Is it possible to have an Abelian group under two different binary operations but the binary operations are...












3












$begingroup$


I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - {0_R}, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - {0_R})$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Mar 12 at 18:42






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Mar 12 at 18:42










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 12 at 22:46










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey Can you please give an example?
    $endgroup$
    – sepehr78
    Mar 13 at 15:29










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey, sure – but if sepehr78 was having trouble with the question in the first place, that is not likely to be useful for them. If an English-speaker were wondering whether there’s a word that disobeys English phonology, and I told them to just make up a random word, they would probably say something that obeys English phonology, especially if they had trouble with the question on their own. Even though most words don’t, I wouldn’t have helped the person at all with their question. If all you know are rings, it could be hard to construct an almost-ring.
    $endgroup$
    – csprun
    Mar 13 at 16:26


















3












$begingroup$


I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - {0_R}, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - {0_R})$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Mar 12 at 18:42






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Mar 12 at 18:42










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 12 at 22:46










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey Can you please give an example?
    $endgroup$
    – sepehr78
    Mar 13 at 15:29










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey, sure – but if sepehr78 was having trouble with the question in the first place, that is not likely to be useful for them. If an English-speaker were wondering whether there’s a word that disobeys English phonology, and I told them to just make up a random word, they would probably say something that obeys English phonology, especially if they had trouble with the question on their own. Even though most words don’t, I wouldn’t have helped the person at all with their question. If all you know are rings, it could be hard to construct an almost-ring.
    $endgroup$
    – csprun
    Mar 13 at 16:26
















3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - {0_R}, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - {0_R})$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - {0_R}, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - {0_R})$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.







group-theory ring-theory field-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Mar 12 at 18:35









sepehr78sepehr78

725




725












  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Mar 12 at 18:42






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Mar 12 at 18:42










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 12 at 22:46










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey Can you please give an example?
    $endgroup$
    – sepehr78
    Mar 13 at 15:29










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey, sure – but if sepehr78 was having trouble with the question in the first place, that is not likely to be useful for them. If an English-speaker were wondering whether there’s a word that disobeys English phonology, and I told them to just make up a random word, they would probably say something that obeys English phonology, especially if they had trouble with the question on their own. Even though most words don’t, I wouldn’t have helped the person at all with their question. If all you know are rings, it could be hard to construct an almost-ring.
    $endgroup$
    – csprun
    Mar 13 at 16:26




















  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    Mar 12 at 18:42






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Mar 12 at 18:42










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 12 at 22:46










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey Can you please give an example?
    $endgroup$
    – sepehr78
    Mar 13 at 15:29










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey, sure – but if sepehr78 was having trouble with the question in the first place, that is not likely to be useful for them. If an English-speaker were wondering whether there’s a word that disobeys English phonology, and I told them to just make up a random word, they would probably say something that obeys English phonology, especially if they had trouble with the question on their own. Even though most words don’t, I wouldn’t have helped the person at all with their question. If all you know are rings, it could be hard to construct an almost-ring.
    $endgroup$
    – csprun
    Mar 13 at 16:26


















$begingroup$
Composition isn't invertible either.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Mar 12 at 18:42




$begingroup$
Composition isn't invertible either.
$endgroup$
– jgon
Mar 12 at 18:42




6




6




$begingroup$
Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Mar 12 at 18:42




$begingroup$
Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Mar 12 at 18:42












$begingroup$
You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 12 at 22:46




$begingroup$
You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 12 at 22:46












$begingroup$
@EricWofsey Can you please give an example?
$endgroup$
– sepehr78
Mar 13 at 15:29




$begingroup$
@EricWofsey Can you please give an example?
$endgroup$
– sepehr78
Mar 13 at 15:29












$begingroup$
@EricWofsey, sure – but if sepehr78 was having trouble with the question in the first place, that is not likely to be useful for them. If an English-speaker were wondering whether there’s a word that disobeys English phonology, and I told them to just make up a random word, they would probably say something that obeys English phonology, especially if they had trouble with the question on their own. Even though most words don’t, I wouldn’t have helped the person at all with their question. If all you know are rings, it could be hard to construct an almost-ring.
$endgroup$
– csprun
Mar 13 at 16:26






$begingroup$
@EricWofsey, sure – but if sepehr78 was having trouble with the question in the first place, that is not likely to be useful for them. If an English-speaker were wondering whether there’s a word that disobeys English phonology, and I told them to just make up a random word, they would probably say something that obeys English phonology, especially if they had trouble with the question on their own. Even though most words don’t, I wouldn’t have helped the person at all with their question. If all you know are rings, it could be hard to construct an almost-ring.
$endgroup$
– csprun
Mar 13 at 16:26












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.





