Related Link: Right identity and Right inverse implies a group
Reference: Fraleigh p. 49 Question 4.38 in A First Course in Abstract Algebra
I will present my proof (distinct from those in the link) for critique and then ask my question. $G$ is a set and $ \times $ is an associative binary operation. Suppose that there exists a $e \in G$ such that, for all $a \in G$, $ea = a$ and $a^{-1}a = e$ for some $a^{-1} \in G$. Show that for the same $e$, $ae = a$ and $aa^{-1} = e$.
$a^{-1}(aa^{-1})a = (a^{-1}a)(a^{-1}a) = ee = e = a^{-1}a = a^{-1}(a^{-1}a)a$
Since $a^{-1} \in G$, it has a left inverse; apply it to both ends, and we have $(aa^{-1})a = (a^{-1}a)a$.
As a result, $ae$ = $a(a^{-1}a) = (aa^{-1})a = (a^{-1}a)a = ea$.
For the right inverse, start with $aa^{-1} = a(a^{-1}a)a^{-1} = (aa^{-1})(aa^{-1})$.
Since $\times$ is a binary operation, $aa^{-1} \in G$ and has a left inverse; apply it to both ends, and we have $e = aa^{-1}$.
In second comment following the question in the link, Mr. Derek Holt pointed out that the requester did not word his/her question correctly. Specifically, the identity in the second axiom is not well-defined.
Let $(G, *)$ be a semi-group. Suppose
1. $ \exists e \in G$ such that $\forall a \in G,\ ae = a$;
2. $\forall a \in G, \exists a^{-1} \in G$ such that $aa^{-1} = e$.
How can we prove that $(G,*)$ is a group?
This formulation makes the same technical error as many textbooks. The $e$ in your second axiom is not well-defined. "But obviously it's intended to be the same $e$ as in the first axiom" you reply. But the first axiom does not necessarily specify a unique element $e$. So should we interpret the second axiom as meaning "for some $e$ as in 1" or "for all $e$ as in 1"? – Derek Holt Sep 17 '11 at 15:31
Was he saying that if, in axiom 1, we have $ae_1 = a, ae_2 = a$, but $e_1 \neq e_2$,
when we get to axiom 2, do we have $aa^{-1} = e_1, aa^{-1} = e_2$, or two different inverses so that $aa_1^{-1} = e_1, aa^{-1}_2 = e_2$? I think my wording eliminated the ambiguity. It does not imply that $e$ is unique, but if $e$ is a left identity and produces left inverses, then it is also a right identity and produces right inverses. I tried really hard on this one; please kindly point out my mistakes.
It is then obvious, it isn't so obvious. Your prove of uniqueness of $e$ is based on the uniqueness of $g^{-1}$. But what if we have two inverses $g_1^{-1}$ and $g_2^{-1}$, then we can get from (2): $gg_1^{-1} = e_1$ and $gg_2^{-1} = e_2$. – TigerTV.ru May 26 '24 at 11:26