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

My question is simple, though it proves to be much more difficult than it sounds. Suppose I want to find a binary operation to add extra structure to a multiplicative group (so it becomes a ring). This binary operation must be associative, and also distributive over multiplication by definition.

My question is whether or not there exists a binary operation that is both associative and distributive over multiplication. Keep in mind that I am just an amateur mathematician, not an advanced ring theorist, so it would be kind for you to keep things simple.

share|cite|improve this question
A ring has a absorption element (zero) whereas a nontrivial group cannot have such an element. However sometimes it is possible to find an $R$ such that $R^\times=G$ for given groups $G$. But there will generally be more than one possible way to put a $+$ structure on $G\cup\{0\}$ (for example $\Bbb F_q^\times$ has many choices of generators), and I doubt there is a generic way to do it (I am not even sure if every group is a group of units). [It is true though that $G\subseteq R^\times$ is always solvable in $R$; just form a group ring.] – anon Dec 30 '13 at 4:34
Perhaps you are looking for ? – Prahlad Vaidyanathan Dec 30 '13 at 4:47
You can only make it a ring if the multiplicative group is abelian. The distributivity of the binary operation somehow demands that. See and for a short answer to that question see – drhab Dec 30 '13 at 10:11
@user118228 just to be absolutely clear, you're looking for an operation $\ast$ on a group $G$ such that $a\ast(bc)=(a\ast b)(a\ast c)$ and similarly for the right handed distributive law? I just have some lurking suspicions that you might not have expressed what you actually meant... – rschwieb Dec 30 '13 at 14:32
@anon:… is a smaller version of your question – Jack Schmidt Dec 30 '13 at 17:45

Your Answer


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