But just to be thorough, you can construct an example $R$ with $|R|=n$ for any $n>3$ (we ignore $|R|=1$ as it's not very interesting). It's more or less obvious that you can't do it with $n=2$, so the only mildly surprising thing is that you can't do it with $|R|=3$. Your hand is forced for the additive structure, and then there are only two options for a multiplicative structure, by choosing a labeling of $R-{0}$, and either forms a field, because the additive structure of $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ is preserved by relabeling $1$ and $2$. And it's perhaps a little bit surprising that you can do it with $n=p>3$ a small prime and $p-1$ having no repeated prime factors (e.g., $n=7$), since in such a case, the structures of the two groups are forced; but it turns out you can label things sufficiently oddly that it fails to form a field (and in fact it usually will fail, especially as $n$ grows large).



If $n>3$, let's construct an example. If $n$ is not a prime power, choose any group structures you like (e.g., cyclic), as we saw. If $n = p^e$ with $p$ prime and $ege 2$, then make $(R,+) cong (mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z},+)$, which will work since the additive structure of a finite field is not cyclic unless it has prime order. If $n=p$ is prime, then you are forced to have $(R,+) cong (mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z},+)$, so let's just identify them, i.e. take $(R,+) := (mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z},+)$. Suppose $pge 7$. Define $cdot$ on $(mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z})-{0}$ to be cyclic generated by $2$ so that the powers of $2$ are $2^1 = 2$, $2^2 = 1$, and $2^k = k$ for $3le k le p-1$. Now, doing addition first, we have
$$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 2 = 2^2 = 1,$$
but distributing first, we have
$$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 1 + 2cdot 1 = 2cdot 2^2 + 2cdot 2^2 = 2^3 + 2^3 = 3+3=6 ne 1$$
in $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$. If $p=5$, you can define $3^1 = 3$, $3^2 = 2$, $3^3 = 4$, and $3^4 = 1$, and then, doing addition first, we have
$$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 2 = 3cdot 3^2 = 3^3 = 4,$$
but, distributing first, we have
$$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 1 + 3cdot 1 = 3cdot 3^4 + 3cdot 3^4 = 3^1 + 3^1 = 6 = 1.$$





You can also do it with any infinite set. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. For example, take $R = mathbb{Z}$, with $+$ being regular addition. Let $S = mathbb{Z}setminus {0}$, and let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^{-1}(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbb{Z}$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
$$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^{-1}(-1+2) = 1,$$
but distributing first, we have
$$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^{-1}(-1+1) + phi^{-1}(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$





In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



    The set is ${0,1,2,3,4,5}$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



    Multiplication is defined by
    $$
    acdot b = left{ begin{array}{cl} 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
    1 & a = b= 5 \
    5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
    5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
    ab pmod{5}& mbox{otherwise}end{array} right.
    $$

    or as a table
    $$
    begin{array}{c|cccccc} cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
    0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
    1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
    2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
    3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
    4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
    5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
    end{array}
    $$

    The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



    Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
    1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      Mar 12 at 23:19








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      Mar 12 at 23:37










    • $begingroup$
      The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      Mar 12 at 23:39












    • $begingroup$
      Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
      $endgroup$
      – Joseph Sible
      Mar 12 at 23:40










    • $begingroup$
      Yeah it does not form a group.
      $endgroup$
      – sepehr78
      Mar 13 at 15:28



















    1












    $begingroup$

    Here's a simple counting argument showing that being distributive is "rare".



