3
$\begingroup$

Let $(S,+,\cdot)$ be a semiring with or without 0 but necessarily with 1. Let $f: S \rightarrow S$ be defined by $f(k)=k+k$. What is the weakest possible extra assumption I need to make on $S$ so that $f$ is injective.

"Weak" will mean an assumption that achieves injectivity but does not imply the following sufficient condition, multiplicative cancellation: $\forall a,b,c \in S$, $a\cdot b=a\cdot c \Rightarrow b=c$. This is sufficient since

$$f(k)=f(k')$$ $$\Rightarrow k+k=k'+k'$$ $$\Rightarrow (1+1)k=(1+1)k'$$ $$\Rightarrow k=k'$$

by cancellation.

  • 2
    It's possible you mean "*given* $s\in S$ with $s=k+k$ for some $k$, what extra conditions on $S$ ensure there is no $k'\ne k$ for which $k'+k'=s$," *or* you could mean "what conditions on $S$ ensure that $f:S\to S:k\mapsto k+k$ is injective?" The former is anchored to some specific $s$: perhaps it could be that $f$ is not injective yet the preimage $f^{-1}(s)$ is a singleton set for some specific $s\in S$. While your question is explicitly the former, I figure it's also possible you want the latter.2012-05-21
  • 0
    Thanks for pointing that out, I want the latter and that's a nice way to state it.2012-05-21
  • 0
    Your question could be restated as: Give examples of "weak" conditions implying the (left) cancellation property for the element 2=1+1 in a semiring.2012-06-25

1 Answers 1