In a ring, I was trying to prove that for all $a$, $a\cdot0 = 0$.
But I found that this depended on a lemma, that is, for all $a$ and $b$, $a(-b) = -ab = (-a)b$.
I am wondering how to prove these directly from the definition of a ring.
Many thanks!
In a ring, I was trying to prove that for all $a$, $a\cdot0 = 0$.
But I found that this depended on a lemma, that is, for all $a$ and $b$, $a(-b) = -ab = (-a)b$.
I am wondering how to prove these directly from the definition of a ring.
Many thanks!
Proceed like this
Your lemma is also true, you can now prove it easily:
Just note that $ab +a(-b)= a(b + (-b))= a\cdot0= 0$.
\begin{align}a\cdot0&=a\cdot0+0 \tag{Additive identity}\\ &=a\cdot0+(a+(-a))\tag{Additive inverse}\\ &=(a\cdot0+a)+(-a)\tag{Associativity}\\ &=(a\cdot0+a\cdot1)+(-a)\tag{Multiplicative identity}\\ &=a\cdot(0+1)+(-a)\tag{Distributivity}\\ &=a\cdot1+(-a)\tag{Additive identity}\\ &=a+(-a)\tag{Multiplicative identity}\\ &=0\tag{Additive inverse}\end{align}
Then, we can prove that $-a=(-1)\cdot a$:
If $a+(-1)\cdot a=0$, then $(-1)\cdot a=-a$ (there's a unique additive inverse element)
$a+(-1)\cdot a=a\cdot1+a\cdot(-1)=a\cdot(1+(-1))=a\cdot0=0$ (we used the first theorem)
So, the first theorem is necessary to prove the second one, but not conversely.