Commutative property of ring addition
$begingroup$
I have a simple question answer to which would help me more deeply understand the concept of (non)commutative structures. Let's take for example (our teacher's definition of) a ring:
Let $Rneq emptyset$ be a set, let $oplus:Atimes A to A$ and $bullet :Atimes A to A$ be binary operations. Moreover, let $(R, oplus)$ be a commutative group, $(R, bullet)$ be a monoid and following property holds for all $a, b, cin R$:
$$abullet(boplus c) = (abullet b)oplus(a bullet c)$$
$$(boplus c)bullet a = (bbullet a)oplus(c bullet a)$$
Then ordered triple $mathbf R = (R, oplus, bullet mathbf)$ is called a (unitary) ring.
Moreover, we call ring $mathbf R$ commutative iff $(R, bullet)$ is a commutative monoid. Commutativity of a ring is always a matter of its multiplicative operation because the additive operation is always assumed to be commutative.
Could anyone explain me the bold part? Why do we even in non-commutative rings (and fields etc.) assume the addition to be always commutative? Is there some serious reason? Would it make any trouble? Or studying of structures with non-commutative addition just doesn't give us anything new so we can take addition as commutative simply because of our comfort?
abstract-algebra commutative-algebra ring-theory noncommutative-algebra
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a simple question answer to which would help me more deeply understand the concept of (non)commutative structures. Let's take for example (our teacher's definition of) a ring:
Let $Rneq emptyset$ be a set, let $oplus:Atimes A to A$ and $bullet :Atimes A to A$ be binary operations. Moreover, let $(R, oplus)$ be a commutative group, $(R, bullet)$ be a monoid and following property holds for all $a, b, cin R$:
$$abullet(boplus c) = (abullet b)oplus(a bullet c)$$
$$(boplus c)bullet a = (bbullet a)oplus(c bullet a)$$
Then ordered triple $mathbf R = (R, oplus, bullet mathbf)$ is called a (unitary) ring.
Moreover, we call ring $mathbf R$ commutative iff $(R, bullet)$ is a commutative monoid. Commutativity of a ring is always a matter of its multiplicative operation because the additive operation is always assumed to be commutative.
Could anyone explain me the bold part? Why do we even in non-commutative rings (and fields etc.) assume the addition to be always commutative? Is there some serious reason? Would it make any trouble? Or studying of structures with non-commutative addition just doesn't give us anything new so we can take addition as commutative simply because of our comfort?
abstract-algebra commutative-algebra ring-theory noncommutative-algebra
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why is ring addition commutative?
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 16 '17 at 14:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a simple question answer to which would help me more deeply understand the concept of (non)commutative structures. Let's take for example (our teacher's definition of) a ring:
Let $Rneq emptyset$ be a set, let $oplus:Atimes A to A$ and $bullet :Atimes A to A$ be binary operations. Moreover, let $(R, oplus)$ be a commutative group, $(R, bullet)$ be a monoid and following property holds for all $a, b, cin R$:
$$abullet(boplus c) = (abullet b)oplus(a bullet c)$$
$$(boplus c)bullet a = (bbullet a)oplus(c bullet a)$$
Then ordered triple $mathbf R = (R, oplus, bullet mathbf)$ is called a (unitary) ring.
Moreover, we call ring $mathbf R$ commutative iff $(R, bullet)$ is a commutative monoid. Commutativity of a ring is always a matter of its multiplicative operation because the additive operation is always assumed to be commutative.
Could anyone explain me the bold part? Why do we even in non-commutative rings (and fields etc.) assume the addition to be always commutative? Is there some serious reason? Would it make any trouble? Or studying of structures with non-commutative addition just doesn't give us anything new so we can take addition as commutative simply because of our comfort?
abstract-algebra commutative-algebra ring-theory noncommutative-algebra
$endgroup$
I have a simple question answer to which would help me more deeply understand the concept of (non)commutative structures. Let's take for example (our teacher's definition of) a ring:
Let $Rneq emptyset$ be a set, let $oplus:Atimes A to A$ and $bullet :Atimes A to A$ be binary operations. Moreover, let $(R, oplus)$ be a commutative group, $(R, bullet)$ be a monoid and following property holds for all $a, b, cin R$:
$$abullet(boplus c) = (abullet b)oplus(a bullet c)$$
$$(boplus c)bullet a = (bbullet a)oplus(c bullet a)$$
Then ordered triple $mathbf R = (R, oplus, bullet mathbf)$ is called a (unitary) ring.
