Groups and the Group Axioms

Study Sheet

Groups and the Group Axioms

Binary operations, the four axioms, and the first theorems they imply

Binary Operations

Concept
Binary operation and closure

A binary operation on a set SS is a rule ∗* that takes any ordered pair a,b∈Sa,b\in S and returns exactly one value a∗ba*b, and that value lies in SS again. The requirement that the output never leaves SS is called closure.

Closure is easy to take for granted because familiar operations (+,−,×+,-,\times 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 00. Checking closure first saves effort, because an operation that is not a binary operation on SS cannot possibly make SS 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.

Example
Closed on one set, not on another

Let a∗b=a−ba*b=a-b. On Z\mathbb Z this is a binary operation: the difference of two integers is always an integer, e.g. 3−5=−2∈Z3-5=-2\in\mathbb Z. On N={0,1,2,…}\mathbb N=\{0,1,2,\ldots\} the SAME formula is not a binary operation, because 3−5=−2∉N3-5=-2\notin\mathbb N: the rule sends a pair of inputs from N\mathbb N outside N\mathbb N. Nothing about the formula changed — only the set it is asked to act on.

Example
A clock-arithmetic check

Write a mod na\bmod n for the remainder when aa is divided by nn — the hour a clock with nn marks shows. Let a∗b=(a+b) mod 5a*b=(a+b)\bmod5 on S={0,1,2,3,4}S=\{0,1,2,3,4\}. Take a=3,b=4a=3,b=4: the ordinary sum is 3+4=73+4=7, and 7 mod 5=27\bmod5=2, so 3∗4=2∈S3*4=2\in S. To confirm closure for every pair, not just this one, note that a remainder on division by 55 is always one of 0,1,2,3,40,1,2,3,4, so no sum can escape SS.

Example
A made-up operation

Operations do not have to be familiar ones. On Z\mathbb Z define a∗b=a+b+aba*b=a+b+ab. Then 2∗3=2+3+2⋅3=112*3=2+3+2\cdot3=11 and 3∗2=3+2+3⋅2=113*2=3+2+3\cdot2=11, while (−1)∗5=−1+5+(−1)⋅5=−1(-1)*5=-1+5+(-1)\cdot5=-1. It is a binary operation on Z\mathbb Z: 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.

Concept
Two properties an operation may have

An operation ∗* is associative if (a∗b)∗c=a∗(b∗c)(a*b)*c=a*(b*c) for all a,b,ca,b,c, and commutative if a∗b=b∗aa*b=b*a for all a,ba,b. 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 a∗b∗ca*b*c has one meaning. Commutativity says the order of two inputs does not matter. Addition and multiplication of numbers have both. Subtraction has neither: (5−3)−2=0(5-3)-2=0 but 5−(3−2)=45-(3-2)=4, and 5−3≠3−55-3\ne3-5. The made-up operation a∗b=a+b+aba*b=a+b+ab above has both, which you can check by expanding: (a∗b)∗c(a*b)*c and a∗(b∗c)a*(b*c) both come out to a+b+c+ab+ac+bc+abca+b+c+ab+ac+bc+abc.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

Students sometimes reject a perfectly valid binary operation because a∗b≠b∗aa*b\ne b*a, confusing being a binary operation with being commutative. Subtraction on Z\mathbb Z is the cleanest example: 5−3=25-3=2 but 3−5=−23-5=-2, two different values, yet −- is still a genuine binary operation on Z\mathbb Z — closure only asks that each single output land in Z\mathbb Z, not that swapping the inputs give the same output.

Try it
Try it: a binary operation?

Is a∗b=gcd⁡(a,b)a*b=\gcd(a,b) a binary operation on Z+={1,2,3,…}\mathbb Z^+=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}? Check both requirements.

Show 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. gcd⁡(12,18)=6\gcd(12,18)=6. It is also closed: the gcd of two positive integers is itself always a positive integer (at least 11, since 11 divides every integer). So a∗b=gcd⁡(a,b)a*b=\gcd(a,b) is a binary operation on Z+\mathbb Z^+.

