A binary operation, closed over the reals, that is associative, but not commutative
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
I am aware that matrix multiplication as well as function composition is associative, but not commutative, but are there any other binary operations, specifically that are closed over the reals, that holds this property? And can you give a specific example?
abstract-algebra group-theory functions examples-counterexamples associativity
asked Jun 19 '16 at 15:51
Paul
797317
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
I am aware that matrix multiplication as well as function composition is associative, but not commutative, but are there any other binary operations, specifically that are closed over the reals, that holds this property? And can you give a specific example?
abstract-algebra group-theory functions examples-counterexamples associativity
asked Jun 19 '16 at 15:51
Paul
797317
Matrix multiplication is function composition (of linear functions), so you really only have one example.
– rschwieb
Jun 19 '16 at 18:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
I am aware that matrix multiplication as well as function composition is associative, but not commutative, but are there any other binary operations, specifically that are closed over the reals, that holds this property? And can you give a specific example?
abstract-algebra group-theory functions examples-counterexamples associativity
asked Jun 19 '16 at 15:51
Paul
797317
I am aware that matrix multiplication as well as function composition is associative, but not commutative, but are there any other binary operations, specifically that are closed over the reals, that holds this property? And can you give a specific example?
abstract-algebra group-theory functions examples-counterexamples associativity
asked Jun 19 '16 at 15:51
Paul
797317
edited Jun 19 '16 at 16:07
asked Jun 19 '16 at 15:51
Paul
797317
asked Jun 19 '16 at 15:51
Paul
797317
asked Jun 19 '16 at 15:51
Paul
797317
797317
Matrix multiplication is function composition (of linear functions), so you really only have one example.
– rschwieb
Jun 19 '16 at 18:44
add a comment |Â
Matrix multiplication is function composition (of linear functions), so you really only have one example.
– rschwieb
Jun 19 '16 at 18:44
Matrix multiplication is function composition (of linear functions), so you really only have one example.
– rschwieb
Jun 19 '16 at 18:44
Matrix multiplication is function composition (of linear functions), so you really only have one example.
– rschwieb
Jun 19 '16 at 18:44
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
46
down vote
accepted
We can define $x oplus y=y$. Then $(x oplus y) oplus z =z= x oplus (y oplus z)$ but $y=x oplus y neq y oplus x=x$
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:12
Ross Millikan
279k22188355
3
A rare example of the good one-line answer. I was going for the left-handed version, but then, I'm left-handed.
– hardmath
Jun 20 '16 at 13:31
1
@hardmath: I am left handed, too. I started with $max$, but the symmetry made it commutative. Maybe because large numbers are on the right I was prompted by the right hand version.
– Ross Millikan
Jun 20 '16 at 15:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
12
down vote
If you already know that matrix multiplication is associative, but not commutative, then you can just choose your favorite bijection $f:mathbb Rrightarrow M_2(mathbb R)$, since the two sets are equinumerous. Then, define $aoplus b = f^-1(f(a)f(b))$ to get an operation on $mathbb R$ which is associative, but not commutative. If you want to have inverses as well, then you can replace $f$ with your favorite map from $mathbb R$ to the invertible $2times 2$ matrices.
In general, without more structure, you are equivalently asking, "Is there any associative, but not commutative operation defined on a domain of cardinality $|mathbb R|$?" since the role of $mathbb R$ in the question is nothing more than a set.
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:33
Milo Brandt
38.6k474134
FTR, that operation would not only be noncommutative, but also extremely discontinuous and strongly dependent on the choice of bijection. This makes it no less of a valid example, but it's certainly a bit on the pathological side.
– leftaroundabout
Jun 19 '16 at 21:39
4
If a question has a valid pathological answer, and if you find that disturbing, then the question was wrong.
