Is it possible to have an Abelian group under two different binary operations but the binary operations are...












3












$begingroup$


I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - {0_R}, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - {0_R})$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.






group-theory ring-theory field-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    5 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    1 hour ago
















3












$begingroup$


I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - {0_R}, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - {0_R})$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.






group-theory ring-theory field-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    5 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    1 hour ago














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - {0_R}, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - {0_R})$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.






group-theory ring-theory field-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I am trying to show that if $(R, +)$ is an Abelian group and $(R - {0_R}, cdot)$ is an Abelian group, then $(R, +, cdot)$ is not necessarily a field. Note that $0_R$ is the identity element of $(R, +)$. I know that a field is a commutative division ring and one of a ring's properties is that $forall a,b in R, ~ acdot (b + c) = a cdot b + acdot c$. Therefore, I am trying to come up with a set and two binary operations that satisfy the first property, but together do not form a field.



So far, I have come up with a group over polynomials with $+$ being normal addition and $cdot$ being composition, but then $(R - {0_R})$ is not commutative. I would appreciate any help/guidance.



Thanks.






group-theory ring-theory field-theory




group-theory ring-theory field-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 5 hours ago









sepehr78sepehr78

725




725












  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    5 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    1 hour ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Composition isn't invertible either.
    $endgroup$
    – jgon
    5 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    1 hour ago
















$begingroup$
Composition isn't invertible either.
$endgroup$
– jgon
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Composition isn't invertible either.
$endgroup$
– jgon
5 hours ago




5




5




$begingroup$
Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Let $R$ be any six-element set, and put any Abelian group structures you like on $R$ and $R-{0}$.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
You're working too hard. Just literally take any random abelian group structures at all and they almost certainly will not be distributive.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
1 hour ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



The set is ${0,1,2,3,4,5}$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



Multiplication is defined by
$$
acdot b = left{ begin{array}{cl} 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
1 & a = b= 5 \
5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
ab pmod{5}& mbox{otherwise}end{array} right.
$$
or as a table
$$
begin{array}{c|cccccc} cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
end{array}
$$
The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    59 mins ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    41 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    39 mins ago












  • $begingroup$
    Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Sible
    38 mins ago



















4












$begingroup$

As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.



But just to be clear, you can also do it with infinite sets. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. Take $R = mathbb{Z}$, with $+$ being regular addition. Let $S = mathbb{Z}setminus {0}$, let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^{-1}(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbb{Z}$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
$$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^{-1}(-1+2) = 1,$$
but distributing first, we have
$$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^{-1}(-1+1) + phi^{-1}(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$



In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3145486%2fis-it-possible-to-have-an-abelian-group-under-two-different-binary-operations-bu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

    Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



    The set is ${0,1,2,3,4,5}$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



    Multiplication is defined by
    $$
    acdot b = left{ begin{array}{cl} 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
    1 & a = b= 5 \
    5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
    5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
    ab pmod{5}& mbox{otherwise}end{array} right.
    $$
    or as a table
    $$
    begin{array}{c|cccccc} cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
    0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
    1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
    2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
    3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
    4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
    5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
    end{array}
    $$
    The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



    Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
    1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      59 mins ago








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      41 mins ago










    • $begingroup$
      The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      39 mins ago












    • $begingroup$
      Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
      $endgroup$
      – Joseph Sible
      38 mins ago
















    2












    $begingroup$

    Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



    The set is ${0,1,2,3,4,5}$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



    Multiplication is defined by
    $$
    acdot b = left{ begin{array}{cl} 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
    1 & a = b= 5 \
    5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
    5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
    ab pmod{5}& mbox{otherwise}end{array} right.
    $$
    or as a table
    $$
    begin{array}{c|cccccc} cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
    0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
    1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
    2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
    3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
    4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
    5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
    end{array}
    $$
    The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



    Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
    1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      59 mins ago








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      41 mins ago










    • $begingroup$
      The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      39 mins ago












    • $begingroup$
      Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
      $endgroup$
      – Joseph Sible
      38 mins ago














    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



    The set is ${0,1,2,3,4,5}$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



    Multiplication is defined by
    $$
    acdot b = left{ begin{array}{cl} 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
    1 & a = b= 5 \
    5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
    5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
    ab pmod{5}& mbox{otherwise}end{array} right.
    $$
    or as a table
    $$
    begin{array}{c|cccccc} cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
    0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
    1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
    2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
    3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
    4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
    5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
    end{array}
    $$
    The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



    Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
    1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Here is a concrete example, inspired by LStU:



    The set is ${0,1,2,3,4,5}$. Addition is just addition mod $6$.



