Binary Operations
A binary operation on a set is a rule that takes any ordered pair and returns exactly one value , and that value lies in again. The requirement that the output never leaves is called closure.
Closure is easy to take for granted because familiar operations ( on numbers) usually have it, but it can fail the moment the set shrinks: subtraction leaves the positive integers, and division is not even defined at . Checking closure first saves effort, because an operation that is not a binary operation on cannot possibly make a group, so there is no point checking anything else. "Exactly one value" packs in two separate requirements: the rule must be defined for every pair (nothing missing) and must give a single, unambiguous answer (nothing doubled). The examples below fail one requirement or the other in different ways.
Let . On this is a binary operation: the difference of two integers is always an integer, e.g. . On the SAME formula is not a binary operation, because : the rule sends a pair of inputs from outside . Nothing about the formula changed — only the set it is asked to act on.
Write for the remainder when is divided by — the hour a clock with marks shows. Let on . Take : the ordinary sum is , and , so . To confirm closure for every pair, not just this one, note that a remainder on division by is always one of , so no sum can escape .
Operations do not have to be familiar ones. On define . Then and , while . It is a binary operation on : sums and products of integers are integers. Working with rules like this one is the best practice there is for the group axioms, because nothing can be checked by habit — every property has to be checked from the formula.
An operation is associative if for all , and commutative if for all . These are separate properties: an operation can have both, either one, or neither.
Associativity says that only the ORDER of the inputs matters, not how they are bracketed, so a chain has one meaning. Commutativity says the order of two inputs does not matter. Addition and multiplication of numbers have both. Subtraction has neither: but , and . The made-up operation above has both, which you can check by expanding: and both come out to .
Students sometimes reject a perfectly valid binary operation because , confusing being a binary operation with being commutative. Subtraction on is the cleanest example: but , two different values, yet is still a genuine binary operation on — closure only asks that each single output land in , not that swapping the inputs give the same output.
Is a binary operation on ? Check both requirements.
Show the answerHide the answer
Yes. It is defined for every pair of positive integers, since a gcd always exists, and it gives a single value, e.g. . It is also closed: the gcd of two positive integers is itself always a positive integer (at least , since divides every integer). So is a binary operation on .
The Group Axioms
is a group if is a binary operation on satisfying three further axioms: (associativity) for all ; (identity) there exists with for all ; (inverses) for every there exists with .
Associativity is what lets a long expression be written without parentheses at all — every way of grouping it gives the same answer. The identity is the do-nothing element: combining with it changes nothing. The inverse of is the element that undoes : combining the two gives back . Together they say every action in a group can be undone by an element of the same set. Closure was already required for a binary operation, so checking a candidate group costs exactly three more checks; the next section shows how to find and when the operation is unfamiliar.
is a group. Closure and associativity are familiar; the identity is since for every ; and every has the inverse , since , e.g. . Note that for addition the "inverse" is the negative — the word inverse always means "the element that gets you back to ", whatever is.
is NOT a group. Closure, associativity and the identity all hold, since for every , but the inverse axiom fails: would need an inverse with , and no integer satisfies this, since . One missing inverse is enough to disqualify the whole structure from being a group. (Enlarge the set to the nonzero rationals and the problem disappears: every has the inverse .)
Does under multiplication mod (multiply, then keep the remainder on division by ) form a group? Closure holds, since any remainder lies in the set, is the identity, and multiplication mod is associative. But checking inverses for : we need with . Checking all six values, — the value never appears. So has no inverse, and is not a group.
A group is abelian (after Niels Abel) if its operation is commutative: for all . A group in which at least one pair has is non-abelian. Commutativity is NOT one of the group axioms.
Every group met so far — under addition, the nonzero rationals under multiplication — is abelian, which makes it tempting to assume all groups are. They are not, and the most important groups in this course (symmetries, permutations) are non-abelian: turning a book over and then rotating it is not the same as rotating and then turning it over. The example below gives a small non-abelian group made of matrices; the general family it comes from is studied in the next topic.
Take matrices with determinant , multiplied the usual way (row of the left matrix times column of the right). Let and , both of determinant . Then while — different matrices from the same two inputs, multiplied in the opposite order. Determinant- matrices form a group under multiplication (identity , and every one has an inverse matrix), so this single pair proves the group is non-abelian.
Two different mistakes look alike here. One is assuming every group is abelian because the first examples are; the matrices above show that fails. The other is the reverse: thinking a group must be abelian because its identity commutes with everything. It does — always — but that says nothing about other pairs. To prove a group is non-abelian you need just one pair with ; to prove it is abelian you must cover every pair.
Is , the integers under subtraction, a group?
Show the answerHide the answer
No. Associativity already fails: but , two different values from the same three numbers, so parentheses cannot be dropped. (There is a right identity, , but no two-sided identity, since for ; that alone would already disqualify it.) The verdict: is not a group.
Identities and Inverses
To find the identity of an operation, solve for and check that the same works for EVERY and on both sides ( too). To find the inverse of a given , solve for and check as well. If the equation for has no solution inside the set, that element has no inverse and the set is not a group.
This is just algebra, but two details matter. First, the identity is one fixed element: an that depends on is not an identity. Second, both the identity and every inverse must lie in the set itself; an inverse that exists only outside the set does not count, which is exactly how failed. When the formula for an inverse has a denominator, some element usually makes that denominator zero — and that element has to be thrown out of the set, which is where descriptions like "" (the rationals with removed) come from.