The Group Axioms

Concept
The definition of a group

(G,∗)(G,*) is a group if ∗* is a binary operation on GG satisfying three further axioms: (associativity) (a∗b)∗c=a∗(b∗c)(a*b)*c=a*(b*c) for all a,b,c∈Ga,b,c\in G; (identity) there exists e∈Ge\in G with e∗a=a∗e=ae*a=a*e=a for all a∈Ga\in G; (inverses) for every a∈Ga\in G there exists a−1∈Ga^{-1}\in G with a∗a−1=a−1∗a=ea*a^{-1}=a^{-1}*a=e.

Associativity is what lets a long expression a∗b∗c∗da*b*c*d be written without parentheses at all — every way of grouping it gives the same answer. The identity ee is the do-nothing element: combining with it changes nothing. The inverse a−1a^{-1} of aa is the element that undoes aa: combining the two gives back ee. 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 ee and a−1a^{-1} when the operation is unfamiliar.

Example
The integers under addition

(Z,+)(\mathbb Z,+) is a group. Closure and associativity are familiar; the identity is e=0e=0 since 0+a=a+0=a0+a=a+0=a for every aa; and every aa has the inverse −a-a, since a+(−a)=0a+(-a)=0, e.g. 7+(−7)=07+(-7)=0. Note that for addition the "inverse" is the negative — the word inverse always means "the element that gets you back to ee", whatever ee is.

Example
The integers under multiplication fail

(Z,×)(\mathbb Z,\times) is NOT a group. Closure, associativity and the identity e=1e=1 all hold, since 1×a=a1\times a=a for every aa, but the inverse axiom fails: 22 would need an inverse x∈Zx\in\mathbb Z with 2x=12x=1, and no integer satisfies this, since x=12∉Zx=\tfrac12\notin\mathbb Z. 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 a≠0a\ne0 has the inverse 1a\tfrac1a.)

Example
Testing Z6\mathbb Z_6 under multiplication

Does {0,1,2,3,4,5}\{0,1,2,3,4,5\} under multiplication mod 66 (multiply, then keep the remainder on division by 66) form a group? Closure holds, since any remainder lies in the set, 11 is the identity, and multiplication mod 66 is associative. But checking inverses for 22: we need xx with 2x≡1(mod6)2x\equiv1\pmod6. Checking all six values, 2⋅0,2⋅1,…,2⋅5≡0,2,4,0,2,4(mod6)2\cdot0,2\cdot1,\ldots,2\cdot5\equiv0,2,4,0,2,4\pmod6 — the value 11 never appears. So 22 has no inverse, and (Z6,×)(\mathbb Z_6,\times) is not a group.

Concept
Abelian groups

A group is abelian (after Niels Abel) if its operation is commutative: a∗b=b∗aa*b=b*a for all a,b∈Ga,b\in G. A group in which at least one pair has a∗b≠b∗aa*b\ne b*a is non-abelian. Commutativity is NOT one of the group axioms.

Every group met so far — Z\mathbb Z 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 2×22\times2 matrices; the general family it comes from is studied in the next topic.

Example
A non-abelian example

Take 2×22\times2 matrices with determinant 11, multiplied the usual way (row of the left matrix times column of the right). Let A=(1101)A=\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{pmatrix} and B=(1011)B=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\1&1\end{pmatrix}, both of determinant 11. Then AB=(2111)AB=\begin{pmatrix}2&1\\1&1\end{pmatrix} while BA=(1112)BA=\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\1&2\end{pmatrix} — different matrices from the same two inputs, multiplied in the opposite order. Determinant-11 matrices form a group under multiplication (identity I=(1001)I=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}, and every one has an inverse matrix), so this single pair proves the group is non-abelian.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

Two different mistakes look alike here. One is assuming every group is abelian because the first examples are; the matrices A,BA,B above show that fails. The other is the reverse: thinking a group must be abelian because its identity commutes with everything. It does — e∗a=a∗ee*a=a*e always — but that says nothing about other pairs. To prove a group is non-abelian you need just one pair with a∗b≠b∗aa*b\ne b*a; to prove it is abelian you must cover every pair.

Try it
Try it: is this a group?

Is (Z,−)(\mathbb Z,-), the integers under subtraction, a group?

Show the answer

No. Associativity already fails: (5−3)−2=0(5-3)-2=0 but 5−(3−2)=45-(3-2)=4, two different values from the same three numbers, so parentheses cannot be dropped. (There is a right identity, a−0=aa-0=a, but no two-sided identity, since 0−a=−a≠a0-a=-a\ne a for a≠0a\ne0; that alone would already disqualify it.) The verdict: (Z,−)(\mathbb Z,-) is not a group.

