Here in this post we shall deal with an algebraic structure equipped with two binary compositions denoted additively and multiplicatively i.e. by + and . and it will be known as Ring .
Definition :- A non empty set R with two binary compositions to be denoted additively and multiplicatively by symbol + and . is called a Ring ( R, + , . ) if it satisfies the following axioms :-
R1 The set R is an abelian group for the additive composition.
R2 Multiplication is binary composition which is associative .
R3 Multiplication is both right and left distributive with regards to addition .
So we can understand the Ring as follows
The most familiar example of a ring is the set of all integers, Z, consisting of the numbers
Regarding which convention should be used, Gardner and Wiegandt argue that if one requires all rings to have a unity, then some consequences include the lack of existence of infinite direct sums of rings, and the fact that proper direct summands of rings are not subrings. They conclude that "in many, maybe most, branches of ring theory the requirement of the existence of a unity element is not sensible, and therefore unacceptable." This article adopts the convention that, unless otherwise stated, a ring is assumed to be unital.
Although ring addition is commutative, so that a + b = b + a, ring multiplication is not required to be commutative; a ⋅ b need not equal b ⋅ a. Rings that also satisfy commutativity for multiplication (such as the ring of integers) are called commutative rings.
Some basic properties of a ring follow immediately from the axioms.
Once one has checked that the ring axioms hold, operations within the ring Z4 become easier to carry out. For example, to compute 3 ⋅ (3 − 1) + 1, one first computes the value within the full set of integers (which is 7), and then converts the result by finding the remainder after dividing by 4, which in this case is 3.
Definition :- A non empty set R with two binary compositions to be denoted additively and multiplicatively by symbol + and . is called a Ring ( R, + , . ) if it satisfies the following axioms :-
R1 The set R is an abelian group for the additive composition.
R2 Multiplication is binary composition which is associative .
R3 Multiplication is both right and left distributive with regards to addition .
So we can understand the Ring as follows
The most familiar example of a ring is the set of all integers, Z, consisting of the numbers
- . . . , −4, −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .
- R is an Abelian group under addition, meaning:
- 1. (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) (+ is associative)
- 2. There is an element 0 in R such that 0 + a = a (0 is the zero element)
- 3. a + b = b + a (+ is commutative)
- 4. For each a in R there exists −a in R such that a + (−a) = (−a) + a = 0 (−a is the inverse element of a)
- Multiplication ⋅ is associative:
- 5. (a ⋅ b) ⋅ c = a ⋅ (b ⋅ c)
- Multiplication distributes over addition:
- 6. a ⋅ (b + c) = (a ⋅ b) + (a ⋅ c) (left distributivity)
- 7. (b + c) ⋅ a = (b ⋅ a) + (c ⋅ a) (right distributivity)
- Multiplicative identity
- 8. There is an element 1 in R such that a ⋅ 1 = 1 ⋅ a = a
Regarding which convention should be used, Gardner and Wiegandt argue that if one requires all rings to have a unity, then some consequences include the lack of existence of infinite direct sums of rings, and the fact that proper direct summands of rings are not subrings. They conclude that "in many, maybe most, branches of ring theory the requirement of the existence of a unity element is not sensible, and therefore unacceptable." This article adopts the convention that, unless otherwise stated, a ring is assumed to be unital.
Although ring addition is commutative, so that a + b = b + a, ring multiplication is not required to be commutative; a ⋅ b need not equal b ⋅ a. Rings that also satisfy commutativity for multiplication (such as the ring of integers) are called commutative rings.
Some basic properties of a ring follow immediately from the axioms.
- The additive identity and the additive inverse are unique.
- The binomial formula holds for any commuting elements (i.e., ).
Example: Integers modulo 4
Consider the set Z4 consisting of the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3 where addition and multiplication are defined as follows. To avoid possible confusions and to keep the usual notation for the arithmetic operations, we will over-line 0, 1, 2, 3 when considering them in Z4.- (Addition) The sum in Z4 is the remainder of (as an integer) when divided by 4. For example, in Z4 we have and
- (Multiplication) The product in Z4 is the remainder of (as an integer) when divided by 4. For example, in Z4 we have and
Once one has checked that the ring axioms hold, operations within the ring Z4 become easier to carry out. For example, to compute 3 ⋅ (3 − 1) + 1, one first computes the value within the full set of integers (which is 7), and then converts the result by finding the remainder after dividing by 4, which in this case is 3.
Example: 2-by-2 matrices
Consider the set of 2-by-2 matrices, whose entries are real numbers. This set is written:Rings with extra structure
A ring may be viewed as an abelian group (by using the addition operation), with extra structure. In the same way, there are other mathematical objects which may be considered as rings with extra structure. For example:- An associative algebra is a ring that is also a vector space over a field K. For instance, the set of n-by-n matrices over the real field R has dimension n2 as a real vector space.
- A ring R is a topological ring if its set of elements is given a topology which makes the addition map ( ) and the multiplication map ( ) to be both continuous as maps between topological spaces (where X × X inherits the product topology or any other product in the category). For example, n-by-n matrices over the real numbers could be given either the Euclidean topology, or the Zariski topology, and in either case one would obtain a topological ring.
Comments
Post a Comment