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?
$begingroup$
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.
group-theory ring-theory field-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
group-theory ring-theory field-theory
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
group-theory ring-theory field-theory
$endgroup$
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
group-theory ring-theory field-theory
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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 $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
$$
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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%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
$begingroup$
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 $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
$$
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
$$
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
$$
$endgroup$
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 $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
$$
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
cspruncsprun
1,99729
1,99729
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%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
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
$begingroup$
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