Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I recently came across a binary operation (in a very non-algebraic context - it's a way to organize a certain updating of log-likelihood-ratios) and was idly wondering whether it is any kind of reasonable algebraic object. The answer may well be no but it does satisfy some properties that look like those of a ring.

Let $\boxplus \colon \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be given by $a \boxplus b = \log\left(\frac{1+e^{a+b}}{e^a+e^b}\right)$.

It's a fun exercise to check the following properties:

  1. $a\boxplus b=b \boxplus a$
  2. $a\boxplus b=0$ iff $a=0$ or $b=0$
  3. $a \boxplus (-b) = (-a) \boxplus b= -(a \boxplus b)$
  4. $a \boxplus \infty = a$, in the sense that $\displaystyle \lim_{x \to \infty} a\boxplus x=a$
  5. $(a\boxplus b) \boxplus c=a \boxplus (b \boxplus c)$

So just looking at these properties I though maybe $(\mathbb{R},+,\boxplus)$ is a commutative ring without identity. But it doesn't satisfy the distributive law. Is there anything that can be said about such a structure?

Edit: After a helpful comment from Bill I would like to point out which of these properties I find 'ringlike'. Property 3 is a statement that is true in a ring and doesn't make sense in just the semigroup $(\mathbb{R},\boxplus)$. Property 2 is the definition of an integral domain (if it was a ring). So it seems to me that having $-$ and $0$ puts me in the mind of connecting $\boxplus$ with $+$. But I don't know if this is necessary: is there some theory of semigroups with an extra unary negation operator? Maybe that's all I need.

share|cite|improve this question
What about other possible pairings with your exotic operation other than addition? Wouldn't multiplication, min, max, or even GCD, LCM distribute? – Tegiri Nenashi Mar 15 '12 at 19:41
@TegiriNenashi I don't think you're commenting in the right place. – user23211 Mar 15 '12 at 20:01
A ring without the distributive law consists of a set with a monoid structure and group structure, without the two structures having any relationship. So it has nothing to do with a ring. – Bill Dubuque Mar 15 '12 at 20:05
Bill - I agree that in general a ring without distributive law has no relationship between the ring and the monoid but I think my example does. Property 3 connects inverses in the additive group with the monoid structure. Or should I not be thinking about minuses that way? Maybe it's just a group with an extra unary operation of negation? – Martin Leslie Mar 15 '12 at 20:24
@ymar I have meant that OP bundled his operation with plus while there are other choices. Yes, 0 constant hints to addition, but so does infinity for min (max). I just suggested if other coupling would give rise to genuine (semi)ring. – Tegiri Nenashi Mar 15 '12 at 21:56
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Thanks to Tegiri Nenashi for his comment suggesting using operations other than plus. This answer will use max. If we wish to have our $\boxplus$ be the multiplicative operation on a semiring then the additive identity needs to annihilate the semiring multiplicatively, thus the additive identity must be $0$. So the additive operation, $\max$, must be applied on nonnegative reals only. If we want the multiplicative identity, $\infty$, to be in the semiring also then we must take the underlying set to be $[0,\infty]$.

Inspired by reasonable intuitions and limiting arguments define $\max(a,\infty)=\infty$ and $a\boxplus \infty =a$ for all $a \in [0,\infty]$.

Then I claim that $([0,\infty],\max,0,\boxplus,\infty)$ is a commutative semiring. It is easy to check that $([0,\infty],\max,0)$ is a commutative monoid with identity $0$. Properties 1, 4 and 5 show that $([0,\infty],\boxplus,\infty)$ is a commutative monoid with identity $\infty$. Property 2 shows that $0$ annihilates $[0,\infty]$.

Finally we need the distributive law $$a \boxplus \max(b,c)=\max(a\boxplus b,a\boxplus c).$$

Without loss of generality $b \leq c$ so we need to show that $a \boxplus c=\max(a\boxplus b,a\boxplus c)$ i.e. $a\boxplus b \leq a\boxplus c$. If $a=0$ or $a=\infty$ or $b=c$ this is true, otherwise we need $$\frac{1+e^{a+b}}{e^a+e^b}\leq \frac{1+e^{a+c}}{e^a+e^c}$$ i.e. $$e^a+e^c+e^{2a+b}+e^{a+b+c} \leq e^a+e^b+e^{2a+c}+e^{a+b+c}$$ i.e. $$e^{2a}(e^b-e^c) \leq e^b-e^c.$$ But $e^b-e^c < 0$ so our inequality is equivalent to $e^{2a} \geq 1$ which is true.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.