– Ryan Reich
Jun 19 '16 at 22:23
1
To partially answer my own question: according to @PseudoNeo, any $C_1$ topological group operation on $Bbb R$ is of the form $phi^-1(phi(x)+phi(y))$ for a $C_1$ diffeomorphism $phi$, and hence is abelian.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:15
1
@NajibIdrissi I was hoping some "overachiever" would answer the extended question here, since it subsumes the OP's assuming the answer is yes, but barring that I agree it is worth separate focus. Asked.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 15:25
1
@Paul No, it is possible to have a nonabelian group operation on $Bbb R$ - the easiest way is to map a known nonabelian group with the same cardinality as the reals across a bijection (which is exactly Milo's example). It becomes impossible if you also require that the group operation be continuous (i.e. "simple / non-pathological"), that is, a topological group. The question I asked reveals that $(Bbb R,+)$ is the only topological group structure on $Bbb R$ up to homeomorphism.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 18:34
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Yes, there are many other bilinear products on a given vector space which are associative but not commutative. For example, real associative algebras (not necessarily commutative), see also this MO-question.
Furthermore the quaternion algebra is a real division algebra which is associative but not commutative.
Edit: You added that the algebra must be part of the real numbers. Then also your example with the matrix algebra does no longer work.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58
Community♦
1
answered Jun 19 '16 at 15:57
Dietrich Burde
75k64185
I edited my question. I don't think I stated it correctly.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:05
Are quaternions part of the Real numbers? Or am I completely missing what you're trying to say? I only just started learning abstract algebra.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:18
Isn't that what "closed under the reals" mean?
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:21
1
@DietrichBurde "closed under the reals" means that the operation has the form $circ:Bbb RtimesBbb RtoBbb R$, that is, it is a binary operation on the real numbers. The quaternions are not real numbers, unless you mean to map them to reals by some bijection as in Milo Brandt's answer.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 7:57
1
@DietrichBurde According to the edit history it used to say "binary operation over the reals" which if anything is more clear. It is true that OP's examples do not match his own criteria, but I assume that's why he's asking the question.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:18
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Batominovski has another answer in the comments to this question. I will type up the checking:
Our candidate is $xcirc y=|x|y$. Then:
- Associative? We have $(xcirc y)circ z=(|x|y)circ z=||x|y|z=|xy|z.$ On the other hand, $xcirc(ycirc z)=xcirc(|y|z)=|x||y|z=|xy|z.$
- Non-commutative? $xcirc y=|x|ynot=|y|x=ycirc x$.
So this solution of Batominovski's fits the bill.
answered Aug 25 at 0:46
Adrian Keister
4,04541633
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
46
down vote
accepted
We can define $x oplus y=y$. Then $(x oplus y) oplus z =z= x oplus (y oplus z)$ but $y=x oplus y neq y oplus x=x$
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:12
Ross Millikan
279k22188355
3
A rare example of the good one-line answer. I was going for the left-handed version, but then, I'm left-handed.
– hardmath
Jun 20 '16 at 13:31
1
@hardmath: I am left handed, too. I started with $max$, but the symmetry made it commutative. Maybe because large numbers are on the right I was prompted by the right hand version.
– Ross Millikan
Jun 20 '16 at 15:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
46
down vote
accepted
We can define $x oplus y=y$. Then $(x oplus y) oplus z =z= x oplus (y oplus z)$ but $y=x oplus y neq y oplus x=x$
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:12
Ross Millikan
279k22188355
3
A rare example of the good one-line answer. I was going for the left-handed version, but then, I'm left-handed.
– hardmath
Jun 20 '16 at 13:31
1
@hardmath: I am left handed, too. I started with $max$, but the symmetry made it commutative. Maybe because large numbers are on the right I was prompted by the right hand version.
– Ross Millikan
Jun 20 '16 at 15:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
46
down vote
accepted
up vote
46
down vote
accepted
We can define $x oplus y=y$. Then $(x oplus y) oplus z =z= x oplus (y oplus z)$ but $y=x oplus y neq y oplus x=x$
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:12
Ross Millikan
279k22188355
We can define $x oplus y=y$. Then $(x oplus y) oplus z =z= x oplus (y oplus z)$ but $y=x oplus y neq y oplus x=x$
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:12
Ross Millikan
279k22188355
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:12
Ross Millikan
279k22188355
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:12
Ross Millikan
279k22188355
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:12
Ross Millikan
279k22188355
279k22188355
3
A rare example of the good one-line answer. I was going for the left-handed version, but then, I'm left-handed.
– hardmath
Jun 20 '16 at 13:31
1
@hardmath: I am left handed, too. I started with $max$, but the symmetry made it commutative. Maybe because large numbers are on the right I was prompted by the right hand version.
