17

The following identities are a consequence of the group axioms. $$(xy)y^{-1}=x,\quad y^{-1}(yx)=x$$ Notice we haven't mentioned an identity element, and that the above identities make sense even in the absence of associativity.

Is there any interest in the generalization of a group where these identities are taken as the sole axioms? The data would consist of

  • an underlying set
  • a law of composition
  • an inversion operator

Remark. These axioms allow us to solve simple equations. For example, in the additive group of integers we can argue as follows.$$x+3=4$$ $$\Rightarrow (x+3)+(-3)=4+(-3)$$ $$\Rightarrow x = 4+(-3)$$

rschwieb
  • 153,510
goblin GONE
  • 67,744
  • 2
    It's not the same, but maybe you shold look at loops, and at [Bol loops][1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bol_loop – Dennis Gulko May 16 '13 at 11:52
  • 2
    If inversion is proved/assumed to be involutive ($(x^{-1})^{-1}=x$), then your axioms define a quasigroup by $x\setminus y:=x^{-1}y$ and $x/y:=xy^{-1}$. (Perhaps also a loop, I don't see (yet) what happens with the unit..) – Berci May 16 '13 at 12:07
  • 3
    @Berci It is actually not all that difficult to show that $^{-1}$ is involutive, and also satisfies $(xy)^{-1}=y^{-1}x^{-1}$. I suggest someone who knows a thing or two about quasigroups puts up an answer. [Proof that inverse is involutive:$$(x^{-1})^{-1}=\left((x^{-1})^{-1}x\right)x^{-1}=\left((x^{-1})^{-1}\left(x^{-1}(xx)\right)\right)x^{-1}=(xx)x^{-1}=x.$$ ] – Karl Kroningfeld May 16 '13 at 12:21
  • Thanks. I guessed so, but I'm not that expert in nonassociative operations.. I guess, perhaps a similar argument can show that $x^{-1}x$ is a unit. – Berci May 16 '13 at 12:26
  • Sorry, I attempted an answer while overlooking the extra condition in the body. I'm adding the identities to the title. Interesting question! – rschwieb May 16 '13 at 13:38
  • @user1, so do we have a complete answer? Are the structures described in the main question precisely the quasigroups? – goblin GONE May 16 '13 at 15:46
  • @Berci, the above question is addressed to you also. – goblin GONE May 16 '13 at 15:47

1 Answers1

17

If for all $x,y \in G$, one has $(xy)y^{-1}=y^{-1}(yx)=x$, then $G$ is a special type of quasi-group that I'll call a SIP-quasigroup (“symmetric inverse property quasigroup”). However, there are quasi-groups without such inverse functions; I give an infinite family of examples due to Belousov that do have an inverse property (but not a symmetric one).

If you assume an identity, then you get exactly the IP-loops (“inverse property loops”) which are reasonably well studied.

All SIP-quasigroups are quasigroups

Lemma: ${(x^{-1})}^{-1}=x$ and $(xy^{-1})y = y(y^{-1}x) = x$

Proof: [by user1] $$\begin{array}{rl} (x^{-1})^{-1} &=\left((x^{-1})^{-1}x\right)x^{-1} \\ &=\left((x^{-1})^{-1}‌​\left(x^{-1}(xx)\right)\right)x^{-1} \\ &=(xx)x^{-1} \\ &=x \end{array}$$ Then substituting $y^{-1}$ instead of $y$ into the defining axioms one gets $x = (xy^{-1})(y^{-1})^{-1} = (xy^{-1}) y$ and similarly on the other side. $\square$

Proposition: $G$ is a quasi-group.

Proof: [by Berci] We need to show $ax=b$ and $ya=b$ have unique solutions $x,y \in G$. However, the defining axioms of a SIP-quasigroup give that $x=a^{-1}(ax) = a^{-1}(b)$ and $y=(ya)a^{-1} = (b)a^{-1}$, so those are the only possible solutions. Since $a(a^{-1}b) = b$ and $(ba^{-1})a=b$ by the lemma, these are in fact solutions, and $G$ is a quasi-group. $\square$

A special type of quasigroup are the IP-quasigroup (“inverse property quasigroups”). These are the quasigroups $G$ with functions $\lambda:G \to G$ and $\rho:G \to G$ such that $x^\lambda (xy) = (yx) {}^\rho x = y$. A loop with both those properties is called an IP-loop, and every IP-loop satisfies $x^\lambda = {}^\rho x$.

Proposition: Every SIP-quasigroup is an IP-quasigroup.

Proof: Simply take $x^\lambda = {}^\rho x = x^{-1}$.

But not all quasigroups are SIP-quasigroups

We give a family of examples of IP-quasigroups that are not SIP-quasigroups.

Let $A$ be an abelian group that has an element of order not 1 or 2, and define a multiplication on $G=A \times A$ by $(a_1,b_1) \cdot (a_2,b_2) = (a_1 + a_2, b_2-b_1)$. $G$ is a quasi-group (but not a loop) with both left and right inverse properties: define $x^\lambda = (-a,-b)$ and ${}^\rho x =(-a,b)$ so that $x^\lambda (xy) = (yx) {}^\rho x = y$.

Verifications:

  • $G$ is a quasi-group.

Proof: Let $a,b,c,d \in A$ and we try to uniquely solve $(a,b) \cdot(x,y) = (c,d)$. The left hand side is $(a+x,y-b)$ so the unique solution is $x=c-a$ and $y=b+d$. Hence $G$ is a quasi-group. $\square$

  • $G$ is not a loop.

Proof: Suppose by way of contradiction that $(x,y)$ is an identity. Then $(a,b) \cdot (x,y) = (a,b)$ implies $x=0$, $y=2b$, but this depends on $b$, so $(x,y)$ is not an identity. $\square$

  • $G$ satisfies the left and right inverse properties, so is an IP-quasigroup.

Proof: These are just calculations: $$(-a,-b) \cdot ( (a,b) \cdot (c,d) ) = (-a,-b) \cdot (a+c,d-b) = (-a+a+c,d-b-(-b)) = (c,d)$$ and $$((c,d) \cdot (a,b)) \cdot(-a,b) = (c+a,b-d) \cdot (-a,b) = (c+a-a,b-(b-d)) =(c,d). \square$$

  • $G$ does not satisfy the original questions axioms for any choice of $a^{-1}$.

Proof: The left and right inverses were uniquely determined. Set $(a,b)^{-1} = (x,y)$. Then $(a,b)^{-1} ( (a,b) \cdot (c,d) ) = (x,y) \cdot (a+c,d-b) = (x+a+c,d-b-y)$ so that $x=-a$ and $y=-b$. However, $((c,d) \cdot(a,b))\cdot(x,y) = (c+a,b-d) \cdot (x,y) = (c+a+x,y-(b-d))$ so that $x=-a$ and $y=b$. Unless $b=-b$, these differ. $\square$

  • $G$ is an IP-quasigroup that is not a SIP-quasigroup.

Proof: Since the left and right inverses are uniquely defined, the only way for $x^{-1}$ to exist is if the two inverse agree, but they disagree on any element $(a,b)$ with $b$ not of order 1 or 2. $\square$

A loop is a SIP-quasigroup iff IP-loop

If we assume the existence of an identity, then the SIP axioms become equivalent to the IP-loop axioms.

Proposition: For loops $G$, the following are equivalent: * $G$ is a SIP-quasigroup * $G$ is an IP-quasigroup * $G$ is an IP-loop

Proof: This is simply because in a loop $x^\lambda = {}^\rho x$ so that inverses are automatically symmetric. $\square$

SIP-quasigroup that is not a loop

While the axioms for a SIP-quasigroup with identity are equivalent to the standard notion of "IP-loop" or "loop with both left and right inverse properties", a SIP-quasigroup need not have an identity. For example:

$$\begin{array}{c|ccc} \times & 1 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline 1 & 1 & 3 & 2 \\ 2 & 3 & 2 & 1 \\ 3 & 2 & 1 & 3 \end{array}$$

In this quasi-group we have $x^2 = x$ and $xy=yx$ and $x^{-1}=x$ and $xy=z$ as long as $x,y,z$ are distinct (a so-called Steiner quasigroup). Hence it satisfies the original post's axioms, but has no identity.

Frequency of SIP-quasigroups

The multiplication table of a quasigroup is “Latin square” and if we sample uniformly at random from Latin squares we get one (amongst many) notion of frequency of quasigroups. Here are the observed frequencies after 10000 samples at each order:

$\begin{array}{c|rrrrrrrrrr} & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\ \hline Group & 100\% & 100\% & 25\% & 2\% & & & & & & \\ SIP-quasigroup & & & 25\% & 4\% & & & & & & \\ IP-quasigroup & & & 50\% & 8\% & & & & & & \\ RIP-quasigroup & & & & 44\% & 10\% & & & & & \\ quasigroup & & & & 42\% & 90\% & 100\% & 100\% & 100\% & 100\% & 100\% \\ \end{array}$

A quasigroup is counted only in the first line it qualifies, so that “SIP-quasigroup” here is short for “SIP-quasigroup that is not a group”. “RIP-quasigroup” normally stands for quasigroup with right inverse property, but I use it as shorthand for “quasigroup with right inverse property or left inverse property, but not both.” I don't report percentages less than 0.5%. In particular, loops that aren't groups never broke the 0.5% barrier.

