The endomorphism structure on a free group thinks it's a "ring" without abelian $+$, but there's no way it could be a ring.

144 Views Asked by At

Let $G$ be a free group on a finite alphabet $A$, and $R = \text{End}(G)$. Then we can concatenate endmorphisms pointwise to get another one. But endomorphisms preserve concatenation so this must mean that $f \circ (g \cdot h) = (f\circ g) \cdot (f\circ h)$ and similarly for $(g\cdot h) \circ f$. But, the multiplicative identity would be $\text{id} \in R$, and for certain when $|A| \geq 2$, $G$ is not a commutative group.

So I don't know what is going on. I would like there to be some sort of ring-like structure, but this contradicts known observations.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

Then we can concatenate endmorphisms pointwise to get another one.

This is where you go wrong. You don’t necessarily get another one unless the group is commutative.

For suppose $f \cdot g$ is a group homomorphism. Then $(f(a) g(a))^{-1} = g(a)^{-1} f(a)^{-1}$ by the normal group laws, but because $f \cdot g$ is an endormorphism, we also have $(f(a) g(a))^{-1} = f(a^{-1}) g(a^{-1}) = f(a)^{-1} g(a)^{-1}$. Then we have that $f(a)$ and $g(a)$ commute for all $a$. Obviously, this is not true in general.

For an Abelian group, we do indeed get a not-necessarily-commutative unital ring.