Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - ring axioms

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    35

    ring axioms

    Each of the following (with the usual operations of addition and multiplication) fails to be a ring. In each case, you should prove this by showing one of the ring axioms
    which is not satisfied.

    1) N, the set of natural numbers.

    2) 2Z+1, the set of odd integers.

    3) The set of invertible 22 real matrices.

    4) The set of polynomials in which the coefficient of x3 is zero.

    5) The set of vectors in real 3-dimensional space (the multiplication here is cross product).

    am not able to start doing this question at all.. It would be helpful if some one could show me how to do part (1), so that I could follow up on doing the other parts... help wpuld be appreciated thanks
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor kalagota's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2007
    From
    Taguig City, Philippines
    Posts
    1,026
    for the part 1, depending on the convention of your N..
    if 0 is not in N, then there is no element in N that will take the place of the additive identity..
    but the most obvious is, N is not a group under addition.. all the elements of N have no additive inverse..
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    35
    for part(b) I think multiplicative inverse law doesn't satisfy.. am not sure whether right can some check my answer and prove it...I need some help for the rest of the section aswell thank you
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,693
    Thanks
    1466
    Quote Originally Posted by rajr View Post
    for part(b) I think multiplicative inverse law doesn't satisfy.. am not sure whether right can some check my answer and prove it...I need some help for the rest of the section aswell thank you
    Well we can't check your answer if you don't show it! How do you show that the "multiplicative inverse law" isn't satisfied?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    35
    hi thx for ur reply... i thought we just have to use the laws that we know from the basics i.e. the multiplicative of law of inverse does not satisfy the integers... that's why I thought that the multiplicative law of inverse doesn't satisfy... but I am a bit confused now as there are no ring axioms for multiplicative inverse law... am reallly lost now..
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor kalagota's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2007
    From
    Taguig City, Philippines
    Posts
    1,026
    true!! existence of multiplicative inverses is not a requirement for a set to be a ring.. it is a requirement for division ring..

    for 2), you may want to check if it is closed under addition..

    and yeah, maybe, you want to post your solutions here..
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. [SOLVED] Prove the Artinian ring R is a division ring
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 8th 2011, 03:53 AM
  2. example of prime ring and semiprime ring
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 27th 2011, 05:23 PM
  3. Ideals of ring and isomorphic ring :)
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 24th 2009, 03:23 AM
  4. Axioms
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 10th 2009, 11:28 AM
  5. Axioms of Ring
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 7th 2008, 03:08 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum