Let $R$ be an idempotent semiring and $ax=y$ and $by=x~forall ~x,yin R$, then show that $x=y$
Here, a semiring $(R, +, .)$ is an idempotent in the sense that $x+x=x$ and $x.x=x~forall~xin R$. Let $R$ be an idempotent semiring and $ax=y$ and $by=x~text{if }xleq y~text{and }yleq x,~text{respectively }forall ~x,yin R$ and some $a, b$ in $R$, then show that $x=y$.
Note: Here, i am actually trying to show that the relation $leq$ on $R$ is an anti-symmetric relation with respect to the multiplicative operation on $R$. Further i have seen that if $R$ is a multiplicatively cancellative then $x=y$ can be easily verified but i don't need the $R$ to be cancellative.
semiring
asked Nov 28 '18 at 18:23
getegete
747
add a comment |
Here, a semiring $(R, +, .)$ is an idempotent in the sense that $x+x=x$ and $x.x=x~forall~xin R$. Let $R$ be an idempotent semiring and $ax=y$ and $by=x~text{if }xleq y~text{and }yleq x,~text{respectively }forall ~x,yin R$ and some $a, b$ in $R$, then show that $x=y$.
Note: Here, i am actually trying to show that the relation $leq$ on $R$ is an anti-symmetric relation with respect to the multiplicative operation on $R$. Further i have seen that if $R$ is a multiplicatively cancellative then $x=y$ can be easily verified but i don't need the $R$ to be cancellative.
semiring
asked Nov 28 '18 at 18:23
getegete
747
So you define $x le y$ if there exists $a$ such that $ax = y$? And what does it mean when you write $ax=y$ and $by=x~forall ~x,yin R$?
– Paul Frost
Nov 30 '18 at 18:19
@Paul Frost $leq $ is a relation defined on $R$ such that $ forall~x, yin R,$ $ax=y $ whever $xleq y$ for some $ain R$. Now, to prove that the relation $leq$ is anti-symmetric, we have to assume that $xleq y$ and $yleq x$ and we need to show that $x=y$ using the relation as defined.
– gete
Nov 30 '18 at 18:32
add a comment |
Here, a semiring $(R, +, .)$ is an idempotent in the sense that $x+x=x$ and $x.x=x~forall~xin R$. Let $R$ be an idempotent semiring and $ax=y$ and $by=x~text{if }xleq y~text{and }yleq x,~text{respectively }forall ~x,yin R$ and some $a, b$ in $R$, then show that $x=y$.
Note: Here, i am actually trying to show that the relation $leq$ on $R$ is an anti-symmetric relation with respect to the multiplicative operation on $R$. Further i have seen that if $R$ is a multiplicatively cancellative then $x=y$ can be easily verified but i don't need the $R$ to be cancellative.
semiring
asked Nov 28 '18 at 18:23
getegete
747
Here, a semiring $(R, +, .)$ is an idempotent in the sense that $x+x=x$ and $x.x=x~forall~xin R$. Let $R$ be an idempotent semiring and $ax=y$ and $by=x~text{if }xleq y~text{and }yleq x,~text{respectively }forall ~x,yin R$ and some $a, b$ in $R$, then show that $x=y$.
Note: Here, i am actually trying to show that the relation $leq$ on $R$ is an anti-symmetric relation with respect to the multiplicative operation on $R$. Further i have seen that if $R$ is a multiplicatively cancellative then $x=y$ can be easily verified but i don't need the $R$ to be cancellative.
semiring
semiring
asked Nov 28 '18 at 18:23
getegete
747
asked Nov 28 '18 at 18:23
getegete
747
edited Nov 30 '18 at 15:37
gete
asked Nov 28 '18 at 18:23
getegete
747
asked Nov 28 '18 at 18:23
getegete
747
asked Nov 28 '18 at 18:23
getegete
747
747
So you define $x le y$ if there exists $a$ such that $ax = y$? And what does it mean when you write $ax=y$ and $by=x~forall ~x,yin R$?
– Paul Frost
Nov 30 '18 at 18:19
@Paul Frost $leq $ is a relation defined on $R$ such that $ forall~x, yin R,$ $ax=y $ whever $xleq y$ for some $ain R$. Now, to prove that the relation $leq$ is anti-symmetric, we have to assume that $xleq y$ and $yleq x$ and we need to show that $x=y$ using the relation as defined.
– gete
Nov 30 '18 at 18:32
add a comment |
So you define $x le y$ if there exists $a$ such that $ax = y$? And what does it mean when you write $ax=y$ and $by=x~forall ~x,yin R$?
– Paul Frost
Nov 30 '18 at 18:19
@Paul Frost $leq $ is a relation defined on $R$ such that $ forall~x, yin R,$ $ax=y $ whever $xleq y$ for some $ain R$. Now, to prove that the relation $leq$ is anti-symmetric, we have to assume that $xleq y$ and $yleq x$ and we need to show that $x=y$ using the relation as defined.
– gete
Nov 30 '18 at 18:32
So you define $x le y$ if there exists $a$ such that $ax = y$? And what does it mean when you write $ax=y$ and $by=x~forall ~x,yin R$?
– Paul Frost
Nov 30 '18 at 18:19
So you define $x le y$ if there exists $a$ such that $ax = y$? And what does it mean when you write $ax=y$ and $by=x~forall ~x,yin R$?
– Paul Frost
Nov 30 '18 at 18:19
@Paul Frost $leq $ is a relation defined on $R$ such that $ forall~x, yin R,$ $ax=y $ whever $xleq y$ for some $ain R$. Now, to prove that the relation $leq$ is anti-symmetric, we have to assume that $xleq y$ and $yleq x$ and we need to show that $x=y$ using the relation as defined.
– gete
Nov 30 '18 at 18:32
@Paul Frost $leq $ is a relation defined on $R$ such that $ forall~x, yin R,$ $ax=y $ whever $xleq y$ for some $ain R$. Now, to prove that the relation $leq$ is anti-symmetric, we have to assume that $xleq y$ and $yleq x$ and we need to show that $x=y$ using the relation as defined.
– gete
Nov 30 '18 at 18:32
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
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
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3017510%2flet-r-be-an-idempotent-semiring-and-ax-y-and-by-x-forall-x-y-in-r-then%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3017510%2flet-r-be-an-idempotent-semiring-and-ax-y-and-by-x-forall-x-y-in-r-then%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
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
So you define $x le y$ if there exists $a$ such that $ax = y$? And what does it mean when you write $ax=y$ and $by=x~forall ~x,yin R$?
– Paul Frost
Nov 30 '18 at 18:19
@Paul Frost $leq $ is a relation defined on $R$ such that $ forall~x, yin R,$ $ax=y $ whever $xleq y$ for some $ain R$. Now, to prove that the relation $leq$ is anti-symmetric, we have to assume that $xleq y$ and $yleq x$ and we need to show that $x=y$ using the relation as defined.
– gete
Nov 30 '18 at 18:32