    First, if the cardinal $pge 2$ of $R$ is not prime, choose any group structure on $R$ (with neutral 0) which is not elementary abelian. Then this cannot be the additive group of a field, and hence for no group structure $cdot$ on $R-{0}$ we can get a field, i.e., any choice of multiplication (with 0 absorbing element and making $R-{0}$ a group) is non-distributive. This already applies when $p=4$ (concrete example: standard addition on $mathbf{Z}/4mathbf{Z}$ and any of the three group structures on ${1,2,3}$ works).



    Hence let me stick to prime cardinal $p$.



    Let $R$ be a set with $p$ elements, $p$ prime, with a fixed element $0$. It has, up to permutation fixing $0$, a unique group structure, whose automorphism group has order $p-1$. Hence it has $(p-2)!$ group structures with neutral element $0$.



    It has, up to permutation, a unique field structure with $0$ as zero, whose automorphism group is trivial. Hence it has $(p-1)!$ field structures.



    It remains to count the number of group structures on $R-{0}$. Let's just count the cyclic ones: the automorphism group being of order $varphi(p-1)$, on $p-1$ elements there are $(p-1)!/varphi(p-1)$ cyclic group structures.



    Hence the number of pairs $(+,cdot)$ on $R$ with $+$ a group structure with $0$ neutral and $R$ a cyclic group structure on $R-{0}$ is $(p-2)!(p-1)!varphi(p-1)$, while among them, only $(p-1)!$ are field structures. So all the other ones are non-distributive.



    On has $(p-2)!(p-1)!varphi(p-1)>(p-1)!$ as soon as $(p-2)!varphi(p-1)>1$, that is, for $pge 5$ (for $p=2,3$, since the only group structures on $p-1$ elements are cyclic this reproves that distributivity is automatic). For instance, for $p=5$ one has 288 possible $(+,cdot)$, among which only $24$ are distributive.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      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',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      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%2f3145486%2fis-it-possible-to-have-an-abelian-group-under-two-different-binary-operations-bu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6












      $begingroup$

      As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.





      But just to be thorough, you can construct an example $R$ with $|R|=n$ for any $n>3$ (we ignore $|R|=1$ as it's not very interesting). It's more or less obvious that you can't do it with $n=2$, so the only mildly surprising thing is that you can't do it with $|R|=3$. Your hand is forced for the additive structure, and then there are only two options for a multiplicative structure, by choosing a labeling of $R-{0}$, and either forms a field, because the additive structure of $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ is preserved by relabeling $1$ and $2$. And it's perhaps a little bit surprising that you can do it with $n=p>3$ a small prime and $p-1$ having no repeated prime factors (e.g., $n=7$), since in such a case, the structures of the two groups are forced; but it turns out you can label things sufficiently oddly that it fails to form a field (and in fact it usually will fail, especially as $n$ grows large).



      If $n>3$, let's construct an example. If $n$ is not a prime power, choose any group structures you like (e.g., cyclic), as we saw. If $n = p^e$ with $p$ prime and $ege 2$, then make $(R,+) cong (mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z},+)$, which will work since the additive structure of a finite field is not cyclic unless it has prime order. If $n=p$ is prime, then you are forced to have $(R,+) cong (mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z},+)$, so let's just identify them, i.e. take $(R,+) := (mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z},+)$. Suppose $pge 7$. Define $cdot$ on $(mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z})-{0}$ to be cyclic generated by $2$ so that the powers of $2$ are $2^1 = 2$, $2^2 = 1$, and $2^k = k$ for $3le k le p-1$. Now, doing addition first, we have
      $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 2 = 2^2 = 1,$$
      but distributing first, we have
      $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 1 + 2cdot 1 = 2cdot 2^2 + 2cdot 2^2 = 2^3 + 2^3 = 3+3=6 ne 1$$
      in $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$. If $p=5$, you can define $3^1 = 3$, $3^2 = 2$, $3^3 = 4$, and $3^4 = 1$, and then, doing addition first, we have
      $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 2 = 3cdot 3^2 = 3^3 = 4,$$
      but, distributing first, we have
      $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 1 + 3cdot 1 = 3cdot 3^4 + 3cdot 3^4 = 3^1 + 3^1 = 6 = 1.$$





      You can also do it with any infinite set. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. For example, take $R = mathbb{Z}$, with $+$ being regular addition. Let $S = mathbb{Z}setminus {0}$, and let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^{-1}(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbb{Z}$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
      $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^{-1}(-1+2) = 1,$$
      but distributing first, we have
      $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^{-1}(-1+1) + phi^{-1}(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$





      In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        6












        $begingroup$

        As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.





