13

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!

Noctis
  • 463
mareoraft
  • 453

3 Answers3

27

Proceed like this

  • $a\cdot0 = a\cdot(0+0)$, property of $0$.
  • $a\cdot0 = a\cdot0 + a\cdot0$, property of distributivity.
  • Thus $a\cdot0+ (-a\cdot0) = (a\cdot0 + a\cdot0) +(-a\cdot0)$, using existence of additive inverse.
  • $a\cdot0+ (-a\cdot0) = a\cdot0 + (a\cdot0 + (-a\cdot0))$ by associativity.
  • $0 = a\cdot0 + 0$ by properties of additive inverse.
  • Finally $0 = a\cdot0$ by property of $0$.

Your lemma is also true, you can now prove it easily:

Just note that $ab +a(-b)= a(b + (-b))= a\cdot0= 0$.

quid
  • 42,835
  • Thanks, it is very useful that you listed the properties. It seems to me that we did not use additive closure, multiplicative associativity, or multiplicative identity. – mareoraft Oct 16 '15 at 21:23
  • Therefore, we get this propety in something even more general than Rngs. – mareoraft Oct 16 '15 at 21:24
  • You are welcome. Yes one does not use all properties, and I think you are right in that it is also true in non-associateive algebras. – quid Oct 16 '15 at 21:28
  • @mareoraft What is "additive closure"? – Filippo Feb 07 '22 at 19:39
  • @Filippo Post a new question on this website asking "What is the 'additive closure' property in the context of rings?" and somebody should help you. – mareoraft Feb 08 '22 at 22:16
  • @mareoraft As far as I know this simply means that the sum of two elements of the ring is an element of the ring, I would just appreciate a confirmation that this is what you mean because the comment really surprised me. – Filippo Feb 09 '22 at 06:39
  • 1
    @Filippo Yes, that is what is what I mean. Typically we first define addition as a binary operation (which includes closure in its definition), then we define a group, then we define a ring. So if you want to be really careful, you may have to go back and investigate these definitions. In my second comment I was using the term rng to refer to a non-unital ring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rng_%28algebra%29). Have a great day! – mareoraft Feb 09 '22 at 15:33
  • @mareoraft Thank you for the explanation and the link and have a great day, too :) – Filippo Feb 09 '22 at 18:33
12

\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.

Carlos E.
  • 121
9

$a \cdot 0 = a \cdot (0 + 0) = a \cdot 0 + a \cdot 0$

Michael Biro
  • 13,847