On let . Identity: means , so , and indeed for every . Inverse of : means , so , which is an integer. For example : check . Every integer has an inverse, and the operation is associative (both groupings give ), so is a group whose identity is , not .
On the rationals let . Identity: gives for every , so . Inverse of : gives , so — which is undefined exactly when . And really has no inverse: for every , so combining with it can never reach . Removing it fixes everything. The key is the identity : if neither nor is , neither is , so is closed. For instance , and the check confirms it.
In under addition mod , the identity is and the inverse of is (and is its own inverse). In , because . Under multiplication the identity is , and the inverse of is the with : mod , because . The nonzero remainders mod a prime all have such inverses, so they form a group under multiplication, written ; mod they do not, as showed above.
A "one-sided" identity is not enough. On any set with at least two elements, the rule makes EVERY element a left identity ( for all ), yet there is no right identity: , which equals only when . Always test on both sides and against every element. A second slip: solving for the inverse and forgetting to check the answer lies in the set — solves , but it is not an integer.
On let . Find the identity, and the inverse of .
Show the answerHide the answer
Identity: gives , so . Inverse of : gives , so . Check: . So and .
First Consequences of the Axioms
From the four axioms alone one can prove: the identity is unique; each has only one inverse ; ; ; and the cancellation laws — and .
These are proved formally in "Why It Works" below, but the ideas are intuitive: an inverse undoes , so undoing twice returns itself; undoing a two-step action means undoing the LAST step first, like taking off shoes before socks, which is why the order flips in . Cancellation is why equations in a group behave like equations in ordinary algebra: multiplying both sides by is always legal, because every element has one. This is a genuine convenience numbers under multiplication do not always offer — mod , cancellation can fail, which is exactly why above was not a group.
In , the inverse of is , as found in the last section, since . By the same rule, the inverse of is whatever added to gives , namely , since . So — undoing the undo returns the original element, exactly as predicts.
Reuse the determinant- matrices , from the non-abelian example. Their inverses are and . Since , direct inversion gives . And — the same matrix, confirming .
In the group under multiplication mod , solve . Cancellation says we may multiply both sides by . We found in the last section, since . So . Check: .
The reversal in is the single most common slip in this topic — writing instead. With as above, , which is NOT — a different matrix, computed from the same two matrices in the wrong order.
Solve in by multiplying by the inverse of .
Show the answerHide the answer
Find : , so . Then . Check: . So .
Cayley Tables
A Cayley table lists the elements of a finite group along the top and side, with entry placed in row , column . Every row and every column contains each element of exactly once — the Latin square property. The table is symmetric about its main diagonal exactly when is abelian.
The Latin-square property is not a coincidence: fixing and letting range over , the map is injective by the left cancellation law proved above, and an injective map from a finite set to itself is also surjective — so row must hit every element of exactly once, and the same argument applies to columns. Symmetry about the diagonal says for every pair, which is literally the definition of abelian; a single mismatched pair anywhere in the table is enough to prove a group is not abelian, without checking any others. The row and column of the identity also tell you where to read off every inverse: the inverse of is whichever column in row holds the entry .
Build the table for under addition mod . For instance row , column : . The table is symmetric about its diagonal, confirming the group is abelian; the row and column of reproduce unchanged, confirming is the identity; and reading along row to find the entry shows it sits in column , so , matching .
Label the six permutations of by one-line notation: , , (the rotations), and , , (the three transpositions), composed as functions where means "apply , then ". Computing : , , , giving . The other order, : , , , giving . Since , : the table is NOT symmetric, so is not abelian.
From the table, find every element with . Testing the transpositions, each undoes itself: , , . Testing a rotation: sends , , , giving ; so is not its own inverse (its inverse is , since cycles back to ). The self-inverse elements of are exactly — four of the six elements.
Every row and column of the identity matches on both sides automatically, since is forced by the axioms whether or not is abelian, and some students conclude from that one well-behaved row that the whole table must be symmetric. It is not: the table above has reproducing the headers perfectly in its row and column, yet elsewhere in the very same table. Symmetry has to hold for EVERY pair, not just the pairs touching the identity.
Using the labeling above, find and , where and .
Show the answerHide the answer
Compute , applying then : , , , so sends , one-line . Now , applying then : , , , so sends , one-line . The two results are and — different, once again.
Why It Works
Suppose and are both identity elements of . Compute two ways: because is an identity, ; because is an identity, . Hence . A group has only one identity element, which is why it is legitimate to call it "the" identity and give it a single symbol.
Fix and suppose both satisfy and . Then , using associativity in the middle step and the defining equations on either side of it. So : every element of has exactly one inverse, which justifies the notation .
By definition, . Read from the point of view of , this equation says that satisfies the defining property of an inverse for . Since inverses are unique by the previous theorem, must be THE inverse of : .
Claim: , writing for . It suffices to check that satisfies the defining equation for the inverse of : , and symmetrically . Both equations hold, so by uniqueness of inverses, is THE inverse of .
Suppose for . Multiply both sides on the left by : . By associativity this is , so , so . The same argument multiplying on the right proves . The proof uses all three group axioms beyond closure — associativity, the identity, and inverses — together; drop any one and it breaks.
Fix and consider left multiplication , — this is row of the table, read left to right. If then , so by the left cancellation law: is injective. A map from a finite set to itself that is injective is automatically surjective, since it cannot miss an element without repeating one, so is a bijection of . That means row contains every element of exactly once. The identical argument with right multiplication, , shows every column is a permutation of too — the Latin-square property used without proof in the previous section.