        But just to be thorough, you can construct an example $R$ with $|R|=n$ for any $n>3$ (we ignore $|R|=1$ as it's not very interesting). It's more or less obvious that you can't do it with $n=2$, so the only mildly surprising thing is that you can't do it with $|R|=3$. Your hand is forced for the additive structure, and then there are only two options for a multiplicative structure, by choosing a labeling of $R-{0}$, and either forms a field, because the additive structure of $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ is preserved by relabeling $1$ and $2$. And it's perhaps a little bit surprising that you can do it with $n=p>3$ a small prime and $p-1$ having no repeated prime factors (e.g., $n=7$), since in such a case, the structures of the two groups are forced; but it turns out you can label things sufficiently oddly that it fails to form a field (and in fact it usually will fail, especially as $n$ grows large).



        If $n>3$, let's construct an example. If $n$ is not a prime power, choose any group structures you like (e.g., cyclic), as we saw. If $n = p^e$ with $p$ prime and $ege 2$, then make $(R,+) cong (mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z},+)$, which will work since the additive structure of a finite field is not cyclic unless it has prime order. If $n=p$ is prime, then you are forced to have $(R,+) cong (mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z},+)$, so let's just identify them, i.e. take $(R,+) := (mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z},+)$. Suppose $pge 7$. Define $cdot$ on $(mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z})-{0}$ to be cyclic generated by $2$ so that the powers of $2$ are $2^1 = 2$, $2^2 = 1$, and $2^k = k$ for $3le k le p-1$. Now, doing addition first, we have
        $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 2 = 2^2 = 1,$$
        but distributing first, we have
        $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 1 + 2cdot 1 = 2cdot 2^2 + 2cdot 2^2 = 2^3 + 2^3 = 3+3=6 ne 1$$
        in $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$. If $p=5$, you can define $3^1 = 3$, $3^2 = 2$, $3^3 = 4$, and $3^4 = 1$, and then, doing addition first, we have
        $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 2 = 3cdot 3^2 = 3^3 = 4,$$
        but, distributing first, we have
        $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 1 + 3cdot 1 = 3cdot 3^4 + 3cdot 3^4 = 3^1 + 3^1 = 6 = 1.$$





        You can also do it with any infinite set. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. For example, take $R = mathbb{Z}$, with $+$ being regular addition. Let $S = mathbb{Z}setminus {0}$, and let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^{-1}(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbb{Z}$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
        $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^{-1}(-1+2) = 1,$$
        but distributing first, we have
        $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^{-1}(-1+1) + phi^{-1}(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$





        In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.





          But just to be thorough, you can construct an example $R$ with $|R|=n$ for any $n>3$ (we ignore $|R|=1$ as it's not very interesting). It's more or less obvious that you can't do it with $n=2$, so the only mildly surprising thing is that you can't do it with $|R|=3$. Your hand is forced for the additive structure, and then there are only two options for a multiplicative structure, by choosing a labeling of $R-{0}$, and either forms a field, because the additive structure of $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ is preserved by relabeling $1$ and $2$. And it's perhaps a little bit surprising that you can do it with $n=p>3$ a small prime and $p-1$ having no repeated prime factors (e.g., $n=7$), since in such a case, the structures of the two groups are forced; but it turns out you can label things sufficiently oddly that it fails to form a field (and in fact it usually will fail, especially as $n$ grows large).



