Skip to content
← All questions

Why can the scalar system be a ring instead of a field in the module definition?

The scalar system can be a ring because the standard axioms for scalar multiplication do not rely on the commutativity of scalar multiplication or the existence of multiplicative inverses for non-zero scalars. By dropping these field-specific requirements, the same structural definition applies to rings, yielding the concept of a module.

Conditions

  • The scalar set is a ring R.
  • The same scalar-multiplication axioms (identity, associativity, distributivity) are imposed.

Reasoning, step by step

  1. Review the vector space definition, which requires a field of scalars.
  2. Identify the specific axioms used for scalar multiplication: 1m=m1m=m, (r1r2)m=r1(r2m)(r_1r_2)m=r_1(r_2m), and the distributive laws.
  3. Observe that none of these axioms require scalar multiplication to be commutative.
  4. Observe that none of these axioms require every non-zero scalar to have an inverse.
  5. Conclude that the definition remains valid if the scalars form a ring, creating a module.

Example

The lecturer explicitly states that 'you didn't really need to know that the multiplication inside the field was commutative' and 'you didn't need to know that every non-zero element ... has an inverse,' allowing the board to change the scalar setting from a field to `R = ring`.

Common misconceptions

  • Assuming the scalar system must be a field because vector spaces are defined over fields.
  • Thinking that the distributive laws require the scalars to commute with each other.

Watch the explanation

YouTubeModules

Connected concepts

Explore next

Related questions

Understand why

↗
Meet the concept

↗
Meet the concept

↗
Know when to use it

↗
Understand why

↗

Answers are generated from source material and independently checked. Consult the original video or creator if something is unclear.