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.

According to wikipedia a quasifield is an algebraic structure $(Q,+,\cdot)$ such that

  1. $(Q,+)$ is a group. (As usual, we denote its identity element by $0$.)
  2. $(Q\setminus\{0\},\cdot)$ is a loop. (Its identity element will be denoted by $1$.)
  3. Left distributive law: $a\cdot (b+c) = a\cdot b + a\cdot c$ for all $a,b,c\in Q$.
  4. Each equation $a\cdot x = b\cdot x + c$ with $a,b,c\in Q$ and $a\neq b$ has a unique solution $x\in Q$.

Now the Wikipedia article claims that

One can prove that the axioms imply that the additive group (Q,+) is abelian.

My question is: How?

For ordinary rings, we are in a similar situation. It is possible to drop the commutativity of the addition from the axioms, since it follows from the other axioms: $a + b = b + a$ is implied by

$$ a + a + b + b = (a\cdot 1 + a\cdot 1) + (b\cdot 1 + b\cdot 1) \overset{\text{L}}{=} a\cdot (1 + 1) + b\cdot (1+1)\\\overset{\text{R}}{=} (a+b)\cdot (1+1) \overset{\text{L}}{=} (a+b)\cdot 1 + (a + b)\cdot 1 = a + b + a + b. $$

This is not too bad in our situation, since the proof doesn't rely on the associativity of the multiplication (which we don't have in a quasifield). However, the problem is that both distributive laws have been used (tagged with L and R). More precisely, step R is not covered by the above axioms. I wonder if we can find an alternative justification for that equality based on property 4, which looks a bit related to the missing right distributive law.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted
+100

This answer follows M. Bommireddy et al, Arch. Math. 42, 573-576 (1984).

Consider $a,b\in Q$. Even in a non-abelian group, $0+b=b+0$, so the only non-trivial case is $a\neq 0$. Since $(Q\setminus \{0\},\cdot)$ is a loop, there exists $s\in Q\setminus \{0\}$ such that $sa=b+a-b$. Define $x_1$ and $x_2$: $$ 1\cdot x_1 = sx_1+b\qquad (1)\\ x_2 := x_1+a \qquad(2) \\ \Rightarrow sx_2 = sx_1+sa \qquad(3)\\ $$

Now: $$ sx_1+b+a-b=_{(1)}x_1+a-b=_{(2)}x_2-b \qquad (4)$$

but by the definition of $s$ also: $$ sx_1+b+a-b=sx_1+sa=s (x_1+a)=_{(2)}sx_2 \qquad (5)$$

From (4) and (5), we have $$ 1\cdot x_2=sx_2+b $$

Comparing with (1) and using axiom 4, either $s=1$ or $x_1=x_2$. The former proves the theorem; the latter applied to (2) yields $a=0$, a contradiction.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for that great answer, and for digging up that paper! The combination "Bommireddy", "Reddy" and "Reddy" of the authors is quite funny. –  azimut Mar 28 at 14:35
    
To make your answer more readable, you may want to add a justification why you assume $a\neq 0$, and to replace "let $sa := b + a - b$" by something like "Since $(Q,\cdot)$ is a loop, there is a $s\in X\setminus\{0\}$ with $sa = b + a - b$." –  azimut Mar 28 at 14:44
    
@azimut: Thanks, I've added the answer accordingly, fixing an incorrect eq reference along the way. –  Ansgar Esztermann Mar 28 at 21:02

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.