Identities and Inverses

Concept
How to find them

To find the identity of an operation, solve a∗e=aa*e=a for ee and check that the same ee works for EVERY aa and on both sides (e∗a=ae*a=a too). To find the inverse of a given aa, solve a∗x=ea*x=e for xx and check x∗a=ex*a=e as well. If the equation for xx 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 ee that depends on aa 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 (Z,×)(\mathbb Z,\times) 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 "Q∖{−13}\mathbb Q\setminus\{-\tfrac13\}" (the rationals with −13-\tfrac13 removed) come from.

Example
A shifted addition

On Z\mathbb Z let a∗b=a+b−1a*b=a+b-1. Identity: a∗e=aa*e=a means a+e−1=aa+e-1=a, so e=1e=1, and indeed 1∗a=1+a−1=a1*a=1+a-1=a for every aa. Inverse of aa: a∗x=1a*x=1 means a+x−1=1a+x-1=1, so x=2−ax=2-a, which is an integer. For example 5−1=−35^{-1}=-3: check 5∗(−3)=5−3−1=1=e5*(-3)=5-3-1=1=e. Every integer has an inverse, and the operation is associative (both groupings give a+b+c−2a+b+c-2), so (Z,∗)(\mathbb Z,*) is a group whose identity is 11, not 00.

Example
Why −13-\tfrac13 has to go

On the rationals let a∗b=a+b+3aba*b=a+b+3ab. Identity: a+e+3ae=aa+e+3ae=a gives e(1+3a)=0e(1+3a)=0 for every aa, so e=0e=0. Inverse of aa: a+x+3ax=0a+x+3ax=0 gives x(1+3a)=−ax(1+3a)=-a, so a−1=−a1+3aa^{-1}=\dfrac{-a}{1+3a} — which is undefined exactly when a=−13a=-\tfrac13. And −13-\tfrac13 really has no inverse: −13∗b=−13+b−b=−13-\tfrac13*b=-\tfrac13+b-b=-\tfrac13 for every bb, so combining with it can never reach 00. Removing it fixes everything. The key is the identity 1+3(a∗b)=(1+3a)(1+3b)1+3(a*b)=(1+3a)(1+3b): if neither 1+3a1+3a nor 1+3b1+3b is 00, neither is 1+3(a∗b)1+3(a*b), so Q∖{−13}\mathbb Q\setminus\{-\tfrac13\} is closed. For instance 2−1=−272^{-1}=\dfrac{-2}{7}, and the check 2∗(−27)=2−27−127=02*\left(-\tfrac27\right)=2-\tfrac27-\tfrac{12}{7}=0 confirms it.

Example
Inverses in clock arithmetic

In Zn={0,1,…,n−1}\mathbb Z_n=\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\} under addition mod nn, the identity is 00 and the inverse of aa is n−an-a (and 00 is its own inverse). In Z12\mathbb Z_{12}, 5−1=75^{-1}=7 because 5+7=12≡0(mod12)5+7=12\equiv0\pmod{12}. Under multiplication the identity is 11, and the inverse of aa is the xx with ax≡1ax\equiv1: mod 1111, 7−1=87^{-1}=8 because 7⋅8=56=5⋅11+17\cdot8=56=5\cdot11+1. The nonzero remainders mod a prime pp all have such inverses, so they form a group under multiplication, written U(p)U(p); mod 66 they do not, as 22 showed above.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

A "one-sided" identity is not enough. On any set with at least two elements, the rule a∗b=ba*b=b makes EVERY element a left identity (e∗b=be*b=b for all bb), yet there is no right identity: a∗e=ea*e=e, which equals aa only when a=ea=e. Always test ee on both sides and against every element. A second slip: solving for the inverse and forgetting to check the answer lies in the set — 12\tfrac12 solves 2x=12x=1, but it is not an integer.

Try it
Try it: an identity and an inverse

On Q∖{−1}\mathbb Q\setminus\{-1\} let a∗b=a+b+aba*b=a+b+ab. Find the identity, and the inverse of 33.

