2
$\begingroup$

My abstract book defines inverses (units) as solutions to the equation $ax=1$ then stipulates in the definition that $xa=1=ax$, even in non-commutative rings. But I'm having trouble understanding why this would be true in the generic case.

Can someone help me understand?

Book is "Abstract Algebra : An Introduction - Third Edition" By Thomas W. Hungerford. ISBN-13: 978-1-111-56962-4 (Chapter 3.2)

Edit:

Ok, I think I got it. Left inverses are not necessarily also right inverses. However, if an element has a left inverse and a right inverse, then those inverses are equal:

$$ lx = 1 \\ xr = 1\\ lxr = r \\ lxr = l \\ r = l $$

Source:http://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1pdeyf/why_do_multiplicative_inverses_commute_even_in/cd17pcb

Also, I assumed that 'unit' was synonymous with 'has a multiplicative inverse'. It is not; a 'unit' is an element that has both a left and right inverse, not just an inverse in general.

$\endgroup$

migrated from mathoverflow.net Oct 28 '13 at 7:46

This question came from our site for professional mathematicians.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This is false. You can find a counterexample in, say, the ring of linear operators on an infinite-dimensional vector space. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 28 '13 at 7:32
  • $\begingroup$ (Every time you mention a book, give a complete reference)) $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Oct 28 '13 at 7:41
  • $\begingroup$ I may be missing something but a ring (with identity) has a group structure with respect to multiplication and addition and the multiplicative and additive inverses are unique. $\endgroup$ – Mustafa Said Oct 28 '13 at 7:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MustafaSaid a ring does NOT have a group structure with respect to multiplication. consider $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$, where $2x=2$ has more than one solution $\endgroup$ – TBrendle Oct 28 '13 at 7:58
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't "stipulates" imply that Hungerford is including $ax = xa =1$ as part of his definition? $\endgroup$ – Robert Lewis Oct 28 '13 at 8:04
3
$\begingroup$

No, I have the book in front of me and he defines units as elements that have both a left and a right inverse, so $a$ is a unit if there exist elements $x$ and $y$ in $R$ such that $ax=ya=1$. Note $x$ need not equal $y$.

In his very next Remark he then proves that in this situation $x=y$, as a theorem, not as part of the definition.

Edit: Now you are editing your question and filling it with even more confusion. You might try a book with more examples, such as Dummit & Foote.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. I was tripped up by his definition; my mistake. $\endgroup$ – user84922 Oct 28 '13 at 8:06
1
$\begingroup$

Note: In a ring R with 1, if EVERY non-zero element x has a left inverse, then R is a division ring (so ax=1 implies xa=1).

More generally, if EVERY non-zero element has either a left or a right inverse, then R is a division ring.

$\endgroup$

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.