    Multiplication is defined by
    $$
    acdot b = left{ begin{array}{cl} 0& a=0 \ 0 & b=0 \
    1 & a = b= 5 \
    5 & a=5 wedge b in [1,4]\
    5 & b=5 wedge a in [1,4]\
    ab pmod{5}& mbox{otherwise}end{array} right.
    $$
    or as a table
    $$
    begin{array}{c|cccccc} cdot&0&1&2&3&4&5 \ hline
    0 & 0&0&0&0&0&0 \
    1 & 0&1&2&3&4&5 \
    2 & 0&2&4&1&3&5 \
    3 & 0&3&1&4&2&5 \
    4 & 0&4&3&2&1&5 \
    5 & 5&5&5&5&5&1
    end{array}
    $$
    The group properties, as well as commutativity, are easily checked.



    Now consider $$ (1+4)cdot 5 = 5cdot 5 = 1 \
    1cdot 5 + 4 cdot 5 = 5+5 = 4 neq 1
    $$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 5 hours ago









    Mark FischlerMark Fischler

    33.4k12452




    33.4k12452








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      59 mins ago








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      41 mins ago










    • $begingroup$
      The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      39 mins ago












    • $begingroup$
      Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
      $endgroup$
      – Joseph Sible
      38 mins ago














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      59 mins ago








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      41 mins ago










    • $begingroup$
      The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
      $endgroup$
      – SamBC
      39 mins ago












    • $begingroup$
      Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
      $endgroup$
      – Joseph Sible
      38 mins ago








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    59 mins ago






    $begingroup$
    Um, is the "group" (ignoring 0) actually a group under the operation .? I mean, first year group theory is a long, long time ago now, but I remember one of the features being that each row and column of the Cayley table featurwa each member exactly once. Plus is it associative?
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    59 mins ago






    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    41 mins ago




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that's not a group. Not associative. 2(5.5) = 2.1 = 2, while (2.5)5 = 5.5 = 1.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    41 mins ago












    $begingroup$
    The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    39 mins ago






    $begingroup$
    The questioner specified that it be a group under both operations. I'm just going with the questioner's actual request. Plus a monoid's operation is still associative.
    $endgroup$
    – SamBC
    39 mins ago














    $begingroup$
    Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Sible
    38 mins ago




    $begingroup$
    Ah, it's not even associative, so even if it did just have to be a monoid (for a ring), it's not.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph Sible
    38 mins ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.



    But just to be clear, you can also do it with infinite sets. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. Take $R = mathbb{Z}$, with $+$ being regular addition. Let $S = mathbb{Z}setminus {0}$, let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^{-1}(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbb{Z}$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
    $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^{-1}(-1+2) = 1,$$
    but distributing first, we have
    $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^{-1}(-1+1) + phi^{-1}(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$



    In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      4












      $begingroup$

      As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.



      But just to be clear, you can also do it with infinite sets. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. Take $R = mathbb{Z}$, with $+$ being regular addition. Let $S = mathbb{Z}setminus {0}$, let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^{-1}(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbb{Z}$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
      $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^{-1}(-1+2) = 1,$$
      but distributing first, we have
      $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^{-1}(-1+1) + phi^{-1}(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$



      In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.



        But just to be clear, you can also do it with infinite sets. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. Take $R = mathbb{Z}$, with $+$ being regular addition. Let $S = mathbb{Z}setminus {0}$, let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^{-1}(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbb{Z}$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
        $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^{-1}(-1+2) = 1,$$
        but distributing first, we have
        $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^{-1}(-1+1) + phi^{-1}(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$



        In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        As @LordSharktheUnknown implicitly points out, if you just take a finite set with non-prime-power order (six is the first such integer $ge 2$) and put any group structures you want, it will have to work, because finite fields have prime-power order.