Show the answer

Identity: a+e+ae=aa+e+ae=a gives e(1+a)=0e(1+a)=0, so e=0e=0. Inverse of 33: 3+x+3x=03+x+3x=0 gives 4x=−34x=-3, so 3−1=−343^{-1}=-\tfrac34. Check: 3∗(−34)=3−34−94=3−3=03*\left(-\tfrac34\right)=3-\tfrac34-\tfrac94=3-3=0. So e=0e=\mathbf{0} and 3−1=−343^{-1}=\mathbf{-\tfrac34}.

First Consequences of the Axioms

Concept
Five quick theorems

From the four axioms alone one can prove: the identity ee is unique; each aa has only one inverse a−1a^{-1}; (a−1)−1=a(a^{-1})^{-1}=a; (ab)−1=b−1a−1(ab)^{-1}=b^{-1}a^{-1}; and the cancellation laws — ax=ay⇒x=yax=ay\Rightarrow x=y and xa=ya⇒x=yxa=ya\Rightarrow x=y.

These are proved formally in "Why It Works" below, but the ideas are intuitive: an inverse undoes aa, so undoing twice returns aa 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 (ab)−1=b−1a−1(ab)^{-1}=b^{-1}a^{-1}. Cancellation is why equations in a group behave like equations in ordinary algebra: multiplying both sides by a−1a^{-1} is always legal, because every element has one. This is a genuine convenience numbers under multiplication do not always offer — mod 66, cancellation can fail, which is exactly why (Z6,×)(\mathbb Z_6,\times) above was not a group.

Example
Undoing an inverse

In (Z12,+)(\mathbb Z_{12},+), the inverse of 55 is 77, as found in the last section, since 5+7=12≡0(mod12)5+7=12\equiv0\pmod{12}. By the same rule, the inverse of 77 is whatever added to 77 gives 0(mod12)0\pmod{12}, namely 55, since 7+5=12≡0(mod12)7+5=12\equiv0\pmod{12}. So (5−1)−1=7−1=5(5^{-1})^{-1}=7^{-1}=5 — undoing the undo returns the original element, exactly as (a−1)−1=a(a^{-1})^{-1}=a predicts.

Example
Socks and shoes with matrices

Reuse the determinant-11 matrices A=(1101)A=\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{pmatrix}, B=(1011)B=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\1&1\end{pmatrix} from the non-abelian example. Their inverses are A−1=(1−101)A^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}1&-1\\0&1\end{pmatrix} and B−1=(10−11)B^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\-1&1\end{pmatrix}. Since AB=(2111)AB=\begin{pmatrix}2&1\\1&1\end{pmatrix}, direct inversion gives (AB)−1=(1−1−12)(AB)^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}1&-1\\-1&2\end{pmatrix}. And B−1A−1=(10−11)(1−101)=(1−1−12)B^{-1}A^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\-1&1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1&-1\\0&1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1&-1\\-1&2\end{pmatrix} — the same matrix, confirming (AB)−1=B−1A−1(AB)^{-1}=B^{-1}A^{-1}.

Example
Solving a congruence by canceling

In the group U(11)={1,…,10}U(11)=\{1,\ldots,10\} under multiplication mod 1111, solve 7x≡3(mod11)7x\equiv3\pmod{11}. Cancellation says we may multiply both sides by 7−17^{-1}. We found 7−1=87^{-1}=8 in the last section, since 7⋅8=56≡1(mod11)7\cdot8=56\equiv1\pmod{11}. So x≡8⋅3=24≡2(mod11)x\equiv8\cdot3=24\equiv2\pmod{11}. Check: 7⋅2=14≡3(mod11)7\cdot2=14\equiv3\pmod{11}.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

The reversal in (ab)−1=b−1a−1(ab)^{-1}=b^{-1}a^{-1} is the single most common slip in this topic — writing (ab)−1=a−1b−1(ab)^{-1}=a^{-1}b^{-1} instead. With A,BA,B as above, A−1B−1=(1−101)(10−11)=(2−1−11)A^{-1}B^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}1&-1\\0&1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\-1&1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}2&-1\\-1&1\end{pmatrix}, which is NOT (AB)−1=(1−1−12)(AB)^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}1&-1\\-1&2\end{pmatrix} — a different matrix, computed from the same two matrices in the wrong order.

Try it
Try it: cancel to solve

Solve 5x≡4(mod7)5x\equiv4\pmod7 in U(7)U(7) by multiplying by the inverse of 55.

