3
$\begingroup$

Consider $I = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&0\\0&1\end{array}\right)$ and $N = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&1\\1&1\end{array}\right) - I = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0&1\\1&0\end{array}\right)$. We now see that $N^2 = I$, which is in correspondence with $(-1)^2 = 1$. We also see that $aIbN = aNbI = abN$. So matrix multiplication behaves as multiplication should. However we would want to be able to perform addition ( subtraction ) too.

How to do this in a nice way?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by making addition/subtraction "nice"? $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Jun 9 '15 at 1:00
  • $\begingroup$ probably the question is whether in the ring of $2\times 2$ matrices over $\mathbb R$ one can identify a subring (or a sub-thing) of matrices with non-negative entries which is isomorphic to the field of real numbers. OP should certainly clarify the question. $\endgroup$ – Ittay Weiss Jun 9 '15 at 1:02
1
$\begingroup$

Perhaps the following answers your question, which is along what you propose, but not quite so (and I think what you have in mind can't be done). consider the set $S=S_2(\mathbb R)$ of all symmetric $2\times 2$ real valued matrices. Let $f\colon S\to \mathbb R$ be given by sending $M$ to $M_{11}-M_{12}$. It is straightforward that $f$ is a surjective ring homomorphism (with the usual operations on the domain and codomain). Consequently, $S/K\cong \mathbb R$ where $K=\ker f$. Now this 'construction' of $\mathbb R$ is not quite only from the non-negative reals, and it requires a quotient construction. However, you can restrict the whole process to the subset $T$ of $S$ consisting only of those matrices with non-negative entries. This $T$ is not a subring though. It's not even a subgroup of the additive structure. It is however a subgroup of the multiplicative structure. These are two observations you made in your question. However, the quotient construction itself does restrict nicely to this $T$ and it then yields the reals, for which you can show directly to form a ring again. When doing that, your all-ones matrix corresponds to $0$, as it should.

All of this is just camouflage for the usual process of adding inverses (to $\mathbb N$ to obtain $\mathbb Z$ or to $\mathbb R_+$ to obtain $\mathbb R$) by considering pairs $(a,b)$ and a suitable equivalence relation.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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