Moreover, we call ring $mathbf R$ commutative iff $(R, bullet)$ is a commutative monoid. Commutativity of a ring is always a matter of its multiplicative operation because the additive operation is always assumed to be commutative.
Could anyone explain me the bold part? Why do we even in non-commutative rings (and fields etc.) assume the addition to be always commutative? Is there some serious reason? Would it make any trouble? Or studying of structures with non-commutative addition just doesn't give us anything new so we can take addition as commutative simply because of our comfort?
abstract-algebra commutative-algebra ring-theory noncommutative-algebra
abstract-algebra commutative-algebra ring-theory noncommutative-algebra
edited Mar 30 '13 at 11:05
Orat
2,86021231
2,86021231
asked Mar 30 '13 at 10:32
JeyekomonJeyekomon
710923
710923
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why is ring addition commutative?
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 16 '17 at 14:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why is ring addition commutative?
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 16 '17 at 14:26
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why is ring addition commutative?
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 16 '17 at 14:26
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why is ring addition commutative?
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 16 '17 at 14:26
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Perhaps the comment refers to the fact that in order to generalize rings to structures with noncommutative addiiton, one cannot simply delete the axiom that addition is commutative, since, in fact, other axioms force addition to be commutative (Hankel, 1867 [1]). The proof is simple: apply both the left and right
distributive law in different order to the term $rm:(1!+!1)(x!+!y),:$ viz.
$$rm (1!+!1)(x!+!y) = bigglbrace begin{eqnarray}rm (1!+!1)x!+!(1!+!1)y, =, x ,+, color{#C00}{x!+!y} ,+, y\
rm 1(x!+!y)!+1(x!+!y), =, x, +, color{#0A0}{y!+!x}, +, yend{eqnarray}biggrbrace:Rightarrow: color{#C00}{x!+!y},=,color{#0A0}{y!+!x} by cancel x,y$$
Thus commutativity of addition, $rm:x+y = y+x,:$ is implied by these axioms:
$(1) *,$ distributes over $rm,+!: x(y+z), =, xy+xz, (y+z)x, =, yx+zx$
$(2) , +,$ is cancellative: $rm x+y, =, x+z:Rightarrow: y=z, y+x, =, z+x:Rightarrow: y=z$
$(3) , +,$ is associative: $rm (x+y)+z, =, x+(y+z)$
$(4) *,$ has a neutral element $rm,1!: 1x = x$
In order to state this result concisely, recall that a SemiRing is
that generalization of a Ring whose additive structure is relaxed
from a commutative Group to merely a SemiGroup, i.e. here the only
hypothesis on addition is that it be associative (so in SemiRings,
unlike Rings, addition need not be commutative, nor need every
element $rm,x,$ have an additive inverse $rm,-x).,$ Now the above result may
be stated as follows: a semiring with $,1,$ and cancellative addition
has commutative addition. Such semirings are simply subsemirings
of rings (as is $rm:Bbb N subset Bbb Z),$ because any commutative cancellative
semigroup embeds canonically into a commutative group, its group
of differences (in precisely the same way $rm,Bbb Z,$ is constructed from $rm,Bbb N,,$
i.e. the additive version of the fraction field construction).
Examples of SemiRings include: $rm,Bbb N;,$ initial segments of cardinals;
distributive lattices (e.g. subsets of a powerset with operations $cup$ and $cap$;
$rm,Bbb R,$ with + being min or max, and $*$ being addition; semigroup semirings
(e.g. formal power series); formal languages with union, concat; etc.
