
Re: 1 x 1 ?
Posted:
Sep 18, 1999 8:45 AM


Dale Henderson wrote:
> In article <937516347.13527.0.nnrp14.c2debf68@news.demon.co.uk>, > "Guillermo Phillips" <Guillermo.Phillips@marsman.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > Here's something I've always wondered (perhaps in my naivety). Why > > should 1 x 1 = 1? > > I appreciate that lots of nice things come from this, but what's the > > fundamental reason for it? > > > > Guillermo. > > > > > > I've seen a few proofs on this thread that make unfounded assumtions. > One assumes the uniqness of inverses and another assumes 0x=0.
<cut>
Well, we won't get far without "unfounded assumptions" will we? I assumed we were working in a ring in which my "unfounded assumptions" do hold.
<cut>I've tried to assume only the axioms of a Ring...

