4

I am struggling to better understand the language of a basic proof in abstract algebra, namely that groups have a unique identity. The proof is presented as follows: Let $G$ be a group and $a,b \in G$ be identity elements. Because $a$ is an identity, $ab=b$. Because $b$ is an identity, $ab=a$. This implies $a=b$. Therefore, since any two identities are equal, there is only one identity in $G$.

I think I can understand the fundamental fact of the proof, but not according to the language above. I have to use a proof of contradiction: Assume $G$ has two different identities. Then the expression $ab$ maps to two different elements, which is impossible. Therefore, $G$ can have only one identity.

I am wondering if anyone has suggestions regarding how to bridge the gap between my current understanding of the proof and an understanding that makes use of the language in the "official" proof.

  • 1
    Your conclusion seems to be that if $a$ and $b$ are different identities, then $a = ab = b$, contradicting that $a$ and $b$ are different. If so, this is really equivalent to the stated proof, just phrased as a contradiction. –  Jan 02 '14 at 02:55
  • You must have a typo. It should read, "because $a$ is an identity, $ab=b$" and same for the next phrase ... "$ab=a$. – user44197 Jan 02 '14 at 02:57
  • @user44197 Typo fixed. – math wannabe Jan 02 '14 at 03:30

7 Answers7

4

This is based on the principle, things that are equal to the same thing are themselves equal. Both $a$ and $b$ are equal to $a b$.

user44197
  • 9,730
  • 1
    In other words (they seem more clear to me) equality follows the transitive property, if $x=y$ and $y=z$ then $x=z$, and in your problem $x=a$, $y=ab$ and $z=b$. – DanZimm Jan 02 '14 at 15:33
  • Yes, but recast the way Euclid did with his common notion (his first): if $a=c$ and $b=c$ then $a=b$. Modern notation as you put it: if $a=c$ and $c=b$ then $a=b$. I am not a psychologist, and Euclid is long dead, but I doubt if he would have accepted the modern way. I don't have his book handy, but I recall him making sure that the order was always $a=c$ and $b=c$ (or $c=a$ and $c=b$). But, you are right. – user44197 Jan 02 '14 at 16:39
  • I have no trouble applying this principle to objects which are somehow explicitly constructed. However, in this case, $a$, $b$, and $ab$ do not seem to me to be explicitly constructed and so I have trouble applying the principle. – math wannabe Jan 07 '14 at 07:58
2

It may be slightly easier if you remove the "by contradiction"

Assume $a$ is an identity element of $G$, and $b$ is an identity element of $G$. Then [follow the given proof] and therefore $a=b$. Therefore if we have two members of $G$ which are identity elements, the two members are in fact the same. This implies that there is only one identity.

Also, the argument in the given proof is slightly incorrect. $ab=a$ because --$b$-- is an identity, but your proof says it is because $a$ is an identity.

Eric Stucky
  • 12,758
  • 3
  • 38
  • 69
2

Let $e$ be the neutral element given by axioms. Let $e'$ be in $G$ which satisfies $xe'=xe'=x\ ,\ \forall x\in G$ also, then $e=ee'=e'$

janmarqz
  • 10,538
  • this short argument is the shorter proof 'cuz the defining conditions do not guarantee uniqueness. Here, I had proved that if $e'$ also satisfies the axioms then $e'=e$, so $e$ is unique. – janmarqz Jan 16 '14 at 19:04
2

Let $X$ denote a set, and $P$ denote a unary predicate on $X$. Then by definition, the following sentences are equivalent.

  1. There is at most one $x \in X$ satisfying $P$.
  2. For all $x,y \in X,$ we have that if both $x$ and $y$ satisfy $P$, then $x=y$.

Therefore, to prove that every group $G$ has at most one identity element, we may proceed as follows. Let $x$ and $y$ denote fixed but arbitrary elements of $G$ satisfying "I am an identity element." Then show that $x=y$.

That is exactly what the proof has done.

goblin GONE
  • 67,744
2

I think your problem is not one of algebra, but of logic.

When we say, in ordinary English: "There is only one doohickey", this can be interpreted in formal logic as either

There does not exist $a$ and $b$ such that $a\neq b$ and $a$ and $b$ are both doohickeys. $$ \text{symbolically:}\qquad \neg\exists a\exists b(a\neq b \land D(a) \land D(b)) \tag{1}$$

or

For all $a$ and $b$ it holds that if $a$ is a doohickey and $b$ is a doohickey, then $a=b$. $$ \text{symbolically:}\qquad \forall a\forall b(D(a)\land D(b) \implies a=b) \tag{2}$$

It is a fairly simple exercise in symbolic logic to show that these two formalizations are in fact logically equivalent, but they suggest different proof strategies.

Your preferred proof follows the structure of (1): You want to prove something is not true, so an indirect proof is the natural plan of attack: Assume the something and reach a contradiction.

However, mathematicians tend to favor formulation (2): It is arguably a bit more removed from most people's intuition, because it depends on having the two different letters $a$ and $b$ stand for the same thing, but that is not a formal problem. Once you get used to that, however, it is a better way to think about "there's only one X" properties, because there are fewer negations in it and it is natural to prove it directly instead of indirectly. See this question for explanations of why that is a good thing.

1

Both are equivalent ways to prove that a nonempty set $\rm\, S\,$ has a single element

$\rm(1)\quad \forall\, a,b \in S\!:\ Hypotheses\ \Rightarrow\ a = b$

$\rm(2)\quad \forall\, a,b \in S\!:\ Hypotheses\ \ \&\ \ a\neq b\ \Rightarrow\ Contradiction$

Note the the second is simply the first recast as a proof by contradiction.

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
1

You are given the fact that $ab=a$ and that $ab=b$. Now $ab=ab$ since every element is equal to itself. This implies that $a=b$, where the first $ab$ is replaced by $a$ and the second $ab$ by $b$. This completes the stated proof.

Now what you have stated as your understanding of the proof is exactly the same the given proof. So instead of trying to force a contradiction by saying that $ab$ cannot map to two different elements (where the term map is ambiguous), we try to generate a contradiction in the system provided by showing that $a=b$ and therefore we cannot have two different inverses.