– Ross Millikan
Jun 20 '16 at 15:49
add a comment |Â
3
A rare example of the good one-line answer. I was going for the left-handed version, but then, I'm left-handed.
– hardmath
Jun 20 '16 at 13:31
1
@hardmath: I am left handed, too. I started with $max$, but the symmetry made it commutative. Maybe because large numbers are on the right I was prompted by the right hand version.
– Ross Millikan
Jun 20 '16 at 15:49
3
3
A rare example of the good one-line answer. I was going for the left-handed version, but then, I'm left-handed.
– hardmath
Jun 20 '16 at 13:31
A rare example of the good one-line answer. I was going for the left-handed version, but then, I'm left-handed.
– hardmath
Jun 20 '16 at 13:31
1
1
@hardmath: I am left handed, too. I started with $max$, but the symmetry made it commutative. Maybe because large numbers are on the right I was prompted by the right hand version.
– Ross Millikan
Jun 20 '16 at 15:49
@hardmath: I am left handed, too. I started with $max$, but the symmetry made it commutative. Maybe because large numbers are on the right I was prompted by the right hand version.
– Ross Millikan
Jun 20 '16 at 15:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
12
down vote
If you already know that matrix multiplication is associative, but not commutative, then you can just choose your favorite bijection $f:mathbb Rrightarrow M_2(mathbb R)$, since the two sets are equinumerous. Then, define $aoplus b = f^-1(f(a)f(b))$ to get an operation on $mathbb R$ which is associative, but not commutative. If you want to have inverses as well, then you can replace $f$ with your favorite map from $mathbb R$ to the invertible $2times 2$ matrices.
In general, without more structure, you are equivalently asking, "Is there any associative, but not commutative operation defined on a domain of cardinality $|mathbb R|$?" since the role of $mathbb R$ in the question is nothing more than a set.
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:33
Milo Brandt
38.6k474134
FTR, that operation would not only be noncommutative, but also extremely discontinuous and strongly dependent on the choice of bijection. This makes it no less of a valid example, but it's certainly a bit on the pathological side.
– leftaroundabout
Jun 19 '16 at 21:39
4
If a question has a valid pathological answer, and if you find that disturbing, then the question was wrong.
– Ryan Reich
Jun 19 '16 at 22:23
1
To partially answer my own question: according to @PseudoNeo, any $C_1$ topological group operation on $Bbb R$ is of the form $phi^-1(phi(x)+phi(y))$ for a $C_1$ diffeomorphism $phi$, and hence is abelian.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:15
1
@NajibIdrissi I was hoping some "overachiever" would answer the extended question here, since it subsumes the OP's assuming the answer is yes, but barring that I agree it is worth separate focus. Asked.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 15:25
1
@Paul No, it is possible to have a nonabelian group operation on $Bbb R$ - the easiest way is to map a known nonabelian group with the same cardinality as the reals across a bijection (which is exactly Milo's example). It becomes impossible if you also require that the group operation be continuous (i.e. "simple / non-pathological"), that is, a topological group. The question I asked reveals that $(Bbb R,+)$ is the only topological group structure on $Bbb R$ up to homeomorphism.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 18:34
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
12
down vote
If you already know that matrix multiplication is associative, but not commutative, then you can just choose your favorite bijection $f:mathbb Rrightarrow M_2(mathbb R)$, since the two sets are equinumerous. Then, define $aoplus b = f^-1(f(a)f(b))$ to get an operation on $mathbb R$ which is associative, but not commutative. If you want to have inverses as well, then you can replace $f$ with your favorite map from $mathbb R$ to the invertible $2times 2$ matrices.
In general, without more structure, you are equivalently asking, "Is there any associative, but not commutative operation defined on a domain of cardinality $|mathbb R|$?" since the role of $mathbb R$ in the question is nothing more than a set.
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:33
Milo Brandt
38.6k474134
FTR, that operation would not only be noncommutative, but also extremely discontinuous and strongly dependent on the choice of bijection. This makes it no less of a valid example, but it's certainly a bit on the pathological side.
