Go back
Easy problem

Easy problem

Science

D
Losing the Thread

Quarantined World

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
87415
Clock
02 Dec 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Well, it's easy if you spot the trick. Suppose a set S has a product which is anti-commutative. So a*b = -b*a, show that it is not associative. You can assume that there is at least one product where a*b != a*c (!= means not equal to).

D

Joined
08 Jun 07
Moves
2120
Clock
02 Dec 14
5 edits

twhitehead

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
Clock
02 Dec 14

The post that was quoted here has been removed
Not every set has a defined product, but the OP states that there is a product defined in the set. He assumes you know what 'product' means in this instance. He has not said that the set in question is a group under any given operation, and I assume it is not a requirement of the problem.

If you want to talk about a 'product', then you must define an operation upon elements of the set.
Yes, that is what he did.

aw
Baby Gauss

Ceres

Joined
14 Oct 06
Moves
18375
Clock
02 Dec 14
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, it's easy if you spot the trick. Suppose a set S has a product which is anti-commutative. So a*b = -b*a, show that it is not associative. You can assume that there is at least one product where a*b != a*c (!= means not equal to).
Edited

D

Joined
08 Jun 07
Moves
2120
Clock
02 Dec 14
2 edits

wolfgang59
Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48794
Clock
02 Dec 14

The post that was quoted here has been removed
This is a chess site.

And I don't think the fun question is being submitted for a finals paper.

D

Joined
08 Jun 07
Moves
2120
Clock
02 Dec 14
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Soothfast
0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,

Planet Rain

Joined
04 Mar 04
Moves
2709
Clock
02 Dec 14
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
A group is necessarily associative, so that is why DeepThought doesn't give that the set is a group.

EDIT: While I have not given any thought to DeepThought's riddle, there is a fair chance his solution runs on the assumption that the set S is "closed" under the product. That is, if a,b ∈ S, then a*b ∈ S.

D

Joined
08 Jun 07
Moves
2120
Clock
02 Dec 14
5 edits

D

Joined
08 Jun 07
Moves
2120
Clock
02 Dec 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

D
Losing the Thread

Quarantined World

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
87415
Clock
02 Dec 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Soothfast
A group is necessarily associative, so that is why DeepThought doesn't give that the set is a group.

EDIT: While I have not given any thought to DeepThought's riddle, there is a fair chance his solution runs on the assumption that the set S is "closed" under the product. That is, if a,b ∈ S, then a*b ∈ S.
I think technically it's a module since I've implicitly got addition defined (otherwise -a*b doesn't make sense). I didn't want to give any more information in the question than was necessary. The stuff about at least one case where a*b != a*c was to rule out a trivial case (where a*b = 0 for all elements in the set, when it is trivially associative).

Yes I think I'd better make it closed under the operation (as I'm not certain of the effects of not doing that, and certainly the specific example I generalised from has that property) - although I don't think that that is necessary for the answer.

D
Losing the Thread

Quarantined World

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
87415
Clock
02 Dec 14
5 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Drat, didn't think it through enough I need to add two extra conditions. It's best if I restate the problem:

Let S be a set which is closed under the product * and has the following properties:

Anti-commutivity a*b = -b*a
If a and b are different elements then a*b != 0
a*b != a and a*b !=b for all a and b.

Show that S is not associative under '*'

Sorry, I tried to abstract away from a specific example and worried about trivial cases instead of whether I'd given enough information. The extra two conditions may overspecify it, but I wanted to make it different to the specific case I based it on to prevent people just looking the answer up on Wikipedia.

D

Joined
08 Jun 07
Moves
2120
Clock
03 Dec 14
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

D
Losing the Thread

Quarantined World

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
87415
Clock
03 Dec 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
It's a module under addition and multiplication by a scalar, with a product operation which is anti-commutative. In the restated problem - I didn't give enough information - I'm not relying on the multiplication by a scalar so it need only be an abelian group under addition.

The problem is now easy, where before hand it's probably not possible.

D

Joined
08 Jun 07
Moves
2120
Clock
03 Dec 14
Vote Up
Vote Down

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.