Example quasigroups

Wikipedia has several examples of quasigroups, and it might be nice to know which ones are SIP-quasigroups. I consider groups under division, Steiner quasigroups, and Moufang loops.

Proposition: A group under division is a RIP-quasigroup. It is an IP-quasigroup iff it is a SIP-quasigroup iff the group is abelian. It is a loop iff it is an IP-loop iff the group is an elementary abelian 2-group.

Proof: Define $g\ast h = g h^{-1}$ then $a \ast x = b$ has unique solution $x=b^{-1}a$ and $y \ast a = b$ has unique solution $y=ba$, so $(G,\ast)$ is a quasigroup. Suppose that $x$ is an identity, then $g = x\ast g = xg^{-1}$ implies $x=g^2$ must be constant (and so equal to the identity of the group). If $x \ast (g \ast h) = h$, then solving for $x$ one gets $x=hgh^{-1}$ so that $(G,\ast)$ is a LIP-quasigroup iff $G$ is abelian, and then $x^\lambda = x$. If $(h \ast g ) \ast y = h$, then solving for $y$ one gets $y=g$ so that ${}^\rho g =g$ is always a right inverse. $\square$

Proposition: A Steiner quasigroup is a commutative, idempotent SIP-quasigroup that is not a loop.

Proof: If $x \neq y$, then there is a unique Steiner triple $\{x,y,z\}$ and $xy=yx = z$, so we get that $x(xy) = (yx)x = y$ since $xz=zx=y$. If $x=y$ then $x(xx) = xx = x$ since Steiner quasigroups are idempotent. Note that for any $x$, $xx=x$, but that there is a $y$ with $xy=z$ and $x,y,z$ distinct, so $x$ cannot be the identity. $\square$

Proposition: A Moufang loop is an IP-loop, so also a SIP-quasigroup.

Indeed Moufang loops are exactly the loops that remain IP-loops even after scrambling the rows, columns, and labels.

Jack Schmidt
  • 55,589
  • Jack, thank you for your comrehensive answer. I don't get the bit where you write "Secondly, if ... so the solutions are unique." It seems to me that uniqueness of solutions follows from your second (unlabeled) lemma, namely that $(xy^{-1})y=x$ and $y(y^{-1}x)=x$. – goblin GONE May 17 '13 at 01:35
  • @user18921: I just multiplied on the side by $a^{-1}$ to solve for $x$. It is true all of the calculations are iff, but I separated the "there exists a solution" from "there is at most one solution" in several places just to remind myself that both conclusions are important, even if they both could be proved in a single step. – Jack Schmidt May 17 '13 at 03:42
  • Oh I see. I think it would be clearer to change the first line (beginning with... Proof: As Berci said) with $\Rightarrow$ implications, rather than $\Leftarrow$ implications, if that makes sense. – goblin GONE May 17 '13 at 03:46
  • Jack, would it be fair to say that quasigroups that are non-SIP are in some sense "pathological"? In other words, would it be fair to say that most "natural" examples of quasigroups encountered in practice are also SIP-quasigroups? There's a list here at wikipedia of important examples, but my knowledge is too limited to decide whether most of the examples given are SIP-quasigroups. By the way, where did you get the name "SIP-quasigroup"? – goblin GONE May 17 '13 at 09:58
  • 1
    @user18921: fixed. SIP is my own name, based on IP, LIP, RIP, WIP, etc. I think non-SIPs are very common, but three nice families of quasigroups (Abelian groups under division, Steiner quasigroups, and Moufang loops) are always SIP. Nonabelian groups under division are not SIP. – Jack Schmidt May 17 '13 at 13:17
  • Hey if we instead assumed $(xy)y^\rho=x$ and $y^\lambda(yx)=x$, would this just be a Quasigroup? – goblin GONE May 18 '13 at 04:47
  • Modifying Berci's proof, we can show that, under these assumptions, the following hold. (i) $x^{\lambda\rho}=x$ and $x^{\rho\lambda}=x$. (ii) $(xy^\lambda) y=x$ and $y(y^\rho x)x = x$. – goblin GONE May 18 '13 at 05:53
  • Oh I see, you actually deal with that in your answer! – goblin GONE May 18 '13 at 05:58
  • I think I get it. Quasigroups (which have three binary operations, including $\setminus$ and $/$) are specialized by IP-quasigroups (by requiring the existence of $\lambda$ and $\rho$ such that $x^\lambda y = x\setminus y$ and $xy^\rho=x/y$) which are specialized by SIP-quasigroups (by requiring that $\lambda = \rho$) which are specialized by IP-loops (by requiring the existence of an identity) which are specialized by groups (by requiring associativity). Have I made any mistakes? – goblin GONE May 18 '13 at 06:12
  • @user18921: exactly right – Jack Schmidt May 18 '13 at 15:28