Tutorial-6

Problem 1. Can there exist a non-associative operation with an identity

element, such that every element has an inverse?

Solution. If there are only two distinct elements, an identity element 1 and
another one, say α, then the “multiplication table” for the operation looks like

0 1 α
1 1 α
α α ? .

If the question mark is replaced by 1, the operation is associative; if it is re-

placed by α, then the element α has no inverse. Conclusion: two elements are
not enough to provide a counterexample.
If there are three distinct elements, an identity 1, and two others, α and β, then
there is more elbow room, and, for instance, one possibility is

1 α β
1 1 α β
α α x 1
β β 1 y .

No matter what x and y are (among 1, α, and β) the operation that the table
defines has an identity and every element has an inverse. If x = β and y = α,
the result is associative, so that it does not serve as an example of the sort of
thing wanted. If, however, x = α, then

(αα)β = αβ = 1

and

α(αβ) = α1 = α

so that the operation is not associative (and the same desired negative conclu-
sion follows if y = β).

Problem 2. Must multiplication in a field be commutative?

1
Solution. Yes, everything is fine, multiplication in a field must be commu-
tative, and, in particular, 0 · x = x · 0 = 0 for every x, but it’s a good idea
to look at the sort of thing that can go wrong if not both distributive laws are
assumed. Question: if F is an abelian group with +, and if F∗ is an abelian
group with ×, and if the distributive law

α(x + y) = αx + αy

is true for all α, x and y, does it follow that multiplication in F is commutative?

Answer: no. Here is an artificial but illuminating example. Let F be the set of
two integers 0 and 1 with addition defined modulo 2, and with multiplication
defined so that x·0 = 0 for all x (that is, for x = 0 and for x = 1) and x·1 = 1
for all x. (Recall that in addition modulo 12 multiples of 12 are discarded; in
addition modulo 2 multiples of 2 are discarded. The only thing peculiar about
addition modulo 2 is that 1 + 1 = 0.) It is clear that F with + is an abelian
group, and it is even clearer that F∗ (which consists of the single element 1)
with × is an abelian group. The distributive law

α(x + y) = αx + αy

is true; to prove it, just examine the small finite number of possible cases. On
the other hand the distributive law

(α + β)x = αx + βx

is not true; indeed

(0 + 1) · 1 = 1

and

0 · 1 + 1 · 1 = 1 + 1 = 0.

Irrelevant side remark: the associative law α(βγ) = (αβ)γ is true, straightfor-
ward verification. The commutative law is false, by definition: 0 ·1 = 1 and 1 ·
0 = 0.
If, however, both distributive laws are assumed, in other words, if the system
under consideration is a bona fide field, then all is well. Indeed, since

(0 + 1)x = 0 · x + 1 · x.

for all x, and since the left side of this equation is x whereas the right side is

0 · x + x,

it follows (from Problem 1 of Tutorial-1) that

0·x=0

2
for all x. A similar use of the other distributive law,

x(0 + 1) = x · 0 + x · 1.

implies that

x·0=0

for all x. In other words, every product that contains 0 as a factor is equal to
0, and that implies everything that’s wanted, and it implies, in particular, that
multiplication is both associative and commutative.

Problem 3. Suppose that F is a field and α and β are in F. Which of the

following plausible relations are necessarily true?
a) 0 × α = 0.
b) (-1)α = - α.
c) (- α)(β) = αβ.
d) 1 + 1 ̸= 0.
e) If α ̸= 0 and β ̸= 0, then αβ ̸= 0.
Remark. Observe that both operations enter into each of the five relations.
(a) What is the multiplicative behavior of the additive unit? (b) What is the
multiplicative behavior of the additive inverse of the multiplicative unit? (c)
What is the multiplicative behavior of additive inverses in general? (d) What
is the additive behavior of the multiplicative unit? (e) What is the relation of
multiplication to the additive unit?

Solution.
a) It is to be proved that 0 × α acts the way 0 does, so that what must be
shown is that 0 × α added to any β yields β. It must in particular be true
that (0 × α) + α = α (= 0 + α), and, in fact, that’s enough: if that is
true then the additive cancellation law implies that 0 × α = 0. The proof
therefore can be settled by the following steps:

(0 × α) + α = (0 × α) + (1 × α) (because 1 is the multiplicative unit)

= (0 + 1) × α (by the distributive law)
= 1 (because 0 is the additive unit)
= α.

b) It is to be proved that (-1)α acts the way - α does, so that what must be
shown is that α + (-1)α = 0. Proof:

α + (−1)α = (1 × α) + ((−1) × α) = (1 + (−1)) × α = 0 × α = 0.

3
c) It helps to know “half” of the asserted equation, namely

(−α)β = −(αβ),

and the other, similar, half

α(−β) = −(αβ).

The first half is true because

αβ + (−α)β = (α + (−α))β (distributive law)

= 0 × β = 0,

which shows that (- α)β indeed acts just the way - (αβ) is supposed to.
The other half is proved similarly. The proof of the main assertion is now
an easy two step deduction:

(−α)(−β) = −(α(−β)) = −(−(αβ)) = αβ.

d) This is not always true. Counterexample: integers modulo 2. (See in next

Problem.)
e) By definition the non-zero elements of F constitute a multiplicative group,
which says, in particular, that the product of two of them is again one of
them.