        But just to be clear, you can also do it with infinite sets. Pretty much anything you try will work, provided you let loose a bit. Take $R = mathbb{Z}$, with $+$ being regular addition. Let $S = mathbb{Z}setminus {0}$, let $phi:S to R$ be the bijection which shifts negative numbers up by one and is constant on positive numbers. Now define $acdot b = phi^{-1}(phi(a)+phi(b))$. We're just relabeling $S$ to be $mathbb{Z}$ again and then doing regular addition. Now, doing addition first, we have
        $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 2 = phi^{-1}(-1+2) = 1,$$
        but distributing first, we have
        $$-2cdot(1+1) = -2cdot 1 + -2cdot 1 = phi^{-1}(-1+1) + phi^{-1}(-1+1) = -1+(-1) = -2.$$



        In terms of guidance, you should expect that you'll need to do something perverse like this, because most of the examples you'll think of where two binary operations already exist are rings, where distributivity necessarily holds.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 4 hours ago

























        answered 5 hours ago









        cspruncsprun

        2,03229




        2,03229






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3145486%2fis-it-possible-to-have-an-abelian-group-under-two-different-binary-operations-bu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Statuo de Libereco

            Image
            Koordinatoj: 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Statuo de Libereco angle: Statue of Liberty statuo Statuo de Libereco de antaŭe Oficiala nomo: Liberty Enlightening the World Lando  Usono Ŝtato Novjorkio Regiono Novjorko Insulo Insulo de Libereco Situo Statuo de Libereco  - koordinatoj 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Alteco de statuo 46 m  - alteco kun soklo 93 m Pezo 205 000 kg (451 948 lb) Materialoj bronzo, ŝtalo Proponinto Gustave Eiffel  - skulptisto Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi  - proponinto de soklo Richard Morris Hunt  - kapo laŭ modelo de Isabella Eugenie Boyer Transdonita 4-an de julio 1886 Por publiko alirebla por publiko Horzono OT (UTC-5)  - somera tempo OT (UTC-4) Loko
            Read more

            Tanganjiko

            Image
            Lago Tanganjiko Situo centra Afriko Ĉefaj fontoj Kalambo, Lufuko, Malagarasi kaj Ruzizi Ĉefaj elfluoj Lukugo Setlejoj Bujumbura, Kalemie Datenoj Koordinatoj 6°  S , 30°  O -6.3827777777778 29.615 782 Koordinatoj: 6°  S , 30°  O DEC Supermara alteco 782 m Surfaca areo 32 893 km² f5 Maksimuma longo 673 km f6 Maksimuma larĝo 72 km f7 Akva volumeno 18.900 km³ dep1 f8 Maksimuma profundo 1470 m f10 Averaĝa profundo 570 m f11 v   •   d   •   r Mapo de la lago Tanganjiko estas lago en orienta Afriko, inter Burundo, Kongo Kinŝasa, Tanzanio kaj Zambio. Ĝi apartenas al la Granda Rifto kaj estas unu el la Afrikaj Grandaj Lagoj. Tanzanio (46%) kaj DRK (40%) havas la majoritaton de la lago. Ĝi havas longon de 673 km, areon de ĉ. 32.900 km² kaj maksimuman profundon taksatan je 1470 metroj; pro tiu ĉi granda profundo ankaŭ ĝia volumeno estas sufiĉe granda, 18.900 km³. Oni konsi
            Read more

            Burg Taufers

            Image
            Taufers Ostansicht der Burg Taufers – gut erkennbar: der ehemals eingestürzte Bergfried Alternativname(n): Sandner Schloss Castello di Tures Entstehungszeit: 1225 bis 1535 Burgentyp: Höhenburg Erhaltungszustand: Erhalten oder wesentliche Teile erhalten Ständische Stellung: Dynasten Bauweise: Bruchstein (opus spicatum) Ort: Sand in Taufers Geographische Lage 46° 55′ 23,5″  N , 11° 56′ 54,6″  O 46.9232 11.9485 957 Koordinaten: 46° 55′ 23,5″  N , 11° 56′ 54,6″  O Höhe: 957  m s.l.m. Burg Taufers aus der Vogelperspektive (2018) Die Burg Taufers ist eine umfangreiche Burganlage etwas nordwestlich von Sand in Taufers in Südtirol (Italien). Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Lage 2 Geschichte 3 Anlage 4 Trivia 5 Literatur 6 Weblinks 7 Einzelnachweise Lage | Die Burg liegt auf einer natürlichen, zu Ahornach gehörigen Bergnase auf rund 957  m s.l.m. , an der sich die Ahr vorbeiz
            Read more