For a nice survey of SemiRings and SemiFields see [2]. See also Near-Rings.
[1] Gerhard Betsch. On the beginnings and development of near-ring theory.
pp. 1-11 in:
Near-rings and near-fields. Proceedings of the conference
held in Fredericton, New Brunswick, July 18-24, 1993. Edited by Yuen Fong,
Howard E. Bell, Wen-Fong Ke, Gordon Mason and Gunter Pilz.
Mathematics and its Applications, 336. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group,
Dordrecht, 1995. x+278 pp. ISBN: 0-7923-3635-6 Zbl review
[2] Hebisch, Udo; Weinert, Hanns Joachim. Semirings and semifields. $ $ pp. 425-462 in: Handbook of algebra. Vol. 1. Edited by M. Hazewinkel.
North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1996. xx+915 pp. ISBN: 0-444-82212-7
Zbl review,
AMS review
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you, it's really interesting! Most books I have, talk about the topics just briefly without any deeper and detailed insight. These are the notes which I'd love to have my books full of... Accepted button goes to you.
$endgroup$
– Jeyekomon
Mar 31 '13 at 19:58
$begingroup$
Never knew distribuitive was THAT amazing.
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 4 '17 at 4:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are so-called near-semirings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-semiring) in which addition is non-commutative.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Of course one can develop a theory in which the addition is not commutative (see Boris' answer and his mentioning the near-semirings).
Why "rings with non-commutative addition" are a somewhat side story and commutativity of addition is the usual assumption? Simply because the basic and main examples of these rings, those which primarily occur doing mathematics, do have this property.
I believe that by far most "rings" can be reconducted in a way or another to the ring of matrices over some algebraic structure with commutative addition (commutative rings or division algebras, tipically). Addition of such matrices commutes.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f346375%2fcommutative-property-of-ring-addition%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
$begingroup$
Perhaps the comment refers to the fact that in order to generalize rings to structures with noncommutative addiiton, one cannot simply delete the axiom that addition is commutative, since, in fact, other axioms force addition to be commutative (Hankel, 1867 [1]). The proof is simple: apply both the left and right
distributive law in different order to the term $rm:(1!+!1)(x!+!y),:$ viz.
$$rm (1!+!1)(x!+!y) = bigglbrace begin{eqnarray}rm (1!+!1)x!+!(1!+!1)y, =, x ,+, color{#C00}{x!+!y} ,+, y\
rm 1(x!+!y)!+1(x!+!y), =, x, +, color{#0A0}{y!+!x}, +, yend{eqnarray}biggrbrace:Rightarrow: color{#C00}{x!+!y},=,color{#0A0}{y!+!x} by cancel x,y$$
Thus commutativity of addition, $rm:x+y = y+x,:$ is implied by these axioms:
$(1) *,$ distributes over $rm,+!: x(y+z), =, xy+xz, (y+z)x, =, yx+zx$
$(2) , +,$ is cancellative: $rm x+y, =, x+z:Rightarrow: y=z, y+x, =, z+x:Rightarrow: y=z$
$(3) , +,$ is associative: $rm (x+y)+z, =, x+(y+z)$
$(4) *,$ has a neutral element $rm,1!: 1x = x$
In order to state this result concisely, recall that a SemiRing is
that generalization of a Ring whose additive structure is relaxed
from a commutative Group to merely a SemiGroup, i.e. here the only
hypothesis on addition is that it be associative (so in SemiRings,
unlike Rings, addition need not be commutative, nor need every
element $rm,x,$ have an additive inverse $rm,-x).,$ Now the above result may
be stated as follows: a semiring with $,1,$ and cancellative addition
has commutative addition. Such semirings are simply subsemirings
of rings (as is $rm:Bbb N subset Bbb Z),$ because any commutative cancellative
semigroup embeds canonically into a commutative group, its group
of differences (in precisely the same way $rm,Bbb Z,$ is constructed from $rm,Bbb N,,$
i.e. the additive version of the fraction field construction).