Show the answer

Find 5−1(mod7)5^{-1}\pmod7: 5⋅3=15≡1(mod7)5\cdot3=15\equiv1\pmod7, so 5−1=35^{-1}=3. Then x≡3⋅4=12≡5(mod7)x\equiv3\cdot4=12\equiv5\pmod7. Check: 5⋅5=25≡4(mod7)5\cdot5=25\equiv4\pmod7. So x≡5(mod7)x\equiv\mathbf{5}\pmod7.

Cayley Tables

Concept
Reading a group from its table

A Cayley table lists the elements of a finite group along the top and side, with entry (i,j)=ai∗aj(i,j)=a_i*a_j placed in row aia_i, column aja_j. Every row and every column contains each element of GG exactly once — the Latin square property. The table is symmetric about its main diagonal exactly when GG is abelian.

The Latin-square property is not a coincidence: fixing aa and letting xx range over GG, the map x↦a∗xx\mapsto a*x is injective by the left cancellation law proved above, and an injective map from a finite set to itself is also surjective — so row aa must hit every element of GG exactly once, and the same argument applies to columns. Symmetry about the diagonal says ai∗aj=aj∗aia_i*a_j=a_j*a_i 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 aa is whichever column in row aa holds the entry ee.

Example
The table for Z4\mathbb Z_4 under addition
·012300123112302230133012
Addition mod 4: a symmetric table, so the group is abelian.

Build the table for {0,1,2,3}\{0,1,2,3\} under addition mod 44. For instance row 22, column 33: 2+3=5≡1(mod4)2+3=5\equiv1\pmod4. The table is symmetric about its diagonal, confirming the group is abelian; the row and column of 00 reproduce 0,1,2,30,1,2,3 unchanged, confirming 00 is the identity; and reading along row 33 to find the entry 00 shows it sits in column 11, so 3−1=13^{-1}=1, matching 3+1=4≡0(mod4)3+1=4\equiv0\pmod4.

Example
The table for S3S_3 is not symmetric
\*123231312213321132123123231312213321132231231312123321132213312312123231132213321213213132321123312231321321213132231123312132132321213312231123
The S_3 table: off the identity row and column, entries are not symmetric.

Label the six permutations of {1,2,3}\{1,2,3\} by one-line notation: e=123e=123, r=231r=231, r2=312r^2=312 (the rotations), and s=213s=213, t=321t=321, u=132u=132 (the three transpositions), composed as functions where x∗yx*y means "apply yy, then xx". Computing r∗sr*s: 1↦r(s(1))=r(2)=31\mapsto r(s(1))=r(2)=3, 2↦r(s(2))=r(1)=22\mapsto r(s(2))=r(1)=2, 3↦r(s(3))=r(3)=13\mapsto r(s(3))=r(3)=1, giving r∗s=321=tr*s=321=t. The other order, s∗rs*r: 1↦s(r(1))=s(2)=11\mapsto s(r(1))=s(2)=1, 2↦s(r(2))=s(3)=32\mapsto s(r(2))=s(3)=3, 3↦s(r(3))=s(1)=23\mapsto s(r(3))=s(1)=2, giving s∗r=132=us*r=132=u. Since t≠ut\ne u, r∗s≠s∗rr*s\ne s*r: the table is NOT symmetric, so S3S_3 is not abelian.

Example
Which elements are their own inverse?

From the S3S_3 table, find every element xx with x∗x=ex*x=e. Testing the transpositions, each undoes itself: s∗s=es*s=e, t∗t=et*t=e, u∗u=eu*u=e. Testing a rotation: r∗rr*r sends 1↦r(r(1))=r(2)=31\mapsto r(r(1))=r(2)=3, 2↦r(r(2))=r(3)=12\mapsto r(r(2))=r(3)=1, 3↦r(r(3))=r(1)=23\mapsto r(r(3))=r(1)=2, giving r∗r=312=r2≠er*r=312=r^2\ne e; so rr is not its own inverse (its inverse is r2r^2, since r∗r2r*r^2 cycles back to ee). The self-inverse elements of S3S_3 are exactly {e,s,t,u}\{e,s,t,u\} — four of the six elements.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

Every row and column of the identity ee matches on both sides automatically, since e∗a=a∗e=ae*a=a*e=a is forced by the axioms whether or not GG is abelian, and some students conclude from that one well-behaved row that the whole table must be symmetric. It is not: the S3S_3 table above has ee reproducing the headers perfectly in its row and column, yet r∗s≠s∗rr*s\ne s*r elsewhere in the very same table. Symmetry has to hold for EVERY pair, not just the pairs touching the identity.

