▲ | OjotCewIo 2 days ago | |||||||||||||
> The trick works on any Abelian group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_group -- I'll use ⋆ as the Abelian group's operation, and ~ for inversion, below.) I believe you are implying: (g(1) ⋆ ... ⋆ g(n)) ⋆ ~(g(i(1)) ⋆ g(i(2)) ⋆ ... ⋆ g(i(n-1))) = g(m) where "m" is the group element index that is not covered by "i". However, for this to work, it is requried that you can distribute the inversion ~ over the group operation ⋆, like this: ~(g(i(1)) ⋆ g(i(2)) ⋆ ... ⋆ g(i(n-1))) = ~g(i(1)) ⋆ ~g(i(2)) ⋆ ... ⋆ ~g(i(n-1)) because it is only after this step (i.e., after the distribution) that you can exploit the associativity and commutativity of operation ⋆, and reorder the elements in g(1) ⋆ ... ⋆ g(n) ⋆ ~g(i(1)) ⋆ ~g(i(2)) ⋆ ... ⋆ ~g(i(n-1)) such that they pairwise cancel out, and leave only the "unmatched" (missing) element -- g(m). However, where is it stated that inversion ~ can be distributed over group operation ⋆? The above wikipedia article does not spell that out as an axiom. Wikipedia does mention "antidistributivity": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_property#Antidist... (which does imply the distributivity in question here, once we restore commutativity); however, WP says this property is indeed used as an axiom ("in the more general context of a semigroup with involution"). So why is it not spelled out as one for Abelian groups? ... Does distributivity of inversion ~ over operation ⋆ follow from the other Abelian group axioms / properties? If so, how? | ||||||||||||||
▲ | FBT a day ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||
> ... Does distributivity of inversion ~ over operation ⋆ follow from the other Abelian group axioms / properties? If so, how? It does. For all x and y:
In (4) we see that (~x ⋆ ~y) is the inverse of (x ⋆ y). That is to say, ~(x ⋆ y) = (~x ⋆ ~y). QED. | ||||||||||||||
|