Examples of SemiRings include: $rm,Bbb N;,$ initial segments of cardinals;
distributive lattices (e.g. subsets of a powerset with operations $cup$ and $cap$;
$rm,Bbb R,$ with + being min or max, and $*$ being addition; semigroup semirings
(e.g. formal power series); formal languages with union, concat; etc.
For a nice survey of SemiRings and SemiFields see [2]. See also Near-Rings.
[1] Gerhard Betsch. On the beginnings and development of near-ring theory.
pp. 1-11 in:
Near-rings and near-fields. Proceedings of the conference
held in Fredericton, New Brunswick, July 18-24, 1993. Edited by Yuen Fong,
Howard E. Bell, Wen-Fong Ke, Gordon Mason and Gunter Pilz.
Mathematics and its Applications, 336. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group,
Dordrecht, 1995. x+278 pp. ISBN: 0-7923-3635-6 Zbl review
[2] Hebisch, Udo; Weinert, Hanns Joachim. Semirings and semifields. $ $ pp. 425-462 in: Handbook of algebra. Vol. 1. Edited by M. Hazewinkel.
North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1996. xx+915 pp. ISBN: 0-444-82212-7
Zbl review,
AMS review
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you, it's really interesting! Most books I have, talk about the topics just briefly without any deeper and detailed insight. These are the notes which I'd love to have my books full of... Accepted button goes to you.
$endgroup$
– Jeyekomon
Mar 31 '13 at 19:58
$begingroup$
Never knew distribuitive was THAT amazing.
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 4 '17 at 4:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Perhaps the comment refers to the fact that in order to generalize rings to structures with noncommutative addiiton, one cannot simply delete the axiom that addition is commutative, since, in fact, other axioms force addition to be commutative (Hankel, 1867 [1]). The proof is simple: apply both the left and right
distributive law in different order to the term $rm:(1!+!1)(x!+!y),:$ viz.
$$rm (1!+!1)(x!+!y) = bigglbrace begin{eqnarray}rm (1!+!1)x!+!(1!+!1)y, =, x ,+, color{#C00}{x!+!y} ,+, y\
rm 1(x!+!y)!+1(x!+!y), =, x, +, color{#0A0}{y!+!x}, +, yend{eqnarray}biggrbrace:Rightarrow: color{#C00}{x!+!y},=,color{#0A0}{y!+!x} by cancel x,y$$
Thus commutativity of addition, $rm:x+y = y+x,:$ is implied by these axioms:
$(1) *,$ distributes over $rm,+!: x(y+z), =, xy+xz, (y+z)x, =, yx+zx$
$(2) , +,$ is cancellative: $rm x+y, =, x+z:Rightarrow: y=z, y+x, =, z+x:Rightarrow: y=z$
$(3) , +,$ is associative: $rm (x+y)+z, =, x+(y+z)$
$(4) *,$ has a neutral element $rm,1!: 1x = x$
In order to state this result concisely, recall that a SemiRing is
that generalization of a Ring whose additive structure is relaxed
from a commutative Group to merely a SemiGroup, i.e. here the only
hypothesis on addition is that it be associative (so in SemiRings,
unlike Rings, addition need not be commutative, nor need every
element $rm,x,$ have an additive inverse $rm,-x).,$ Now the above result may
be stated as follows: a semiring with $,1,$ and cancellative addition
has commutative addition. Such semirings are simply subsemirings
of rings (as is $rm:Bbb N subset Bbb Z),$ because any commutative cancellative
semigroup embeds canonically into a commutative group, its group
of differences (in precisely the same way $rm,Bbb Z,$ is constructed from $rm,Bbb N,,$
i.e. the additive version of the fraction field construction).
Examples of SemiRings include: $rm,Bbb N;,$ initial segments of cardinals;
distributive lattices (e.g. subsets of a powerset with operations $cup$ and $cap$;
$rm,Bbb R,$ with + being min or max, and $*$ being addition; semigroup semirings
(e.g. formal power series); formal languages with union, concat; etc.
For a nice survey of SemiRings and SemiFields see [2]. See also Near-Rings.
