2
$\begingroup$

A very basic question about the axioms for multiplication in Rudin's "Principles of mathematical analysis, 3rd Ed": On page 5, we have the axioms (M1-M5) for multiplication for a field $F$:

(M4) $F$ contains an element $1\ne 0$ such that $1x=x$ for every $x\in F.$
(M5) If $x\in F$ and $x\ne0$ then there exists an element $1/x\in F$ such that $x(1/x)=1$.

Why do we want to emphasize $1\ne 0$ in (M4) and $x\ne 0$ in (M5)? Is it primarily to make the axioms and the fields so created more useful? E.g. we do not run into situations like the following:

Suppose $1=0$ in (M4). Then $x=1x=0x=(0+0)x=0x+0x$, implying $0x=0$ and hence $x=0$ for every $x\in F$. (which would make the field so created not very useful and fail to model most real world scenarios/applications?)

Or suppose $x=0$ in (M5). Then $1=0(1/0)=(0+0)(1/0)=0(1/0)+0(1/0)$, again implying $0/(1/0)=0$, contradicting $1\ne0$ in (M4).

Are these the primary reasons for requiring $1\ne0$ and not defining $1/0$?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Short answer: YES. $\endgroup$ – Landon Carter Nov 11 '16 at 4:40
6
$\begingroup$

You are basically right about both axioms (M4 and M5). Let me clarify a bit.

  • M4: As you have shown, if $0 = 1$ then $F = \{0\}$ (the field has only a single element). So this would be a rather trivial field. You may still wonder, why don't we just let $\{0\}$ be a field? Technically, we could, but it ends up being more useful to disallow it (similar to why $1$ isn't a prime number). You can read more about it in this question.

  • M5: What you said (as I understand it) is that we leave $(1/0)$ undefined, because if it were defined then the field would have to have $0 = 1$. While you are correct, axiom M5 itself does not imply that $(1/0)$ can't be defined; in particular, axiom M5 does not imply $0 \ne 1$ (M4). M5 simply requires that every nonzero number have an inverse; it does not say that $0$ doesn't have an inverse as well.

    What is true, however, is that if we were to leave out the condition $x \ne 0$ in M5, then $0$ would have to have an inverse, and the only field would be the trivial $\{0\}$. Which we certainly don't want: at the very least, $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ should be fields, but they wouldn't satisfy the axiom if $x \ne 0$ were left out. This seems to be basically what you are getting at.

    In fact if M4 were kept an axiom and we took out the condition $x \ne 0$ from M5, then there would be no fields at all -- do you see why?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for the claification! About your last question, let me try... If M4 is kept as is, and we allow $1/0$ to be defined by M5, then, as we mentioned, we must have $1=0$. Therefore no sets can satisfy both M4 and M5 with $x\ne 0$ removed. Is this what you'd also like to point out? $\endgroup$ – syeh_106 Nov 11 '16 at 6:21
  • $\begingroup$ @syeh_106 Yep, that's right, that's what I was getting at. Thank you for the question! $\endgroup$ – 6005 Nov 11 '16 at 6:23
  • $\begingroup$ So to recap our discussions, we have: 1) If we remove $1\ne 0$ from M4, then $F=\{0\}$ and no elements of $F$ will qualify M5 to have its reciprocal defined. (Many sets can be a field, however, since M5 doesn't require every element to have a reciprocal.) 2) If we remove $x\ne0$ from M5, then no sets are qualified as a field. 3) If we remove both, then $F=\{0\}$ and $1/0=1=0$. Many sets can be a field again, albeit not very interesting ones. 4) So the most interesting case is the original M4 and M5. I hope I didn't miss something... $\endgroup$ – syeh_106 Nov 11 '16 at 7:04
  • $\begingroup$ @syeh_106 That's almost exactly right. Only issue is your wording of (1); removing $1 \ne 0$ doesn't imply $F = \{0\}$, but it makes $\{0\}$ a field. $\endgroup$ – 6005 Nov 11 '16 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ You're right. (Same for (3).) Thanks a lot for all your help! $\endgroup$ – syeh_106 Nov 12 '16 at 1:36
1
$\begingroup$

If $F = \{0\}$ then addition and multiplication would be the same operation, as $x+y = xy, \forall x,y \in F$, and therefore $F$ could be described completely with group theory and, therefore, it would make no sense trying to define a whole new structure to describe it.

$\endgroup$

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.