– leftaroundabout
Jun 19 '16 at 21:39
4
If a question has a valid pathological answer, and if you find that disturbing, then the question was wrong.
– Ryan Reich
Jun 19 '16 at 22:23
1
To partially answer my own question: according to @PseudoNeo, any $C_1$ topological group operation on $Bbb R$ is of the form $phi^-1(phi(x)+phi(y))$ for a $C_1$ diffeomorphism $phi$, and hence is abelian.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:15
1
@NajibIdrissi I was hoping some "overachiever" would answer the extended question here, since it subsumes the OP's assuming the answer is yes, but barring that I agree it is worth separate focus. Asked.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 15:25
1
@Paul No, it is possible to have a nonabelian group operation on $Bbb R$ - the easiest way is to map a known nonabelian group with the same cardinality as the reals across a bijection (which is exactly Milo's example). It becomes impossible if you also require that the group operation be continuous (i.e. "simple / non-pathological"), that is, a topological group. The question I asked reveals that $(Bbb R,+)$ is the only topological group structure on $Bbb R$ up to homeomorphism.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 18:34
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
down vote
If you already know that matrix multiplication is associative, but not commutative, then you can just choose your favorite bijection $f:mathbb Rrightarrow M_2(mathbb R)$, since the two sets are equinumerous. Then, define $aoplus b = f^-1(f(a)f(b))$ to get an operation on $mathbb R$ which is associative, but not commutative. If you want to have inverses as well, then you can replace $f$ with your favorite map from $mathbb R$ to the invertible $2times 2$ matrices.
In general, without more structure, you are equivalently asking, "Is there any associative, but not commutative operation defined on a domain of cardinality $|mathbb R|$?" since the role of $mathbb R$ in the question is nothing more than a set.
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:33
Milo Brandt
38.6k474134
If you already know that matrix multiplication is associative, but not commutative, then you can just choose your favorite bijection $f:mathbb Rrightarrow M_2(mathbb R)$, since the two sets are equinumerous. Then, define $aoplus b = f^-1(f(a)f(b))$ to get an operation on $mathbb R$ which is associative, but not commutative. If you want to have inverses as well, then you can replace $f$ with your favorite map from $mathbb R$ to the invertible $2times 2$ matrices.
In general, without more structure, you are equivalently asking, "Is there any associative, but not commutative operation defined on a domain of cardinality $|mathbb R|$?" since the role of $mathbb R$ in the question is nothing more than a set.
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:33
Milo Brandt
38.6k474134
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:33
Milo Brandt
38.6k474134
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:33
Milo Brandt
38.6k474134
answered Jun 19 '16 at 16:33
Milo Brandt
38.6k474134
38.6k474134
FTR, that operation would not only be noncommutative, but also extremely discontinuous and strongly dependent on the choice of bijection. This makes it no less of a valid example, but it's certainly a bit on the pathological side.
– leftaroundabout
Jun 19 '16 at 21:39
4
If a question has a valid pathological answer, and if you find that disturbing, then the question was wrong.
– Ryan Reich
Jun 19 '16 at 22:23
1
To partially answer my own question: according to @PseudoNeo, any $C_1$ topological group operation on $Bbb R$ is of the form $phi^-1(phi(x)+phi(y))$ for a $C_1$ diffeomorphism $phi$, and hence is abelian.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:15
1
@NajibIdrissi I was hoping some "overachiever" would answer the extended question here, since it subsumes the OP's assuming the answer is yes, but barring that I agree it is worth separate focus. Asked.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 15:25
1
@Paul No, it is possible to have a nonabelian group operation on $Bbb R$ - the easiest way is to map a known nonabelian group with the same cardinality as the reals across a bijection (which is exactly Milo's example). It becomes impossible if you also require that the group operation be continuous (i.e. "simple / non-pathological"), that is, a topological group. The question I asked reveals that $(Bbb R,+)$ is the only topological group structure on $Bbb R$ up to homeomorphism.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 18:34
 |Â
show 9 more comments
FTR, that operation would not only be noncommutative, but also extremely discontinuous and strongly dependent on the choice of bijection. This makes it no less of a valid example, but it's certainly a bit on the pathological side.
– leftaroundabout
Jun 19 '16 at 21:39
4
If a question has a valid pathological answer, and if you find that disturbing, then the question was wrong.