[1] Gerhard Betsch. On the beginnings and development of near-ring theory.
pp. 1-11 in:
Near-rings and near-fields. Proceedings of the conference
held in Fredericton, New Brunswick, July 18-24, 1993. Edited by Yuen Fong,
Howard E. Bell, Wen-Fong Ke, Gordon Mason and Gunter Pilz.
Mathematics and its Applications, 336. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group,
Dordrecht, 1995. x+278 pp. ISBN: 0-7923-3635-6 Zbl review
[2] Hebisch, Udo; Weinert, Hanns Joachim. Semirings and semifields. $ $ pp. 425-462 in: Handbook of algebra. Vol. 1. Edited by M. Hazewinkel.
North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1996. xx+915 pp. ISBN: 0-444-82212-7
Zbl review,
AMS review
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you, it's really interesting! Most books I have, talk about the topics just briefly without any deeper and detailed insight. These are the notes which I'd love to have my books full of... Accepted button goes to you.
$endgroup$
– Jeyekomon
Mar 31 '13 at 19:58
$begingroup$
Never knew distribuitive was THAT amazing.
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 4 '17 at 4:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Perhaps the comment refers to the fact that in order to generalize rings to structures with noncommutative addiiton, one cannot simply delete the axiom that addition is commutative, since, in fact, other axioms force addition to be commutative (Hankel, 1867 [1]). The proof is simple: apply both the left and right
distributive law in different order to the term $rm:(1!+!1)(x!+!y),:$ viz.
$$rm (1!+!1)(x!+!y) = bigglbrace begin{eqnarray}rm (1!+!1)x!+!(1!+!1)y, =, x ,+, color{#C00}{x!+!y} ,+, y\
rm 1(x!+!y)!+1(x!+!y), =, x, +, color{#0A0}{y!+!x}, +, yend{eqnarray}biggrbrace:Rightarrow: color{#C00}{x!+!y},=,color{#0A0}{y!+!x} by cancel x,y$$
Thus commutativity of addition, $rm:x+y = y+x,:$ is implied by these axioms:
$(1) *,$ distributes over $rm,+!: x(y+z), =, xy+xz, (y+z)x, =, yx+zx$
$(2) , +,$ is cancellative: $rm x+y, =, x+z:Rightarrow: y=z, y+x, =, z+x:Rightarrow: y=z$
$(3) , +,$ is associative: $rm (x+y)+z, =, x+(y+z)$
$(4) *,$ has a neutral element $rm,1!: 1x = x$
In order to state this result concisely, recall that a SemiRing is
that generalization of a Ring whose additive structure is relaxed
from a commutative Group to merely a SemiGroup, i.e. here the only
hypothesis on addition is that it be associative (so in SemiRings,
unlike Rings, addition need not be commutative, nor need every
element $rm,x,$ have an additive inverse $rm,-x).,$ Now the above result may
be stated as follows: a semiring with $,1,$ and cancellative addition
has commutative addition. Such semirings are simply subsemirings
of rings (as is $rm:Bbb N subset Bbb Z),$ because any commutative cancellative
semigroup embeds canonically into a commutative group, its group
of differences (in precisely the same way $rm,Bbb Z,$ is constructed from $rm,Bbb N,,$
i.e. the additive version of the fraction field construction).
Examples of SemiRings include: $rm,Bbb N;,$ initial segments of cardinals;
distributive lattices (e.g. subsets of a powerset with operations $cup$ and $cap$;
$rm,Bbb R,$ with + being min or max, and $*$ being addition; semigroup semirings
(e.g. formal power series); formal languages with union, concat; etc.
For a nice survey of SemiRings and SemiFields see [2]. See also Near-Rings.
[1] Gerhard Betsch. On the beginnings and development of near-ring theory.
pp. 1-11 in:
Near-rings and near-fields. Proceedings of the conference
held in Fredericton, New Brunswick, July 18-24, 1993. Edited by Yuen Fong,
Howard E. Bell, Wen-Fong Ke, Gordon Mason and Gunter Pilz.
