Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

I'm having trouble understanding the way the identity element is defined in Lang's Algebra. Below is the relevant information. Suppose we have a monoid G with elements $x_{1},...,x_{n}$. We can define their products like so, $$\Pi_{v=1}^{n} = (x_{1}...x_{n-1})x_{n}$$ We define $$e=\Pi_{v=1}^{0}x_{n}$$ where $e$ is the identity element of the monoid. I do not understand why this definition of $e$ makes sense. It seems to me that this is saying $e=x_{1}x_{0}$, so in particular, $x_{0}$ is the inverse of $x_{1}$. Thank you in advance.

share|improve this question
3  
In this definition $v$ is supposed to run through the set $\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$. So if $n=0$ this set is empty, and so you have the empty product which is defined to be the neutral element of the monoid -- this is the only reasonable way to define an empty product. So Lang isn't defining the neutral element there, he's just giving a convention for empty products. –  Ryan Budney Jun 11 '11 at 6:16
    
See also my answer here on empty exponents, products and sums. –  Bill Dubuque Jun 11 '11 at 18:23

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

This is just an empty product - the notation $\prod_{v=i}^j$ is shorthand for $\prod_{i\leq v\leq j}$, and there is no $v$ such that $1\leq v\leq 0$, so $\prod_{v=1}^0 x_v$ is a product of no elements, not $x_1x_0$.

share|improve this answer

This expression is the empty product and not the product of $x_0$ with $x_1$. As it is mentioned in p.4 below this expression, it is a matter of convention to denote the identity element as the empty product.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.