– Ryan Reich
Jun 19 '16 at 22:23
1
To partially answer my own question: according to @PseudoNeo, any $C_1$ topological group operation on $Bbb R$ is of the form $phi^-1(phi(x)+phi(y))$ for a $C_1$ diffeomorphism $phi$, and hence is abelian.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:15
1
@NajibIdrissi I was hoping some "overachiever" would answer the extended question here, since it subsumes the OP's assuming the answer is yes, but barring that I agree it is worth separate focus. Asked.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 15:25
1
@Paul No, it is possible to have a nonabelian group operation on $Bbb R$ - the easiest way is to map a known nonabelian group with the same cardinality as the reals across a bijection (which is exactly Milo's example). It becomes impossible if you also require that the group operation be continuous (i.e. "simple / non-pathological"), that is, a topological group. The question I asked reveals that $(Bbb R,+)$ is the only topological group structure on $Bbb R$ up to homeomorphism.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 18:34
FTR, that operation would not only be noncommutative, but also extremely discontinuous and strongly dependent on the choice of bijection. This makes it no less of a valid example, but it's certainly a bit on the pathological side.
– leftaroundabout
Jun 19 '16 at 21:39
FTR, that operation would not only be noncommutative, but also extremely discontinuous and strongly dependent on the choice of bijection. This makes it no less of a valid example, but it's certainly a bit on the pathological side.
– leftaroundabout
Jun 19 '16 at 21:39
4
4
If a question has a valid pathological answer, and if you find that disturbing, then the question was wrong.
– Ryan Reich
Jun 19 '16 at 22:23
If a question has a valid pathological answer, and if you find that disturbing, then the question was wrong.
– Ryan Reich
Jun 19 '16 at 22:23
1
1
To partially answer my own question: according to @PseudoNeo, any $C_1$ topological group operation on $Bbb R$ is of the form $phi^-1(phi(x)+phi(y))$ for a $C_1$ diffeomorphism $phi$, and hence is abelian.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:15
To partially answer my own question: according to @PseudoNeo, any $C_1$ topological group operation on $Bbb R$ is of the form $phi^-1(phi(x)+phi(y))$ for a $C_1$ diffeomorphism $phi$, and hence is abelian.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:15
1
1
@NajibIdrissi I was hoping some "overachiever" would answer the extended question here, since it subsumes the OP's assuming the answer is yes, but barring that I agree it is worth separate focus. Asked.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 15:25
@NajibIdrissi I was hoping some "overachiever" would answer the extended question here, since it subsumes the OP's assuming the answer is yes, but barring that I agree it is worth separate focus. Asked.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 15:25
1
1
@Paul No, it is possible to have a nonabelian group operation on $Bbb R$ - the easiest way is to map a known nonabelian group with the same cardinality as the reals across a bijection (which is exactly Milo's example). It becomes impossible if you also require that the group operation be continuous (i.e. "simple / non-pathological"), that is, a topological group. The question I asked reveals that $(Bbb R,+)$ is the only topological group structure on $Bbb R$ up to homeomorphism.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 18:34
@Paul No, it is possible to have a nonabelian group operation on $Bbb R$ - the easiest way is to map a known nonabelian group with the same cardinality as the reals across a bijection (which is exactly Milo's example). It becomes impossible if you also require that the group operation be continuous (i.e. "simple / non-pathological"), that is, a topological group. The question I asked reveals that $(Bbb R,+)$ is the only topological group structure on $Bbb R$ up to homeomorphism.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 18:34
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Yes, there are many other bilinear products on a given vector space which are associative but not commutative. For example, real associative algebras (not necessarily commutative), see also this MO-question.
Furthermore the quaternion algebra is a real division algebra which is associative but not commutative.
Edit: You added that the algebra must be part of the real numbers. Then also your example with the matrix algebra does no longer work.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58
Community♦
1
answered Jun 19 '16 at 15:57
Dietrich Burde
75k64185
I edited my question. I don't think I stated it correctly.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:05
Are quaternions part of the Real numbers? Or am I completely missing what you're trying to say? I only just started learning abstract algebra.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:18
Isn't that what "closed under the reals" mean?