          If $n>3$, let's construct an example. If $n$ is not a prime power, choose any group structures you like (e.g., cyclic), as we saw. If $n = p^e$ with $p$ prime and $ege 2$, then make $(R,+) cong (mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z},+)$, which will work since the additive structure of a finite field is not cyclic unless it has prime order. If $n=p$ is prime, then you are forced to have $(R,+) cong (mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z},+)$, so let's just identify them, i.e. take $(R,+) := (mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z},+)$. Suppose $pge 7$. Define $cdot$ on $(mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z})-{0}$ to be cyclic generated by $2$ so that the powers of $2$ are $2^1 = 2$, $2^2 = 1$, and $2^k = k$ for $3le k le p-1$. Now, doing addition first, we have
          $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 2 = 2^2 = 1,$$
          but distributing first, we have
          $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 1 + 2cdot 1 = 2cdot 2^2 + 2cdot 2^2 = 2^3 + 2^3 = 3+3=6 ne 1$$
          in $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$. If $p=5$, you can define $3^1 = 3$, $3^2 = 2$, $3^3 = 4$, and $3^4 = 1$, and then, doing addition first, we have
          $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 2 = 3cdot 3^2 = 3^3 = 4,$$
          but, distributing first, we have
          $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 1 + 3cdot 1 = 3cdot 3^4 + 3cdot 3^4 = 3^1 + 3^1 = 6 = 1.$$





          You can also do it with any infinite set. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. For example, take $R = mathbb{Z}$, with $+$ being regular addition. Let $S = mathbb{Z}setminus {0}$, and let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^{-1}(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbb{Z}$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
          $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^{-1}(-1+2) = 1,$$
          but distributing first, we have
          $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^{-1}(-1+1) + phi^{-1}(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$





          In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.





          But just to be thorough, you can construct an example $R$ with $|R|=n$ for any $n>3$ (we ignore $|R|=1$ as it's not very interesting). It's more or less obvious that you can't do it with $n=2$, so the only mildly surprising thing is that you can't do it with $|R|=3$. Your hand is forced for the additive structure, and then there are only two options for a multiplicative structure, by choosing a labeling of $R-{0}$, and either forms a field, because the additive structure of $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ is preserved by relabeling $1$ and $2$. And it's perhaps a little bit surprising that you can do it with $n=p>3$ a small prime and $p-1$ having no repeated prime factors (e.g., $n=7$), since in such a case, the structures of the two groups are forced; but it turns out you can label things sufficiently oddly that it fails to form a field (and in fact it usually will fail, especially as $n$ grows large).



          If $n>3$, let's construct an example. If $n$ is not a prime power, choose any group structures you like (e.g., cyclic), as we saw. If $n = p^e$ with $p$ prime and $ege 2$, then make $(R,+) cong (mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z},+)$, which will work since the additive structure of a finite field is not cyclic unless it has prime order. If $n=p$ is prime, then you are forced to have $(R,+) cong (mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z},+)$, so let's just identify them, i.e. take $(R,+) := (mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z},+)$. Suppose $pge 7$. Define $cdot$ on $(mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z})-{0}$ to be cyclic generated by $2$ so that the powers of $2$ are $2^1 = 2$, $2^2 = 1$, and $2^k = k$ for $3le k le p-1$. Now, doing addition first, we have
          $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 2 = 2^2 = 1,$$
          but distributing first, we have
          $$2cdot(1+1) = 2cdot 1 + 2cdot 1 = 2cdot 2^2 + 2cdot 2^2 = 2^3 + 2^3 = 3+3=6 ne 1$$
          in $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$. If $p=5$, you can define $3^1 = 3$, $3^2 = 2$, $3^3 = 4$, and $3^4 = 1$, and then, doing addition first, we have
          $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 2 = 3cdot 3^2 = 3^3 = 4,$$
          but, distributing first, we have
          $$3cdot(1+1) = 3cdot 1 + 3cdot 1 = 3cdot 3^4 + 3cdot 3^4 = 3^1 + 3^1 = 6 = 1.$$





          You can also do it with any infinite set. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. For example, take $R = mathbb{Z}$, with $+$ being regular addition. Let $S = mathbb{Z}setminus {0}$, and let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^{-1}(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbb{Z}$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
          $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^{-1}(-1+2) = 1,$$
          but distributing first, we have
          $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^{-1}(-1+1) + phi^{-1}(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$





