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:
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:
“I thought my razor was dull until I heard his speech and that reminds me of a story thats so dirty Im ashamed to think of it myself.”
—S.J. Perelman, U.S. screenwriter, Bert Kalmar, Harry Ruby, and Norman Z. McLeod. Groucho Marx, Horsefeathers, as a newly-appointed college president commenting on the remarks of Huxley Colleges outgoing president (1932)
“I begin, then, with some remarks about the meaning of a word. I think many persons now see all or part of what I shall say: but not all do, and there is a tendency to forget, or to get it slightly wrong. In so far as I am merely flogging the converted, I apologize to them.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)