Mathematics and its Applications, 336. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group,
Dordrecht, 1995. x+278 pp. ISBN: 0-7923-3635-6 Zbl review
[2] Hebisch, Udo; Weinert, Hanns Joachim. Semirings and semifields. $ $ pp. 425-462 in: Handbook of algebra. Vol. 1. Edited by M. Hazewinkel.
North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1996. xx+915 pp. ISBN: 0-444-82212-7
Zbl review,
AMS review
$endgroup$
Perhaps the comment refers to the fact that in order to generalize rings to structures with noncommutative addiiton, one cannot simply delete the axiom that addition is commutative, since, in fact, other axioms force addition to be commutative (Hankel, 1867 [1]). The proof is simple: apply both the left and right
distributive law in different order to the term $rm:(1!+!1)(x!+!y),:$ viz.
$$rm (1!+!1)(x!+!y) = bigglbrace begin{eqnarray}rm (1!+!1)x!+!(1!+!1)y, =, x ,+, color{#C00}{x!+!y} ,+, y\
rm 1(x!+!y)!+1(x!+!y), =, x, +, color{#0A0}{y!+!x}, +, yend{eqnarray}biggrbrace:Rightarrow: color{#C00}{x!+!y},=,color{#0A0}{y!+!x} by cancel x,y$$
Thus commutativity of addition, $rm:x+y = y+x,:$ is implied by these axioms:
$(1) *,$ distributes over $rm,+!: x(y+z), =, xy+xz, (y+z)x, =, yx+zx$
$(2) , +,$ is cancellative: $rm x+y, =, x+z:Rightarrow: y=z, y+x, =, z+x:Rightarrow: y=z$
$(3) , +,$ is associative: $rm (x+y)+z, =, x+(y+z)$
$(4) *,$ has a neutral element $rm,1!: 1x = x$
In order to state this result concisely, recall that a SemiRing is
that generalization of a Ring whose additive structure is relaxed
from a commutative Group to merely a SemiGroup, i.e. here the only
hypothesis on addition is that it be associative (so in SemiRings,
unlike Rings, addition need not be commutative, nor need every
element $rm,x,$ have an additive inverse $rm,-x).,$ Now the above result may
be stated as follows: a semiring with $,1,$ and cancellative addition
has commutative addition. Such semirings are simply subsemirings
of rings (as is $rm:Bbb N subset Bbb Z),$ because any commutative cancellative
semigroup embeds canonically into a commutative group, its group
of differences (in precisely the same way $rm,Bbb Z,$ is constructed from $rm,Bbb N,,$
i.e. the additive version of the fraction field construction).
Examples of SemiRings include: $rm,Bbb N;,$ initial segments of cardinals;
distributive lattices (e.g. subsets of a powerset with operations $cup$ and $cap$;
$rm,Bbb R,$ with + being min or max, and $*$ being addition; semigroup semirings
(e.g. formal power series); formal languages with union, concat; etc.
For a nice survey of SemiRings and SemiFields see [2]. See also Near-Rings.
[1] Gerhard Betsch. On the beginnings and development of near-ring theory.
pp. 1-11 in:
Near-rings and near-fields. Proceedings of the conference
held in Fredericton, New Brunswick, July 18-24, 1993. Edited by Yuen Fong,
Howard E. Bell, Wen-Fong Ke, Gordon Mason and Gunter Pilz.
Mathematics and its Applications, 336. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group,
Dordrecht, 1995. x+278 pp. ISBN: 0-7923-3635-6 Zbl review
[2] Hebisch, Udo; Weinert, Hanns Joachim. Semirings and semifields. $ $ pp. 425-462 in: Handbook of algebra. Vol. 1. Edited by M. Hazewinkel.
North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1996. xx+915 pp. ISBN: 0-444-82212-7
Zbl review,
AMS review
edited Dec 5 '18 at 17:44
Bill Dubuque
212k29195650
212k29195650
answered Mar 30 '13 at 18:00
Math GemsMath Gems
17k12039
17k12039
$begingroup$
Thank you, it's really interesting! Most books I have, talk about the topics just briefly without any deeper and detailed insight. These are the notes which I'd love to have my books full of... Accepted button goes to you.
