Multiplicative Inverse - Further Remarks

Further Remarks

If the multiplication is associative, an element x with a multiplicative inverse cannot be a zero divisor (meaning for some y, xy = 0 with neither x nor y equal to zero). To see this, it is sufficient to multiply the equation xy = 0 by the inverse of x (on the left), and then simplify using associativity. In the absence of associativity, the sedenions provide a counterexample.

The converse does not hold: an element which is not a zero divisor is not guaranteed to have a multiplicative inverse. Within Z, all integers except −1, 0, 1 provide examples; they are not zero divisors nor do they have inverses in Z. If the ring or algebra is finite, however, then all elements a which are not zero divisors do have a (left and right) inverse. For, first observe that the map ƒ(x) = ax must be injective: ƒ(x) = ƒ(y) implies x = y:

\begin{align} ax &= ay &\quad \rArr & \quad ax-ay = 0 \\ & &\quad \rArr &\quad a(x-y) = 0 \\ & &\quad \rArr &\quad x-y = 0 \\ & &\quad \rArr &\quad x = y. \end{align}

Distinct elements map to distinct elements, so the image consists of the same finite number of elements, and the map is necessarily surjective. Specifically, ƒ (namely multiplication by a) must map some element x to 1, ax = 1, so that x is an inverse for a.

The multiplicative inverse of a fraction is simply

Read more about this topic:  Multiplicative Inverse

Famous quotes containing the word remarks:

    “The general feeling was, and for a long time remained, that one had several children in order to keep just a few. As late as the seventeenth century . . . people could not allow themselves to become too attached to something that was regarded as a probable loss. This is the reason for certain remarks which shock our present-day sensibility, such as Montaigne’s observation, “I have lost two or three children in their infancy, not without regret, but without great sorrow.””
    —Philippe Ariés (20th century)

    “So, too, if, to our surprise, we should meet one of these morons whose remarks are so conspicuous a part of the folklore of the world of the radio—remarks made without using either the tongue or the brain, spouted much like the spoutings of small whales—we should recognize him as below the level of nature but not as below the level of the imagination.”
    —Wallace Stevens (1879–1955)