          In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Mar 13 at 16:50

























          answered Mar 12 at 18:54









          cspruncsprun

          2,295210




          2,295210























              2












              $begingroup$

              Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



              The set is ${0,1,2,3,4,5}$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



              Multiplication is defined by
              $$
              acdot b = left{ begin{array}{cl} 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
              1 & a = b= 5 \
              5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
              5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
              ab pmod{5}& mbox{otherwise}end{array} right.
              $$

              or as a table
              $$
              begin{array}{c|cccccc} cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
              0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
              1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
              2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
              3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
              4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
              5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
              end{array}
              $$

              The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



              Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
              1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:19








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:37










              • $begingroup$
                The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:39












              • $begingroup$
                Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
                $endgroup$
                – Joseph Sible
                Mar 12 at 23:40










              • $begingroup$
                Yeah it does not form a group.
                $endgroup$
                – sepehr78
                Mar 13 at 15:28
















              2












              $begingroup$

              Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



              The set is ${0,1,2,3,4,5}$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



              Multiplication is defined by
              $$
              acdot b = left{ begin{array}{cl} 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
              1 & a = b= 5 \
              5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
              5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
              ab pmod{5}& mbox{otherwise}end{array} right.
              $$

              or as a table
              $$
              begin{array}{c|cccccc} cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
              0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
              1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
              2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
              3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
              4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
              5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
              end{array}
              $$

              The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



              Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
              1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:19








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:37










              • $begingroup$
                The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:39












              • $begingroup$
                Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
                $endgroup$
                – Joseph Sible
                Mar 12 at 23:40










              • $begingroup$
                Yeah it does not form a group.
                $endgroup$
                – sepehr78
                Mar 13 at 15:28














              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



              The set is ${0,1,2,3,4,5}$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



              Multiplication is defined by
              $$
              acdot b = left{ begin{array}{cl} 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
              1 & a = b= 5 \
              5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
              5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
              ab pmod{5}& mbox{otherwise}end{array} right.
              $$

              or as a table
              $$
              begin{array}{c|cccccc} cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
              0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
              1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
              2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
              3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
              4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
              5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
              end{array}
              $$

              The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



              Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
              1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



              The set is ${0,1,2,3,4,5}$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



              Multiplication is defined by
              $$
              acdot b = left{ begin{array}{cl} 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
              1 & a = b= 5 \
              5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
              5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
              ab pmod{5}& mbox{otherwise}end{array} right.
              $$

              or as a table
              $$
              begin{array}{c|cccccc} cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
              0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
              1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
              2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
              3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
              4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
              5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
              end{array}
              $$

              The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



              Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
              1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
              $$







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Mar 12 at 19:01









              Mark FischlerMark Fischler

              33.7k12552




              33.7k12552








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:19








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:37










              • $begingroup$
                The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:39












              • $begingroup$
                Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
                $endgroup$
                – Joseph Sible
                Mar 12 at 23:40










              • $begingroup$
                Yeah it does not form a group.
                $endgroup$
                – sepehr78
                Mar 13 at 15:28














              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:19








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:37










              • $begingroup$
                The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
                $endgroup$
                – SamBC
                Mar 12 at 23:39












              • $begingroup$
                Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
                $endgroup$
                – Joseph Sible
                Mar 12 at 23:40










              • $begingroup$
                Yeah it does not form a group.
                $endgroup$
                – sepehr78
                Mar 13 at 15:28








              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
              $endgroup$
              – SamBC
              Mar 12 at 23:19






              $begingroup$
              Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
              $endgroup$
              – SamBC
              Mar 12 at 23:19






              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
              $endgroup$
              – SamBC
              Mar 12 at 23:37




              $begingroup$
              Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
              $endgroup$
              – SamBC
              Mar 12 at 23:37












              $begingroup$
              The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
              $endgroup$
              – SamBC
              Mar 12 at 23:39






              $begingroup$
              The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
              $endgroup$
              – SamBC
              Mar 12 at 23:39














              $begingroup$
              Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
              $endgroup$
              – Joseph Sible
              Mar 12 at 23:40




              $begingroup$
              Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
              $endgroup$
              – Joseph Sible
              Mar 12 at 23:40












              $begingroup$
              Yeah it does not form a group.
              $endgroup$
              – sepehr78
              Mar 13 at 15:28




              $begingroup$
              Yeah it does not form a group.
              $endgroup$
              – sepehr78
              Mar 13 at 15:28











              1












              $begingroup$

              Here's a simple counting argument showing that being distributive is "rare".



              First, if the cardinal $pge 2$ of $R$ is not prime, choose any group structure on $R$ (with neutral 0) which is not elementary abelian. Then this cannot be the additive group of a field, and hence for no group structure $cdot$ on $R-{0}$ we can get a field, i.e., any choice of multiplication (with 0 absorbing element and making $R-{0}$ a group) is non-distributive. This already applies when $p=4$ (concrete example: standard addition on $mathbf{Z}/4mathbf{Z}$ and any of the three group structures on ${1,2,3}$ works).



              Hence let me stick to prime cardinal $p$.



              Let $R$ be a set with $p$ elements, $p$ prime, with a fixed element $0$. It has, up to permutation fixing $0$, a unique group structure, whose automorphism group has order $p-1$. Hence it has $(p-2)!$ group structures with neutral element $0$.



              It has, up to permutation, a unique field structure with $0$ as zero, whose automorphism group is trivial. Hence it has $(p-1)!$ field structures.



              It remains to count the number of group structures on $R-{0}$. Let's just count the cyclic ones: the automorphism group being of order $varphi(p-1)$, on $p-1$ elements there are $(p-1)!/varphi(p-1)$ cyclic group structures.



              Hence the number of pairs $(+,cdot)$ on $R$ with $+$ a group structure with $0$ neutral and $R$ a cyclic group structure on $R-{0}$ is $(p-2)!(p-1)!varphi(p-1)$, while among them, only $(p-1)!$ are field structures. So all the other ones are non-distributive.



              On has $(p-2)!(p-1)!varphi(p-1)>(p-1)!$ as soon as $(p-2)!varphi(p-1)>1$, that is, for $pge 5$ (for $p=2,3$, since the only group structures on $p-1$ elements are cyclic this reproves that distributivity is automatic). For instance, for $p=5$ one has 288 possible $(+,cdot)$, among which only $24$ are distributive.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                Here's a simple counting argument showing that being distributive is "rare".



                First, if the cardinal $pge 2$ of $R$ is not prime, choose any group structure on $R$ (with neutral 0) which is not elementary abelian. Then this cannot be the additive group of a field, and hence for no group structure $cdot$ on $R-{0}$ we can get a field, i.e., any choice of multiplication (with 0 absorbing element and making $R-{0}$ a group) is non-distributive. This already applies when $p=4$ (concrete example: standard addition on $mathbf{Z}/4mathbf{Z}$ and any of the three group structures on ${1,2,3}$ works).



                Hence let me stick to prime cardinal $p$.



                Let $R$ be a set with $p$ elements, $p$ prime, with a fixed element $0$. It has, up to permutation fixing $0$, a unique group structure, whose automorphism group has order $p-1$. Hence it has $(p-2)!$ group structures with neutral element $0$.



                It has, up to permutation, a unique field structure with $0$ as zero, whose automorphism group is trivial. Hence it has $(p-1)!$ field structures.



                It remains to count the number of group structures on $R-{0}$. Let's just count the cyclic ones: the automorphism group being of order $varphi(p-1)$, on $p-1$ elements there are $(p-1)!/varphi(p-1)$ cyclic group structures.



                Hence the number of pairs $(+,cdot)$ on $R$ with $+$ a group structure with $0$ neutral and $R$ a cyclic group structure on $R-{0}$ is $(p-2)!(p-1)!varphi(p-1)$, while among them, only $(p-1)!$ are field structures. So all the other ones are non-distributive.



                On has $(p-2)!(p-1)!varphi(p-1)>(p-1)!$ as soon as $(p-2)!varphi(p-1)>1$, that is, for $pge 5$ (for $p=2,3$, since the only group structures on $p-1$ elements are cyclic this reproves that distributivity is automatic). For instance, for $p=5$ one has 288 possible $(+,cdot)$, among which only $24$ are distributive.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Here's a simple counting argument showing that being distributive is "rare".