Try it
Try it: read two entries

Using the S3S_3 labeling above, find s∗r2s*r^2 and r2∗sr^2*s, where s=213s=213 and r2=312r^2=312.

Show the answer

Compute s∗r2s*r^2, applying r2r^2 then ss: 1↦3↦31\mapsto3\mapsto3, 2↦1↦22\mapsto1\mapsto2, 3↦2↦13\mapsto2\mapsto1, so s∗r2s*r^2 sends 1↦3,2↦2,3↦11\mapsto3,2\mapsto2,3\mapsto1, one-line 321=t321=t. Now r2∗sr^2*s, applying ss then r2r^2: 1↦2↦11\mapsto2\mapsto1, 2↦1↦32\mapsto1\mapsto3, 3↦3↦23\mapsto3\mapsto2, so r2∗sr^2*s sends 1↦1,2↦3,3↦21\mapsto1,2\mapsto3,3\mapsto2, one-line 132=u132=u. The two results are s∗r2=t\mathbf{s*r^2=t} and r2∗s=u\mathbf{r^2*s=u} — different, once again.

Why It Works

Suppose ee and ff are both identity elements of GG. Compute e∗fe*f two ways: because ff is an identity, e∗f=ee*f=e; because ee is an identity, e∗f=fe*f=f. Hence e=fe=f. 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 a∈Ga\in G and suppose b,c∈Gb,c\in G both satisfy a∗b=b∗a=ea*b=b*a=e and a∗c=c∗a=ea*c=c*a=e. Then b=b∗e=b∗(a∗c)=(b∗a)∗c=e∗c=cb=b*e=b*(a*c)=(b*a)*c=e*c=c, using associativity in the middle step and the defining equations on either side of it. So b=cb=c: every element of GG has exactly one inverse, which justifies the notation a−1a^{-1}.

By definition, a∗a−1=a−1∗a=ea*a^{-1}=a^{-1}*a=e. Read from the point of view of a−1a^{-1}, this equation says that aa satisfies the defining property of an inverse for a−1a^{-1}. Since inverses are unique by the previous theorem, aa must be THE inverse of a−1a^{-1}: (a−1)−1=a(a^{-1})^{-1}=a.

Claim: (ab)−1=b−1a−1(ab)^{-1}=b^{-1}a^{-1}, writing abab for a∗ba*b. It suffices to check that b−1a−1b^{-1}a^{-1} satisfies the defining equation for the inverse of abab: (ab)(b−1a−1)=a(bb−1)a−1=a e a−1=aa−1=e(ab)(b^{-1}a^{-1})=a(bb^{-1})a^{-1}=a\,e\,a^{-1}=aa^{-1}=e, and symmetrically (b−1a−1)(ab)=b−1(a−1a)b=b−1eb=b−1b=e(b^{-1}a^{-1})(ab)=b^{-1}(a^{-1}a)b=b^{-1}eb=b^{-1}b=e. Both equations hold, so by uniqueness of inverses, b−1a−1b^{-1}a^{-1} is THE inverse of abab.

Suppose ax=ayax=ay for a,x,y∈Ga,x,y\in G. Multiply both sides on the left by a−1a^{-1}: a−1(ax)=a−1(ay)a^{-1}(ax)=a^{-1}(ay). By associativity this is (a−1a)x=(a−1a)y(a^{-1}a)x=(a^{-1}a)y, so ex=eyex=ey, so x=yx=y. The same argument multiplying on the right proves xa=ya⇒x=yxa=ya\Rightarrow x=y. The proof uses all three group axioms beyond closure — associativity, the identity, and inverses — together; drop any one and it breaks.

Fix a∈Ga\in G and consider left multiplication La:G→GL_a:G\to G, La(x)=a∗xL_a(x)=a*x — this is row aa of the table, read left to right. If La(x)=La(y)L_a(x)=L_a(y) then ax=ayax=ay, so x=yx=y by the left cancellation law: LaL_a 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 LaL_a is a bijection of GG. That means row aa contains every element of GG exactly once. The identical argument with right multiplication, Ra(x)=x∗aR_a(x)=x*a, shows every column is a permutation of GG too — the Latin-square property used without proof in the previous section.