In the definition of a ring $R$, one has

  1. $a(b+c) = ab + ac$ and
  2. $(a+b)c = ac + bc$

for all $a,b,c\in R$

My question is (just out of curiosity) if one really needs both of these. I can't think of an example of something that is not a ring that only satisfies one of the sides of the distributive law. So can one prove that if $a(b+c) = ab + ac$ for all $a,b,c$, then $(a+b)c = ac + bc$ for all $a,b,c$.

Edit: I maybe should add that all rings in my definition have a unity $1$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If the ring is a right ideal or a left ideal, it will only satisfy one of these given properties $\endgroup$ Nov 20 '17 at 13:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ There is a related thing you might be interested in: near-rings which are only required to be distributive on one side. But also the definition allows the $+$ operation to be nonAbelian, so it's not what you asked for. $\endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Nov 20 '17 at 13:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Related math.stackexchange.com/q/513223/29335 : and also, funnily enough, asked by a similarly nondescript username. Not really a duplicate though. $\endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Nov 20 '17 at 13:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @rschwieb: Sorry, I really did try searching before asking. $\endgroup$
    – John Doe
    Nov 20 '17 at 13:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnDoe It's true, the question does ask for a one-or two sided example, but I think it only got a "natural" example that isn't distributive on either side. That's why I only think it's related, not duplicate. So don't sweat it :) $\endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Nov 20 '17 at 13:56

Here is an example that fails precisely in left distributivity.

Consider $\mathbb{R}[X]$ - the polynomials with coefficients from $\mathbb{R}$ with the usual operation of pointwise addition (in fact, the ring of scalars is irrelevant here).

The tricky part is how we define multiplication: let $p \cdot q$ be the composition $p \circ q$. This multiplication is associative, and even has an identity, which is the identity polynomial $p(x)=x$.

Now, trivially $$(p_1 + p_2) \circ q = p_1 \circ q + p_2 \circ q,$$ but in general $$p \circ (q_1 + q_2) \color{red} \neq p \circ q_1 + p \circ q_2.$$

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ .. or condensed even further: Start from any abelian group $A$ and consider all maps $A\to A$ with pointwise addition (and with composition as multiplication). For all but the simplest few choices of $A$, this will be an example. $\endgroup$ Nov 20 '17 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ If one is looking for a more "natural" ring where one doesn't have to define an "unusual multiplication", the ring of $n\times n$ matrices would do just fine (which is of course exactly your answer, as a matrix is nothing else than a linear mapping and the product of two matrices is the composition of the corresponding mappings). $\endgroup$
    – Hirshy
    Nov 20 '17 at 21:45
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Hirshy But the usual matrix ring is distributive. $\endgroup$
    – lisyarus
    Nov 20 '17 at 22:07
  • $\begingroup$ @lisyarus: It's distributive precisely because matrices are linear and linearity is essentially just right-distributivity. To get a counterexample of this form you need the mappings in you ring to be nonlinear. $\endgroup$ Nov 21 '17 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ @R.. Of course, but this nonlinear mappings won't be matrices. $\endgroup$
    – lisyarus
    Nov 22 '17 at 14:15

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.