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:21
1
@DietrichBurde "closed under the reals" means that the operation has the form $circ:Bbb RtimesBbb RtoBbb R$, that is, it is a binary operation on the real numbers. The quaternions are not real numbers, unless you mean to map them to reals by some bijection as in Milo Brandt's answer.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 7:57
1
@DietrichBurde According to the edit history it used to say "binary operation over the reals" which if anything is more clear. It is true that OP's examples do not match his own criteria, but I assume that's why he's asking the question.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:18
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Yes, there are many other bilinear products on a given vector space which are associative but not commutative. For example, real associative algebras (not necessarily commutative), see also this MO-question.
Furthermore the quaternion algebra is a real division algebra which is associative but not commutative.
Edit: You added that the algebra must be part of the real numbers. Then also your example with the matrix algebra does no longer work.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58
Community♦
1
answered Jun 19 '16 at 15:57
Dietrich Burde
75k64185
I edited my question. I don't think I stated it correctly.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:05
Are quaternions part of the Real numbers? Or am I completely missing what you're trying to say? I only just started learning abstract algebra.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:18
Isn't that what "closed under the reals" mean?
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:21
1
@DietrichBurde "closed under the reals" means that the operation has the form $circ:Bbb RtimesBbb RtoBbb R$, that is, it is a binary operation on the real numbers. The quaternions are not real numbers, unless you mean to map them to reals by some bijection as in Milo Brandt's answer.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 7:57
1
@DietrichBurde According to the edit history it used to say "binary operation over the reals" which if anything is more clear. It is true that OP's examples do not match his own criteria, but I assume that's why he's asking the question.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:18
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Yes, there are many other bilinear products on a given vector space which are associative but not commutative. For example, real associative algebras (not necessarily commutative), see also this MO-question.
Furthermore the quaternion algebra is a real division algebra which is associative but not commutative.
Edit: You added that the algebra must be part of the real numbers. Then also your example with the matrix algebra does no longer work.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58
Community♦
1
answered Jun 19 '16 at 15:57
Dietrich Burde
75k64185
Yes, there are many other bilinear products on a given vector space which are associative but not commutative. For example, real associative algebras (not necessarily commutative), see also this MO-question.
Furthermore the quaternion algebra is a real division algebra which is associative but not commutative.
Edit: You added that the algebra must be part of the real numbers. Then also your example with the matrix algebra does no longer work.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58
Community♦
1
answered Jun 19 '16 at 15:57
Dietrich Burde
75k64185
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58
Community♦
1
1
answered Jun 19 '16 at 15:57
Dietrich Burde
75k64185
answered Jun 19 '16 at 15:57
Dietrich Burde
75k64185
answered Jun 19 '16 at 15:57
Dietrich Burde
75k64185
75k64185
I edited my question. I don't think I stated it correctly.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:05
Are quaternions part of the Real numbers? Or am I completely missing what you're trying to say? I only just started learning abstract algebra.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:18
Isn't that what "closed under the reals" mean?
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:21
1
@DietrichBurde "closed under the reals" means that the operation has the form $circ:Bbb RtimesBbb RtoBbb R$, that is, it is a binary operation on the real numbers. The quaternions are not real numbers, unless you mean to map them to reals by some bijection as in Milo Brandt's answer.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 7:57
1
@DietrichBurde According to the edit history it used to say "binary operation over the reals" which if anything is more clear. It is true that OP's examples do not match his own criteria, but I assume that's why he's asking the question.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:18
 |Â
show 1 more comment
I edited my question. I don't think I stated it correctly.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:05
Are quaternions part of the Real numbers? Or am I completely missing what you're trying to say? I only just started learning abstract algebra.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:18
Isn't that what "closed under the reals" mean?
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:21
1
@DietrichBurde "closed under the reals" means that the operation has the form $circ:Bbb RtimesBbb RtoBbb R$, that is, it is a binary operation on the real numbers. The quaternions are not real numbers, unless you mean to map them to reals by some bijection as in Milo Brandt's answer.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 7:57
1
@DietrichBurde According to the edit history it used to say "binary operation over the reals" which if anything is more clear. It is true that OP's examples do not match his own criteria, but I assume that's why he's asking the question.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:18
I edited my question. I don't think I stated it correctly.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:05
I edited my question. I don't think I stated it correctly.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:05
Are quaternions part of the Real numbers? Or am I completely missing what you're trying to say? I only just started learning abstract algebra.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:18
Are quaternions part of the Real numbers? Or am I completely missing what you're trying to say? I only just started learning abstract algebra.