                  First, if the cardinal $pge 2$ of $R$ is not prime, choose any group structure on $R$ (with neutral 0) which is not elementary abelian. Then this cannot be the additive group of a field, and hence for no group structure $cdot$ on $R-{0}$ we can get a field, i.e., any choice of multiplication (with 0 absorbing element and making $R-{0}$ a group) is non-distributive. This already applies when $p=4$ (concrete example: standard addition on $mathbf{Z}/4mathbf{Z}$ and any of the three group structures on ${1,2,3}$ works).



                  Hence let me stick to prime cardinal $p$.



                  Let $R$ be a set with $p$ elements, $p$ prime, with a fixed element $0$. It has, up to permutation fixing $0$, a unique group structure, whose automorphism group has order $p-1$. Hence it has $(p-2)!$ group structures with neutral element $0$.



                  It has, up to permutation, a unique field structure with $0$ as zero, whose automorphism group is trivial. Hence it has $(p-1)!$ field structures.



                  It remains to count the number of group structures on $R-{0}$. Let's just count the cyclic ones: the automorphism group being of order $varphi(p-1)$, on $p-1$ elements there are $(p-1)!/varphi(p-1)$ cyclic group structures.



                  Hence the number of pairs $(+,cdot)$ on $R$ with $+$ a group structure with $0$ neutral and $R$ a cyclic group structure on $R-{0}$ is $(p-2)!(p-1)!varphi(p-1)$, while among them, only $(p-1)!$ are field structures. So all the other ones are non-distributive.



                  On has $(p-2)!(p-1)!varphi(p-1)>(p-1)!$ as soon as $(p-2)!varphi(p-1)>1$, that is, for $pge 5$ (for $p=2,3$, since the only group structures on $p-1$ elements are cyclic this reproves that distributivity is automatic). For instance, for $p=5$ one has 288 possible $(+,cdot)$, among which only $24$ are distributive.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Here's a simple counting argument showing that being distributive is "rare".



                  First, if the cardinal $pge 2$ of $R$ is not prime, choose any group structure on $R$ (with neutral 0) which is not elementary abelian. Then this cannot be the additive group of a field, and hence for no group structure $cdot$ on $R-{0}$ we can get a field, i.e., any choice of multiplication (with 0 absorbing element and making $R-{0}$ a group) is non-distributive. This already applies when $p=4$ (concrete example: standard addition on $mathbf{Z}/4mathbf{Z}$ and any of the three group structures on ${1,2,3}$ works).



                  Hence let me stick to prime cardinal $p$.



                  Let $R$ be a set with $p$ elements, $p$ prime, with a fixed element $0$. It has, up to permutation fixing $0$, a unique group structure, whose automorphism group has order $p-1$. Hence it has $(p-2)!$ group structures with neutral element $0$.



                  It has, up to permutation, a unique field structure with $0$ as zero, whose automorphism group is trivial. Hence it has $(p-1)!$ field structures.



                  It remains to count the number of group structures on $R-{0}$. Let's just count the cyclic ones: the automorphism group being of order $varphi(p-1)$, on $p-1$ elements there are $(p-1)!/varphi(p-1)$ cyclic group structures.



                  Hence the number of pairs $(+,cdot)$ on $R$ with $+$ a group structure with $0$ neutral and $R$ a cyclic group structure on $R-{0}$ is $(p-2)!(p-1)!varphi(p-1)$, while among them, only $(p-1)!$ are field structures. So all the other ones are non-distributive.



                  On has $(p-2)!(p-1)!varphi(p-1)>(p-1)!$ as soon as $(p-2)!varphi(p-1)>1$, that is, for $pge 5$ (for $p=2,3$, since the only group structures on $p-1$ elements are cyclic this reproves that distributivity is automatic). For instance, for $p=5$ one has 288 possible $(+,cdot)$, among which only $24$ are distributive.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 14 at 5:39









                  YCorYCor

                  8,1421029




                  8,1421029






























                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3145486%2fis-it-possible-to-have-an-abelian-group-under-two-different-binary-operations-bu%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

                      Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                      ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                      Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?