample's distribution?



Is it possible to have an Abelian group under two different binary operations but the binary operations are not distributive?


Are there broad or powerful theorems of rings that do not involve the familiar numerical operations (+) and (*) in some fundamental way?Are the axioms for abelian group theory independent?A question about groups: may I substitute a binary operation with a function?Question about the definition of a field…Is a ring closed under both operations?Non-commutative or commutative ring or subring with $x^2 = 0$Can a group have a subset that is stable under all automorphisms, but not under inverse?Using a particular definition of a field to argue that $0$ commutes with the other elements in the field under multiplicationExample of a communtative ring with two operations where the identity elements are not distinct?In abstract algebra, what is an intuitive explanation for a field?













3












$begingroup$


I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - 0_R, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - 0_R)$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    9 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    5 hours ago















3












$begingroup$


I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - 0_R, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - 0_R)$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    9 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    5 hours ago













3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - 0_R, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - 0_R)$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - 0_R, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - 0_R)$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.







group-theory ring-theory field-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 9 hours ago









sepehr78sepehr78

725




725











  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    9 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    5 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    9 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    5 hours ago















$begingroup$
Composition isn't invertible either.
$endgroup$
– jgon
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Composition isn't invertible either.
$endgroup$
– jgon
9 hours ago




5




5




$begingroup$
Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-0$.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-0$.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
5 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



The set is $0,1,2,3,4,5$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



Multiplication is defined by
$$
acdot b = left{ beginarraycl 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
1 & a = b= 5 \
5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
ab pmod5& mboxotherwiseendarray right.
$$

or as a table
$$
beginarraycccccc cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
endarray
$$

The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Sible
    4 hours ago


















4












$begingroup$

As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.




But just to be thorough, you can construct an example $R$ with $|R|=n$ for any $n>3$ (we ignore $|R|=1$ as it's not very interesting). So the only mildly surprising thing is that you can't do it with $|R|=3$. Your hand is forced for the additive structure, and then there are only two options for a multiplicative structure, by choosing a labeling of $R-0$, and either forms a field, because the additive structure of $mathbbZ/3mathbbZ$ is preserved by relabeling $1$ and $2$



If $n>3$, let's construct an example. If $n$ is not a prime power, choose any group structures you like (e.g., cyclic), as we saw. If $n = p^e$ with $p$ prime and $ege 2$, then make $(R,+) cong (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ,+)$, which will work since the additive structure of a finite field is not cyclic unless it has prime order. If $n=p$ is prime, then you are forced to have $(R,+) cong (mathbbZ/pmathbbZ,+)$, so let's just identify them, i.e. take $(R,+) := (mathbbZ/pmathbbZ,+)$. Suppose $pge 7$. Define $cdot$ on $(mathbbZ/pmathbbZ)-0$ to be cyclic generated by $2$ so that the powers of $2$ are $2^1 = 2$, $2^2 = 1$, and $2^k = k$ for $3le k le p-1$. Now, doing addition first, we have
$$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 2 = 2^2 = 1,$$
but distributing first, we have
$$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 1 + 2cdot 1 = 2cdot 2^2 + 2cdot 2^2 = 2^3 + 2^3 = 3+3=6 ne 1$$
in $mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$. If $p=5$, you can define $3^1 = 3$, $3^2 = 2$, $3^3 = 4$, and $3^4 = 1$, and then, doing addition first, we have
$$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 2 = 3cdot 3^2 = 3^3 = 4,$$
but, distributing first, we have
$$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 1 + 3cdot 1 = 3cdot 3^4 + 3cdot 3^4 = 3^1 + 3^1 = 6 = 1.$$




You can also do it with any infinite set. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. Take $R = mathbbZ$, with $+$ being regular addition. For example, let $S = mathbbZsetminus 0$, let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^-1(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbbZ$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
$$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^-1(-1+2) = 1,$$
but distributing first, we have
$$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^-1(-1+1) + phi^-1(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$



In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3145486%2fis-it-possible-to-have-an-abelian-group-under-two-different-binary-operations-bu%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

    Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



    The set is $0,1,2,3,4,5$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



    Multiplication is defined by
    $$
    acdot b = left{ beginarraycl 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
    1 & a = b= 5 \
    5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
    5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
    ab pmod5& mboxotherwiseendarray right.
    $$

    or as a table
    $$
    beginarraycccccc cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
    0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
    1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
    2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
    3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
    4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
    5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
    endarray
    $$

    The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



    Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
    1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
      $endgroup$
      – Joseph Sible
      4 hours ago















    2












    $begingroup$

    Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



    The set is $0,1,2,3,4,5$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



    Multiplication is defined by
    $$
    acdot b = left{ beginarraycl 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
    1 & a = b= 5 \
    5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
    5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
    ab pmod5& mboxotherwiseendarray right.
    $$

    or as a table
    $$
    beginarraycccccc cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
    0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
    1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
    2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
    3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
    4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
    5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
    endarray
    $$

    The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



    Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
    1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
      $endgroup$
      – Joseph Sible
      4 hours ago













    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



    The set is $0,1,2,3,4,5$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



    Multiplication is defined by
    $$
    acdot b = left{ beginarraycl 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
    1 & a = b= 5 \
    5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
    5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
    ab pmod5& mboxotherwiseendarray right.
    $$

    or as a table
    $$
    beginarraycccccc cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
    0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
    1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
    2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
    3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
    4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
    5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
    endarray
    $$

    The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



    Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
    1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



    The set is $0,1,2,3,4,5$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



    Multiplication is defined by
    $$
    acdot b = left{ beginarraycl 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
    1 & a = b= 5 \
    5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
    5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
    ab pmod5& mboxotherwiseendarray right.
    $$

    or as a table
    $$
    beginarraycccccc cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
    0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
    1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
    2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
    3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
    4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
    5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
    endarray
    $$

    The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



    Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
    1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
    $$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 9 hours ago









    Mark FischlerMark Fischler

    33.4k12452




    33.4k12452







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
      $endgroup$
      – Joseph Sible
      4 hours ago












    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      4 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
      $endgroup$
      – Joseph Sible
      4 hours ago







    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    4 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    4 hours ago





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    4 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    4 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    4 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    4 hours ago













    $begingroup$
    Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Sible
    4 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Sible
    4 hours ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.




    But just to be thorough, you can construct an example $R$ with $|R|=n$ for any $n>3$ (we ignore $|R|=1$ as it's not very interesting). So the only mildly surprising thing is that you can't do it with $|R|=3$. Your hand is forced for the additive structure, and then there are only two options for a multiplicative structure, by choosing a labeling of $R-0$, and either forms a field, because the additive structure of $mathbbZ/3mathbbZ$ is preserved by relabeling $1$ and $2$



    If $n>3$, let's construct an example. If $n$ is not a prime power, choose any group structures you like (e.g., cyclic), as we saw. If $n = p^e$ with $p$ prime and $ege 2$, then make $(R,+) cong (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ,+)$, which will work since the additive structure of a finite field is not cyclic unless it has prime order. If $n=p$ is prime, then you are forced to have $(R,+) cong (mathbbZ/pmathbbZ,+)$, so let's just identify them, i.e. take $(R,+) := (mathbbZ/pmathbbZ,+)$. Suppose $pge 7$. Define $cdot$ on $(mathbbZ/pmathbbZ)-0$ to be cyclic generated by $2$ so that the powers of $2$ are $2^1 = 2$, $2^2 = 1$, and $2^k = k$ for $3le k le p-1$. Now, doing addition first, we have
    $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 2 = 2^2 = 1,$$
    but distributing first, we have
    $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 1 + 2cdot 1 = 2cdot 2^2 + 2cdot 2^2 = 2^3 + 2^3 = 3+3=6 ne 1$$
    in $mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$. If $p=5$, you can define $3^1 = 3$, $3^2 = 2$, $3^3 = 4$, and $3^4 = 1$, and then, doing addition first, we have
    $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 2 = 3cdot 3^2 = 3^3 = 4,$$
    but, distributing first, we have
    $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 1 + 3cdot 1 = 3cdot 3^4 + 3cdot 3^4 = 3^1 + 3^1 = 6 = 1.$$




    You can also do it with any infinite set. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. Take $R = mathbbZ$, with $+$ being regular addition. For example, let $S = mathbbZsetminus 0$, let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^-1(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbbZ$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
    $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^-1(-1+2) = 1,$$
    but distributing first, we have
    $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^-1(-1+1) + phi^-1(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$



    In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      4












      $begingroup$

      As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.




      But just to be thorough, you can construct an example $R$ with $|R|=n$ for any $n>3$ (we ignore $|R|=1$ as it's not very interesting). So the only mildly surprising thing is that you can't do it with $|R|=3$. Your hand is forced for the additive structure, and then there are only two options for a multiplicative structure, by choosing a labeling of $R-0$, and either forms a field, because the additive structure of $mathbbZ/3mathbbZ$ is preserved by relabeling $1$ and $2$



      If $n>3$, let's construct an example. If $n$ is not a prime power, choose any group structures you like (e.g., cyclic), as we saw. If $n = p^e$ with $p$ prime and $ege 2$, then make $(R,+) cong (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ,+)$, which will work since the additive structure of a finite field is not cyclic unless it has prime order. If $n=p$ is prime, then you are forced to have $(R,+) cong (mathbbZ/pmathbbZ,+)$, so let's just identify them, i.e. take $(R,+) := (mathbbZ/pmathbbZ,+)$. Suppose $pge 7$. Define $cdot$ on $(mathbbZ/pmathbbZ)-0$ to be cyclic generated by $2$ so that the powers of $2$ are $2^1 = 2$, $2^2 = 1$, and $2^k = k$ for $3le k le p-1$. Now, doing addition first, we have
      $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 2 = 2^2 = 1,$$
      but distributing first, we have
      $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 1 + 2cdot 1 = 2cdot 2^2 + 2cdot 2^2 = 2^3 + 2^3 = 3+3=6 ne 1$$
      in $mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$. If $p=5$, you can define $3^1 = 3$, $3^2 = 2$, $3^3 = 4$, and $3^4 = 1$, and then, doing addition first, we have
      $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 2 = 3cdot 3^2 = 3^3 = 4,$$
      but, distributing first, we have
      $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 1 + 3cdot 1 = 3cdot 3^4 + 3cdot 3^4 = 3^1 + 3^1 = 6 = 1.$$




      You can also do it with any infinite set. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. Take $R = mathbbZ$, with $+$ being regular addition. For example, let $S = mathbbZsetminus 0$, let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^-1(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbbZ$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
      $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^-1(-1+2) = 1,$$
      but distributing first, we have
      $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^-1(-1+1) + phi^-1(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$



      In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.




        But just to be thorough, you can construct an example $R$ with $|R|=n$ for any $n>3$ (we ignore $|R|=1$ as it's not very interesting). So the only mildly surprising thing is that you can't do it with $|R|=3$. Your hand is forced for the additive structure, and then there are only two options for a multiplicative structure, by choosing a labeling of $R-0$, and either forms a field, because the additive structure of $mathbbZ/3mathbbZ$ is preserved by relabeling $1$ and $2$



        If $n>3$, let's construct an example. If $n$ is not a prime power, choose any group structures you like (e.g., cyclic), as we saw. If $n = p^e$ with $p$ prime and $ege 2$, then make $(R,+) cong (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ,+)$, which will work since the additive structure of a finite field is not cyclic unless it has prime order. If $n=p$ is prime, then you are forced to have $(R,+) cong (mathbbZ/pmathbbZ,+)$, so let's just identify them, i.e. take $(R,+) := (mathbbZ/pmathbbZ,+)$. Suppose $pge 7$. Define $cdot$ on $(mathbbZ/pmathbbZ)-0$ to be cyclic generated by $2$ so that the powers of $2$ are $2^1 = 2$, $2^2 = 1$, and $2^k = k$ for $3le k le p-1$. Now, doing addition first, we have
        $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 2 = 2^2 = 1,$$
        but distributing first, we have
        $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 1 + 2cdot 1 = 2cdot 2^2 + 2cdot 2^2 = 2^3 + 2^3 = 3+3=6 ne 1$$
        in $mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$. If $p=5$, you can define $3^1 = 3$, $3^2 = 2$, $3^3 = 4$, and $3^4 = 1$, and then, doing addition first, we have
        $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 2 = 3cdot 3^2 = 3^3 = 4,$$
        but, distributing first, we have
        $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 1 + 3cdot 1 = 3cdot 3^4 + 3cdot 3^4 = 3^1 + 3^1 = 6 = 1.$$




        You can also do it with any infinite set. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. Take $R = mathbbZ$, with $+$ being regular addition. For example, let $S = mathbbZsetminus 0$, let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^-1(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbbZ$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
        $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^-1(-1+2) = 1,$$
        but distributing first, we have
        $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^-1(-1+1) + phi^-1(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$



        In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.




        But just to be thorough, you can construct an example $R$ with $|R|=n$ for any $n>3$ (we ignore $|R|=1$ as it's not very interesting). So the only mildly surprising thing is that you can't do it with $|R|=3$. Your hand is forced for the additive structure, and then there are only two options for a multiplicative structure, by choosing a labeling of $R-0$, and either forms a field, because the additive structure of $mathbbZ/3mathbbZ$ is preserved by relabeling $1$ and $2$



        If $n>3$, let's construct an example. If $n$ is not a prime power, choose any group structures you like (e.g., cyclic), as we saw. If $n = p^e$ with $p$ prime and $ege 2$, then make $(R,+) cong (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ,+)$, which will work since the additive structure of a finite field is not cyclic unless it has prime order. If $n=p$ is prime, then you are forced to have $(R,+) cong (mathbbZ/pmathbbZ,+)$, so let's just identify them, i.e. take $(R,+) := (mathbbZ/pmathbbZ,+)$. Suppose $pge 7$. Define $cdot$ on $(mathbbZ/pmathbbZ)-0$ to be cyclic generated by $2$ so that the powers of $2$ are $2^1 = 2$, $2^2 = 1$, and $2^k = k$ for $3le k le p-1$. Now, doing addition first, we have
        $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 2 = 2^2 = 1,$$
        but distributing first, we have
        $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 1 + 2cdot 1 = 2cdot 2^2 + 2cdot 2^2 = 2^3 + 2^3 = 3+3=6 ne 1$$
        in $mathbbZ/pmathbbZ$. If $p=5$, you can define $3^1 = 3$, $3^2 = 2$, $3^3 = 4$, and $3^4 = 1$, and then, doing addition first, we have
        $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 2 = 3cdot 3^2 = 3^3 = 4,$$
        but, distributing first, we have
        $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 1 + 3cdot 1 = 3cdot 3^4 + 3cdot 3^4 = 3^1 + 3^1 = 6 = 1.$$




        You can also do it with any infinite set. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. Take $R = mathbbZ$, with $+$ being regular addition. For example, let $S = mathbbZsetminus 0$, let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^-1(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbbZ$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
        $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^-1(-1+2) = 1,$$
        but distributing first, we have
        $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^-1(-1+1) + phi^-1(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$



        In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 3 hours ago

























        answered 9 hours ago









        cspruncsprun

        1,99729




        1,99729



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3145486%2fis-it-possible-to-have-an-abelian-group-under-two-different-binary-operations-bu%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

            2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

            Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are Inchanging text on user mouseoverShould certain functions be “hard to find” for powerusers to discover?Custom liking function - do I need user login?Using different checkbox style for different checkbox behaviorBest Practices: Save and Exit in Software UIInteraction with remote validated formMore efficient UI to progress the user through a complicated process?Designing a popup notice for a gameShould bulk-editing functions be hidden until a table row is selected, or is there a better solution?Is it bad practice to disable (replace) the context menu?