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:18
Isn't that what "closed under the reals" mean?
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:21
Isn't that what "closed under the reals" mean?
– Paul
Jun 19 '16 at 16:21
1
1
@DietrichBurde "closed under the reals" means that the operation has the form $circ:Bbb RtimesBbb RtoBbb R$, that is, it is a binary operation on the real numbers. The quaternions are not real numbers, unless you mean to map them to reals by some bijection as in Milo Brandt's answer.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 7:57
@DietrichBurde "closed under the reals" means that the operation has the form $circ:Bbb RtimesBbb RtoBbb R$, that is, it is a binary operation on the real numbers. The quaternions are not real numbers, unless you mean to map them to reals by some bijection as in Milo Brandt's answer.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 7:57
1
1
@DietrichBurde According to the edit history it used to say "binary operation over the reals" which if anything is more clear. It is true that OP's examples do not match his own criteria, but I assume that's why he's asking the question.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:18
@DietrichBurde According to the edit history it used to say "binary operation over the reals" which if anything is more clear. It is true that OP's examples do not match his own criteria, but I assume that's why he's asking the question.
– Mario Carneiro
Jun 20 '16 at 8:18
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Batominovski has another answer in the comments to this question. I will type up the checking:
Our candidate is $xcirc y=|x|y$. Then:
- Associative? We have $(xcirc y)circ z=(|x|y)circ z=||x|y|z=|xy|z.$ On the other hand, $xcirc(ycirc z)=xcirc(|y|z)=|x||y|z=|xy|z.$
- Non-commutative? $xcirc y=|x|ynot=|y|x=ycirc x$.
So this solution of Batominovski's fits the bill.
answered Aug 25 at 0:46
Adrian Keister
4,04541633
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Batominovski has another answer in the comments to this question. I will type up the checking:
Our candidate is $xcirc y=|x|y$. Then:
- Associative? We have $(xcirc y)circ z=(|x|y)circ z=||x|y|z=|xy|z.$ On the other hand, $xcirc(ycirc z)=xcirc(|y|z)=|x||y|z=|xy|z.$
- Non-commutative? $xcirc y=|x|ynot=|y|x=ycirc x$.
So this solution of Batominovski's fits the bill.
answered Aug 25 at 0:46
Adrian Keister
4,04541633
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Batominovski has another answer in the comments to this question. I will type up the checking:
Our candidate is $xcirc y=|x|y$. Then:
- Associative? We have $(xcirc y)circ z=(|x|y)circ z=||x|y|z=|xy|z.$ On the other hand, $xcirc(ycirc z)=xcirc(|y|z)=|x||y|z=|xy|z.$
- Non-commutative? $xcirc y=|x|ynot=|y|x=ycirc x$.
So this solution of Batominovski's fits the bill.
answered Aug 25 at 0:46
Adrian Keister
4,04541633
Batominovski has another answer in the comments to this question. I will type up the checking:
Our candidate is $xcirc y=|x|y$. Then:
- Associative? We have $(xcirc y)circ z=(|x|y)circ z=||x|y|z=|xy|z.$ On the other hand, $xcirc(ycirc z)=xcirc(|y|z)=|x||y|z=|xy|z.$
- Non-commutative? $xcirc y=|x|ynot=|y|x=ycirc x$.
So this solution of Batominovski's fits the bill.
answered Aug 25 at 0:46
Adrian Keister
4,04541633
answered Aug 25 at 0:46
Adrian Keister
4,04541633
answered Aug 25 at 0:46
Adrian Keister
4,04541633
answered Aug 25 at 0:46
Adrian Keister
4,04541633
4,04541633
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1832169%2fa-binary-operation-closed-over-the-reals-that-is-associative-but-not-commutat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Matrix multiplication is function composition (of linear functions), so you really only have one example.
– rschwieb
Jun 19 '16 at 18:44