Is there such an algebra structure?











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












In a ring, it holds that 1)
$$a×1=a=1×a$$ and 2) $$a×0=0=0×a$$
, so naturally, this 3) also holds
$$0×1=0=1×0$$



Is there such an algebra structure weaker than a ring so that
1) or 2)
does not hold, but 3) still holds?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 5




    Maybe they shouldn’t be called 0 and 1 without specifying their properties.
    – Charlie Frohman
    Nov 24 at 2:18






  • 2




    What does the symbol "$1$" refer to in such a structure if condition (1) doesn't hold?
    – Clive Newstead
    Nov 24 at 2:41















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












In a ring, it holds that 1)
$$a×1=a=1×a$$ and 2) $$a×0=0=0×a$$
, so naturally, this 3) also holds
$$0×1=0=1×0$$



Is there such an algebra structure weaker than a ring so that
1) or 2)
does not hold, but 3) still holds?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 5




    Maybe they shouldn’t be called 0 and 1 without specifying their properties.
    – Charlie Frohman
    Nov 24 at 2:18






  • 2




    What does the symbol "$1$" refer to in such a structure if condition (1) doesn't hold?
    – Clive Newstead
    Nov 24 at 2:41













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











In a ring, it holds that 1)
$$a×1=a=1×a$$ and 2) $$a×0=0=0×a$$
, so naturally, this 3) also holds
$$0×1=0=1×0$$



Is there such an algebra structure weaker than a ring so that
1) or 2)
does not hold, but 3) still holds?










share|cite|improve this question















In a ring, it holds that 1)
$$a×1=a=1×a$$ and 2) $$a×0=0=0×a$$
, so naturally, this 3) also holds
$$0×1=0=1×0$$



Is there such an algebra structure weaker than a ring so that
1) or 2)
does not hold, but 3) still holds?







abstract-algebra






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 24 at 2:30

























asked Nov 24 at 2:04









athos

81611339




81611339








  • 5




    Maybe they shouldn’t be called 0 and 1 without specifying their properties.
    – Charlie Frohman
    Nov 24 at 2:18






  • 2




    What does the symbol "$1$" refer to in such a structure if condition (1) doesn't hold?
    – Clive Newstead
    Nov 24 at 2:41














  • 5




    Maybe they shouldn’t be called 0 and 1 without specifying their properties.
    – Charlie Frohman
    Nov 24 at 2:18






  • 2




    What does the symbol "$1$" refer to in such a structure if condition (1) doesn't hold?
    – Clive Newstead
    Nov 24 at 2:41








5




5




Maybe they shouldn’t be called 0 and 1 without specifying their properties.
– Charlie Frohman
Nov 24 at 2:18




Maybe they shouldn’t be called 0 and 1 without specifying their properties.
– Charlie Frohman
Nov 24 at 2:18




2




2




What does the symbol "$1$" refer to in such a structure if condition (1) doesn't hold?
– Clive Newstead
Nov 24 at 2:41




What does the symbol "$1$" refer to in such a structure if condition (1) doesn't hold?
– Clive Newstead
Nov 24 at 2:41










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













Sure. It's called a group. Say we have a group made out of four elements, called $0,1,2,3$, where each elements is a mapping of ${0,1,2,3}to{-i,1,i,-1}$ (I did $e^{ipi (n-1)/2}$), and where $times$ is the regular complex multiplication. Then any number multiplied with "$1$" is that number, and any number multiplied with "$0$" means a multiplication by $i$. Then the second equation does not hold, but the third does, since $1$ is the identity element.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • In ring 0 is the identity element of addition while 1 is the one for multiplication
    – athos
    Nov 24 at 3:43










  • And what are those supposed to be in your new structure? If they have the same properties as the ring, then you have a ring, and equation 1 is in the definition of the multiplication, and equation 2 is derived from the properties of the ring. Equation 3 is always true if 1 is true.
    – Andrei
    Nov 24 at 3:47










  • if there’s some structure that has addition and multiplication but maybe not law of distribution?
    – athos
    Nov 24 at 3:58











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3011092%2fis-there-such-an-algebra-structure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













Sure. It's called a group. Say we have a group made out of four elements, called $0,1,2,3$, where each elements is a mapping of ${0,1,2,3}to{-i,1,i,-1}$ (I did $e^{ipi (n-1)/2}$), and where $times$ is the regular complex multiplication. Then any number multiplied with "$1$" is that number, and any number multiplied with "$0$" means a multiplication by $i$. Then the second equation does not hold, but the third does, since $1$ is the identity element.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • In ring 0 is the identity element of addition while 1 is the one for multiplication
    – athos
    Nov 24 at 3:43