$endgroup$
– Jeyekomon
Mar 31 '13 at 19:58
$begingroup$
Never knew distribuitive was THAT amazing.
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 4 '17 at 4:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you, it's really interesting! Most books I have, talk about the topics just briefly without any deeper and detailed insight. These are the notes which I'd love to have my books full of... Accepted button goes to you.
$endgroup$
– Jeyekomon
Mar 31 '13 at 19:58
$begingroup$
Never knew distribuitive was THAT amazing.
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 4 '17 at 4:33
$begingroup$
Thank you, it's really interesting! Most books I have, talk about the topics just briefly without any deeper and detailed insight. These are the notes which I'd love to have my books full of... Accepted button goes to you.
$endgroup$
– Jeyekomon
Mar 31 '13 at 19:58
$begingroup$
Thank you, it's really interesting! Most books I have, talk about the topics just briefly without any deeper and detailed insight. These are the notes which I'd love to have my books full of... Accepted button goes to you.
$endgroup$
– Jeyekomon
Mar 31 '13 at 19:58
$begingroup$
Never knew distribuitive was THAT amazing.
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 4 '17 at 4:33
$begingroup$
Never knew distribuitive was THAT amazing.
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 4 '17 at 4:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are so-called near-semirings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-semiring) in which addition is non-commutative.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are so-called near-semirings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-semiring) in which addition is non-commutative.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are so-called near-semirings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-semiring) in which addition is non-commutative.
$endgroup$
There are so-called near-semirings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-semiring) in which addition is non-commutative.
answered Mar 30 '13 at 10:48
Boris NovikovBoris Novikov
16.1k11529
16.1k11529
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Of course one can develop a theory in which the addition is not commutative (see Boris' answer and his mentioning the near-semirings).
Why "rings with non-commutative addition" are a somewhat side story and commutativity of addition is the usual assumption? Simply because the basic and main examples of these rings, those which primarily occur doing mathematics, do have this property.
I believe that by far most "rings" can be reconducted in a way or another to the ring of matrices over some algebraic structure with commutative addition (commutative rings or division algebras, tipically). Addition of such matrices commutes.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Of course one can develop a theory in which the addition is not commutative (see Boris' answer and his mentioning the near-semirings).
Why "rings with non-commutative addition" are a somewhat side story and commutativity of addition is the usual assumption? Simply because the basic and main examples of these rings, those which primarily occur doing mathematics, do have this property.
I believe that by far most "rings" can be reconducted in a way or another to the ring of matrices over some algebraic structure with commutative addition (commutative rings or division algebras, tipically). Addition of such matrices commutes.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Of course one can develop a theory in which the addition is not commutative (see Boris' answer and his mentioning the near-semirings).
Why "rings with non-commutative addition" are a somewhat side story and commutativity of addition is the usual assumption? Simply because the basic and main examples of these rings, those which primarily occur doing mathematics, do have this property.
I believe that by far most "rings" can be reconducted in a way or another to the ring of matrices over some algebraic structure with commutative addition (commutative rings or division algebras, tipically). Addition of such matrices commutes.
$endgroup$
Of course one can develop a theory in which the addition is not commutative (see Boris' answer and his mentioning the near-semirings).
Why "rings with non-commutative addition" are a somewhat side story and commutativity of addition is the usual assumption? Simply because the basic and main examples of these rings, those which primarily occur doing mathematics, do have this property.
I believe that by far most "rings" can be reconducted in a way or another to the ring of matrices over some algebraic structure with commutative addition (commutative rings or division algebras, tipically). Addition of such matrices commutes.
answered Mar 30 '13 at 11:18
Andrea MoriAndrea Mori
19.9k13466
19.9k13466
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f346375%2fcommutative-property-of-ring-addition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why is ring addition commutative?
$endgroup$
– Santropedro
Mar 16 '17 at 14:26