Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

This comes from Jacobson's Basic Algebra I, Exercise 4 of Section 1.4, found on page 42. I don't understand the following problem.

For a given binary composition define a simple product of the sequence of elements $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_n$ inductively as either $a_1u$ where $u$ is a simple product of $a_2,\dots,a_n$ or as $va_n$ where $v$ is a simple product of $a_1,\dots,a_{n-1}$. Show that any product of $\geq 2^r$ elements can be written as a simple product of $r$ elements (which are themselves products).

I thought about approaching this by induction on $r$. But then for $r=1$, it seems to ask that any product of $\geq 2$ elements can be written as a simple product of $1$ element, which sounds unusual to me. The inductive definition given doesn't make sense to me, is there a better way to approach this problem?

share|cite|improve this question
This requires knowing what he means by the unqualified term product; without that we don’t know what is meant by a ‘product of $\ge 2^r$ elements’. – Brian M. Scott May 21 '12 at 5:36
This looked so weird, I was sure you copied the problem wrong, so I had a look at the book. Nope, you copied it quite correctly. I hope someone figures out what's up here, as now you've got me wondering. – Gerry Myerson May 21 '12 at 5:38
@GerryMyerson The thing which comes to my mind is that this could be a question about inserting brackets (associativity not assumed)? – Mark Bennet May 21 '12 at 5:44
@Mark: That was my immediate thought as well. Even so I suspect that the definition is defective and should specify that all $ab$ with $a$ and $b$ not products are simple products, and that the induction is for $n>2$. – Brian M. Scott May 21 '12 at 5:50
@Mark, certainly associativity is not assumed. For anyone else who wants to check, this is Exercise 4 in section 1.4, page 42 in the first, 1974, edition. The section concerns "generalized associativity, and commutativity". – Gerry Myerson May 21 '12 at 6:19
up vote 2 down vote accepted

The definition is confusing because Jacobson gives here two different definitions at the same time. First one is this:

Simple product of $a_1, a_2, \ldots a_n$ is defined as $a_1u$, where $u$ is a simple product of $a_2, \ldots, a_n$.

The other one is this:

Simple product of $a_1, a_2, \ldots a_n$ is defined as $va_n$, where $v$ is a simple product of $a_1, \ldots, a_{n-1}$.

In the first case the product is of the form $a_1(a_2(a_3(\ldots(a_{n-1}a_n)\ldots)))$ and in the second case it is of the form $(((\ldots(a_1a_2)a_3)\ldots)a_{n-1})a_n$. Both are "simple products" as Jacobson defines them.

Suppose $b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_k$ are elements defined on some binary relation such that $k \geq 2^r$. Let $P$ be some product of these elements, ie. $b_1b_2\ldots b_k$ bracketed in some way. What the question is asking you to show is that there exist elements $a_1, a_2, \ldots a_r$ such that the simple product of $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_r$ equals $P$.

Now notice that $P = XY$, where $X$ is some product of $b_1, \ldots, b_i$ and $Y$ is some product of $b_{i+1}, \ldots, b_k$. Then either $X$ or $Y$ has $\geq 2^{r-1}$ elements in the product, so by induction one of them is a simple product of $r-1$ elements. In both cases $P$ is a simple product of $r$ elements of one of the two forms.

share|cite|improve this answer
I understood it in the way that for example $a_1((a_2a_3)a_4)$ is also a simple product of four items, but $(a_1a_2)(a_3a_4)$ of only two. – Jyrki Lahtonen May 21 '12 at 10:05
@JyrkiLahtonen I think you can express $(a_1a_2)(a_3a_4)$ as a simple product of three items - $(a_1a_2)$ and [$a_3$ and $a_4$] – Mark Bennet May 21 '12 at 13:26
@Mark, you're right! – Jyrki Lahtonen May 21 '12 at 13:51
Thanks m.k., clearing up what the definitions mean was very helpful. – Adelaide Dokras May 21 '12 at 17:53
@JyrkiLahtonen: I think you might be right, that makes a bit more sense. Jacobson might have just written it as $a_1(a_2(a_3(\ldots(a_{n-1}a_n)\ldots)))$ if the way I defined it here is right. When I was writing this answer, for some reason I thought that with the way you understood it every product of elements would also be a simple product of those elements, but as you said this is not the case with $(a_1a_2)(a_3a_4)$.. the same proof works with both definitions though. – Mikko Korhonen May 22 '12 at 6:41

This is done by induction (if I understood it correctly). Let us assume that $z$ is a product of at least $2^r$ elements. Because $z$ is a product, it is of the form $z=xy$. Obviously either $x$ or $y$ has at least $2^{r-1}$ factors. By induction hypothesis that factor is a simple product of at least $(r-1)$ elements (most of those products themselves). There $z$ is a simple product of one of the two forms: the shorter of $x$ and $y$ is the $r^{th}$ factor.

The starting point $r=1$ being obvious.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you Jyrki. – Adelaide Dokras May 21 '12 at 17:54

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.