There’s not much coherent algebraic structure left with these “definitions.” If Ωx=ΩΩ=Ω then there is no multiplicative identity, hence no such thing as a multiplicative inverse.
What the fuck are you talking about? That’s incorrect as a matter of simple fact.
Associativity is a property possessed by a single operation, whereas distribution is a property possessed by pairs of operations. Non-associative algebras aren’t even generally ones that posses multiple operations, so how the hell do you think one implies the other?
Edit: actually, while we’re on it, your first comment was nonsense too; you don’t know what an identity is and you think that there’s no notion of inverses without an identity. While that’s generally the case there are exceptions like in Latin Squares, which describe the Cayley Tables of finite algebras for which every element can be operated with some other element to produce any one target element. In this way we can formulate a notion of “division” without using an identity.
There’s not much coherent algebraic structure left with these “definitions.” If Ωx=ΩΩ=Ω then there is no multiplicative identity, hence no such thing as a multiplicative inverse.
No; 1 is the multiplicative identity.
1Ω=Ω, and for all x in C 1x=x. Thus, 1 fulfills the definition of an identity.
1 = Ω0 = Ω(Ω + Ω) = ΩΩ + ΩΩ = Ω + Ω = 0
so distributivity is out or else 1 = 0
Correct; multiplying by Ω doesn’t distribute over addition.
Distributivity is a requirement for non associative algebras. So whatever structure is left is not one of those
What the fuck are you talking about? That’s incorrect as a matter of simple fact.
Associativity is a property possessed by a single operation, whereas distribution is a property possessed by pairs of operations. Non-associative algebras aren’t even generally ones that posses multiple operations, so how the hell do you think one implies the other?
Edit: actually, while we’re on it, your first comment was nonsense too; you don’t know what an identity is and you think that there’s no notion of inverses without an identity. While that’s generally the case there are exceptions like in Latin Squares, which describe the Cayley Tables of finite algebras for which every element can be operated with some other element to produce any one target element. In this way we can formulate a notion of “division” without using an identity.
Algebras have two operations by definition and the one thing they have in common is that the multiplication distributes over addition.
Yes, there is no notion of inverses without an identity, the definition of an inverse is in terms of an identity.
Stop posting.
Do you think a group isn’t an algebra? What, by your definitions make an “Algebra” different from a “Ring”?