  • And what are those supposed to be in your new structure? If they have the same properties as the ring, then you have a ring, and equation 1 is in the definition of the multiplication, and equation 2 is derived from the properties of the ring. Equation 3 is always true if 1 is true.
    – Andrei
    Nov 24 at 3:47










  • if there’s some structure that has addition and multiplication but maybe not law of distribution?
    – athos
    Nov 24 at 3:58















up vote
0
down vote













Sure. It's called a group. Say we have a group made out of four elements, called $0,1,2,3$, where each elements is a mapping of ${0,1,2,3}to{-i,1,i,-1}$ (I did $e^{ipi (n-1)/2}$), and where $times$ is the regular complex multiplication. Then any number multiplied with "$1$" is that number, and any number multiplied with "$0$" means a multiplication by $i$. Then the second equation does not hold, but the third does, since $1$ is the identity element.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • In ring 0 is the identity element of addition while 1 is the one for multiplication
    – athos
    Nov 24 at 3:43










  • And what are those supposed to be in your new structure? If they have the same properties as the ring, then you have a ring, and equation 1 is in the definition of the multiplication, and equation 2 is derived from the properties of the ring. Equation 3 is always true if 1 is true.
    – Andrei
    Nov 24 at 3:47










  • if there’s some structure that has addition and multiplication but maybe not law of distribution?
    – athos
    Nov 24 at 3:58













up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









Sure. It's called a group. Say we have a group made out of four elements, called $0,1,2,3$, where each elements is a mapping of ${0,1,2,3}to{-i,1,i,-1}$ (I did $e^{ipi (n-1)/2}$), and where $times$ is the regular complex multiplication. Then any number multiplied with "$1$" is that number, and any number multiplied with "$0$" means a multiplication by $i$. Then the second equation does not hold, but the third does, since $1$ is the identity element.






share|cite|improve this answer














Sure. It's called a group. Say we have a group made out of four elements, called $0,1,2,3$, where each elements is a mapping of ${0,1,2,3}to{-i,1,i,-1}$ (I did $e^{ipi (n-1)/2}$), and where $times$ is the regular complex multiplication. Then any number multiplied with "$1$" is that number, and any number multiplied with "$0$" means a multiplication by $i$. Then the second equation does not hold, but the third does, since $1$ is the identity element.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 24 at 3:44

























answered Nov 24 at 3:30









Andrei

10.7k21025




10.7k21025












  • In ring 0 is the identity element of addition while 1 is the one for multiplication
    – athos
    Nov 24 at 3:43










  • And what are those supposed to be in your new structure? If they have the same properties as the ring, then you have a ring, and equation 1 is in the definition of the multiplication, and equation 2 is derived from the properties of the ring. Equation 3 is always true if 1 is true.
    – Andrei
    Nov 24 at 3:47










  • if there’s some structure that has addition and multiplication but maybe not law of distribution?
    – athos
    Nov 24 at 3:58


















  • In ring 0 is the identity element of addition while 1 is the one for multiplication
    – athos
    Nov 24 at 3:43










  • And what are those supposed to be in your new structure? If they have the same properties as the ring, then you have a ring, and equation 1 is in the definition of the multiplication, and equation 2 is derived from the properties of the ring. Equation 3 is always true if 1 is true.
    – Andrei
    Nov 24 at 3:47










  • if there’s some structure that has addition and multiplication but maybe not law of distribution?
    – athos
    Nov 24 at 3:58
















In ring 0 is the identity element of addition while 1 is the one for multiplication
– athos
Nov 24 at 3:43




In ring 0 is the identity element of addition while 1 is the one for multiplication
– athos
Nov 24 at 3:43












And what are those supposed to be in your new structure? If they have the same properties as the ring, then you have a ring, and equation 1 is in the definition of the multiplication, and equation 2 is derived from the properties of the ring. Equation 3 is always true if 1 is true.
– Andrei
Nov 24 at 3:47




And what are those supposed to be in your new structure? If they have the same properties as the ring, then you have a ring, and equation 1 is in the definition of the multiplication, and equation 2 is derived from the properties of the ring. Equation 3 is always true if 1 is true.
– Andrei
Nov 24 at 3:47












if there’s some structure that has addition and multiplication but maybe not law of distribution?
– athos
Nov 24 at 3:58




if there’s some structure that has addition and multiplication but maybe not law of distribution?
– athos
Nov 24 at 3:58


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3011092%2fis-there-such-an-algebra-structure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Verónica Boquete

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten