See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267164912

On B-algebras

Article · January 2002

CITATIONS READS
16 3,678

2 authors:

J. Neggers Hee Sik Kim

University of Alabama Hanyang University
127 PUBLICATIONS   1,258 CITATIONS    246 PUBLICATIONS   2,175 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fibonacci Theory View project

NeutroAlgebra & AntiAlgebra View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J. Neggers on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MATEMATIQKI VESNIK UDK 512.552
54 (2002), 21{29 originalni nauqni rad
research paper

ON B-ALGEBRAS
J. Neggers and Hee Sik Kim

Abstract. In this paper we introduce and investigate a class of algebras which is related to
several classes of algebras of interest such as BCH=BCI=BCK -algebras and which seems to have
rather nice properties without being excessively complicated otherwise. Furthermore, a digraph
on algebras dened below demonstrates a rather interesting connection between B -algebras and
groups.

1. Introduction
Y. Imai and K. Iseki introduced two classes of abstract algebras: BCK -
algebras and BCI -algebras (4, 5]). It is known that the class of BCK -algebras
is a proper subclass of the class of BCI -algebras. In 2, 3] Q. P. Hu and X. Li
introduced a wide class of abstract algebras: BCH -algebras. They have shown
that the class of BCI -algebras is a proper subclass of the class of BCH -algebras.
The present authors (8]) introduced the notion of d-algebras, i.e., (I) x
x = 0
(V) 0
x = 0 (VI) x
y = 0 and y
x = 0 imply x = y, which is another useful gen-
eralization of BCK -algebras, and then they investigated several relations between
d-algebras and BCK -algebras as well as some other interesting relations between
d-algebras and oriented digraphs. Recently, Y. B. Jun, E. H. Roh and H. S. Kim
(6]) introduced a new notion, called an BH -algebra, i.e., (I), (II) x
0 = x and
(VI), which is a generalization of BCH=BCI=BCK -algebras. They also dened
the notions of ideals and boundedness in BH -algebras, and showed that there is a
maximal ideal in bounded BH -algebras. In this paper we introduce and investigate
a class of algebras which is related to several classes of algebras of interest such as
BCH=BCI=BCK -algebras and which seems to have rather nice properties without
being excessively complicated otherwise. Furthermore, a digraph on algebras de-
ned below demonstrates a rather interesting connection between B -algebras and
groups.

AMS Subject Classi
cation : 06 F 35

Keywords and phrases : B -algebra, commutative, derived algebra.

21
22 J. Neggers, Hee Sik Kim
2. B -algebras
A B -algebra is a non-empty set X with a constant 0 and a binary operation
\
" satisfying the following axioms:
(I) x
x = 0,
(II) x
0 = x,
(III) (x
y)
z = x
(z
(0
y))
for all x y z in X .
Example 2.1. Let X := f0 1 2g be a set with the following table:

0 1 2
0 0 2 1
1 1 0 2
2 2 1 0
Then (X :
 0) is a B -algebra.
Example 2.2. Let X be the set of all real numbers except for a negative
integer ;n. Dene a binary operation
on X by
x
y := n(nx+;yy) :
Then (X 
 0) is a B -algebra.
Example 2.3. Let X := f0 1 2 3 4 5g be a set with the following table:

0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 2 1 3 4 5
1 1 0 2 4 5 3
2 2 1 0 5 3 4
3 3 4 5 0 2 1
4 4 5 3 1 0 2
5 5 3 4 2 1 0
Then (X 
 0) is a B -algebra (see 10]).
Example 2.4. Let F hx y z i be the free group on three elements. Dene
u
v := vuv;2 . Thus u
u = e and u
e = u. Also e
u = u;1. Now, given
a b c 2 F hx y z i, let
w(a b c) = ((a
b)
c)(a
(c
(e
b));1
= (cbab;2 c;2 )(b;1 cb2 a;1 cbcb2);1
= cbab;2 c;2 b;2c;1 b;1 c;1 ba;1 b;2 c;1 b:
 On B-algebras 23
Let N (
) be the normal subgroup of F hx y z i generated by the elements w(a b c).
Let G = F hx y z i=N (
). On G dene the operation \" as usual and dene
(uN (
))
(vN (
)) := (u
v)N (
):
It follows that (uN (
))
(uN (
)) = eN (
), (uN (
))
(eN (
)) = uN (
) and
w(aN (
) bN (
) cN (
)) = w(a b c)N (
) = eN (
):
Hence (G
 eN (
)) is a B -algebra.
If we let y := x in (III), then we have
(x
x)
z = x
(z
(0
x)): (a)
If we let z := x in (a), then we obtain also
0
x = x
(x
(0
x)): (b)
Using (I) and (a), it follows that
0 = x
(0
(0
x)): (c)
We observe that the three axioms (I), (II) and (III) are independent. Let
X := f0 1 2g be a set with the following left table:

0 1 2
0 1 2
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
2 0 1 0 2 2 1 2
Then the axioms (I) and (III) hold, but not (II), since 2
0 = 0 6= 2.
Similarly, the set X := f0 1 2g with the above right table satises the axioms
(II), (III), but not (I), since 1
1 = 1 6= 0. Let X := f0 1 2 3g be a set with the
following table:

0 1 2 3
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0
2 2 0 0 1
3 3 0 0 0
Then (X 
 0) satises the axioms (I), (II), but not (III), since (2
3)
0 = 1 6= 2 =
2
(0
(0
3)).
24 J. Neggers, Hee Sik Kim
Lemma 2.5. If (X 
 0) is a B -algebra, then y
z = y
(0
(0
z )) for any
y z 2 X .
Proof. This follows from the axioms (II) and (III), i.e.,
y
z = (y
z )
0 by (II)]
= y
(0
(0
z )): by (III)]
Lemma 2.6. If (X
 0) is a B -algebra then (x
y)
(0
y) = x for any x y 2 X .
Proof. From axiom (III) with z = 0
y we nd that
(x
y)
(0
y) = x
((0
y)
(0
y)):
Hence axiom (I) yields
(x
y)
(0
y) = x
0
so that from axiom (II) it follows that (x
y)
(0
y) = x as claimed.
Lemma 2.7. If (X
 0) is a B -algebra then x
z = y
z implies x = y for any
x y z 2 X .
Proof. If x
z = y
z , then (x
z )
(0
z ) = (y
z )
(0
z ) and thus by Lemma
2.6 it follows that x = y.
Proposition 2.8. If (X 
 0) is a B -algebra, then
x
(y
z ) = (x
(0
z ))
y (IV)
for any x y z 2 X .
Proof. Using Lemma 2.5 and (II) we obtain:
(x
(0
z ))
y = x
(y
(0
(0
z ))) by (II)]
= x
(y
z )): by Lemma 2.5]
Lemma 2.9 Let (X 
 0) be a B -algebra. Then for any x y 2 X ,
(i) x
y = 0 implies x = y,
(ii) 0
x = 0
y implies x = y,
(iii) 0
(0
x) = x.
Proof. (i) Since x
y = 0 implies x
y = y
y, by Lemma 2.7, it follows that
x = y.
(ii) If 0
x = 0
y, then 0 = x
x = (x
x)
0 = x
(0
(0
x)) =
x
(0
(0
y)) = (x
y)
0 = x
y, and thus by (i), x = y.
(iii) For any x 2 X , we obtain 0
x = (0
x)
0 = 0
(0
(0
x)) by axioms
(II) and (III). By (ii) it follows that x = 0
(0
x) as claimed.
Note that Lemma 2.9 is proven in 1] based on Lemmas 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and
Proposition 2.8 above.
 On B-algebras 25
Let (X 
 0) be a B -algebra and let g 2 X . Dene gn := gn;1
(0
g) (n  1)
and g0 := 0. Note that g1 = g0
(0
g) = 0
(0
g) = g by Lemma 2.9.
Lemma 2.10. Let (X 
 0) be a B -algebra and let g 2 X . Then gn
gm = gn;m
where n  m.
Proof. If X is a B -algebra then note that by Lemma 2.9 it follows that g2
g =
(g
(0
g))
g = (g
(0
g))
g = g
(g
(0
(0
g))) = g
(g
g) = g
0 = g:
1
Assume that gn+1
g = gn (n  1). Then
gn+2
g = (gn+1
(0
g))
g
= gn+1
(g
(0
(0
g))) by (III)]
n
= g
0:
+1
by (c)]
n
=g :+1
by (II)]
n
Assume g
g = gm n ; m where n ; m  1. Then
gn
gm+1 = (gn
(gm
(0
g))
= (gn
g)
gm by (III)]
n;
=g
g 1 m
= gn;(m+1) since n ; m ; 1  0]
proving the lemma.
Lemma 2.11. Let (X 
 0) be a B -algebra and let g 2 X . Then gm
gn =
0
g ;m where n > m.
n
Proof. If X is a B -algebra then, by applying (III), (I) and Lemma 2.9, we have
g
g2 = g
(g1
(0
g)) = (g
g)
g1 = 0
g: Assume that g
gn = gn;1 where
(n  1). Then
g
gn+1 = g
(gn
(0
g))
= (g
g)
gn by (III)]
=0
g : n by (I)]
Assume that gm
gn = gn;m where n ; m  1. Then
gm+1
gn = (gm
(0
g))
gn
= gm
(gn
g) by (IV)]
= gm
gn;1
= 0
gn;m;1
proving the lemma.
We summarize the above Lemmas:
Theorem 2.12. Let (X 
 0) be a B -algebra and let g 2 X . Then

gm;n if m  n,
gm
gn = n; m
0
g otherwise.
26 J. Neggers, Hee Sik Kim

Proposition 2.13. If (X 
 0) is a B -algebra, then (a
b)
b = a
b2 for any

a b 2 X .
Proof. It follows from (III) that (a
b)
b = a
(b
(0
b)) = a
b2 .
Proposition 2.14. If (X 
 0) is a B -algebra, then (0
b)
(a
b) = 0
a for
any a b 2 X .
Proof. It follows from (IV) and (I) that (0
b)
(a
b) = ((0
b)
(0
b))
a = 0
a.
3. Commutativity
A B -algebra (X 
 0) is said to be commutative if a
(0
b) = b
(0
a) for
any a b 2 X . The B -algebra in Example 2.1 is commutative, while the B -algebra
in Example 2.3 is not commutative, since 3
(0
4) = 2 6= 1 = 4
(0
3).
Proposition 3.1. If (X 
 0) is a commutative B -algebra, then (0
x)
(0
y) =
y
x for any x y 2 X .
Proof. Since X is commutative, by applying Lemma 2.5 we obtain:
(0
x)
(0
y) = y
(0
(0
x))
= y
x:
Theorem 3.2. If (X 
 0) is a commutative B -algebra, then a
(a
b) = b for
any a b 2 X .
Proof. If X is commutative, then by (IV) we obtain a
(a
b) = (a
(0
b))
a
= (b
(0
a))
a = b
(a
a) = b.
Corollary 3.3. If (X 
 0) is a commutative B -algebra, then the left cancel-
lation law holds, i.e., a
b = a
b0 implies b = b0 .
Proof. It follows from Theorem 3.2 that b = a
(a
b) = a
(a
b0 ) = b0 :
Proposition 3.4. If (X 
 0) is a commutative B -algebra, then (0
a)
(a
b) =
b
a2 for any a b 2 X .
Proof. If X is a commutative B -algebra, then
(0
a)
(a
b) = ((0
a)
(0
b))
a by (IV)]
= (b
a)
a by Proposition 3.1]
=b
a : 2
by Proposition 2.13]

4. Derived algebras and B -algebras

Given algebras (i.e., groupoids, binary systems) (X 
) and (X  ), it is often
argued that they are \essentially equivalent" when they are not, and even if it
 On B-algebras 27
is perfectly clear how we may proceed from one to the other and back again, it is
also not clear that knowledge of one \implies" knowledge of the other in a complete
enough sense as to have the statement that they are \essentially equivalent" survive
closer inspection.
We proceed with an example. Usually, given the integers Z , we consider the
system (Z  + 0) as an abelian group with identity 0. If we consider the system
(Z  ; 0), then we can reproduce (Z  + 0) by \dening" x + y := x ; (0 ; y), and
observing that in the rst case \0 is the unique element such that x ; 0 = x for all
x, while in the second case \0 is the unique element such that x + 0 = x for all x".
However, that is by no means all we might have said to identify 0 nor is it
necessary what we need to say to identify 0 in this setting.
Let (X 
 0) and (X   0) be algebras. We denote (X 
 0) ! (X   0) if
x  y = x
(0
y), for all x y 2 X . The algebra (X   0) is said to be derived from
the algebra (X 
 0). Let V be the set of all algebras dened on X and let ;d(V )
be the digraph whose vertices are V and whose arrows are those described above.
A d-algebra (X 
 0) is called a d ; BH -algebra (9]) if it satises (II).
Example 4.1. (9]) If we dene x
y := maxf0 x(xx+;yy) g on X , then (X 
 0)
is a d ; BH -algebra.
Proposition 4.2. The derived algebra (X 
 0) from a d ; BH -algebra
(X 
 0) is a left zero semigroup.
Proof. Let (X 
 0) be a d ; BH -algebra and let (X 
 0) ! (X   0). Then
x  y = x
(0
y), for any x y 2 X . Since (X 
 0) is a d ; BH -algebra, x
(0
y) =
x
0 = x, i.e., x  y = x, proving that (X   0) is a left zero semigroup.
Notice that such an arrow in ;d(V ) can always be constructed, but it is not
true that a backward arrow always exists. For example, since every BCK -algebra
(X 
 0) is a d ; BH -algebra, we have (X 
 0) ! (X   0) where (X   0) is a
left zero semigroup by Proposition 4.2. Assume that (X   0) ! (X 
 0), where
(X 
 0) is a non-trivial BCK -algebra. Then x
y = x  (0  y), for any x y 2
X . Since (X  ) is a left zero semigroup, we have x
y = x for any x y 2 X ,
contradicting that (X 
 0) is a BCK -algebra.
The most interesting result in this context may be:
Theorem 4.3. Let (X 
 0) be a B -algebra. If (X 
 0) ! (X   0), i.e., if
x  y = x
(0
y), then (X   0) is a group.
Proof. If (X 
 0) ! (X   0), then x  y = x
(0
y), for any x y 2 X . By
Lemma 2.9 0
(0
x) = x for any x 2 X , i.e., x = 0  x. Since x  0 = x
(0
0) =
x
0 = x, 0 acts like an identity element of X . Routine calculations show that
(X   0) is a group.
Proposition 4.4. The derived algebra from a group is that group itself.
28 J. Neggers, Hee Sik Kim
Proof. Let (X 
 0) be a group with identity 0. If (X 
 0) ! (X   0), then
x  y = x
(0
y) = x
y, since 0 is the identity, for any x y 2 X . This proves the
proposition.
Thus, we can use the ! mechanism to proceed from the B -algebras to the
groups, but since groups happen to be sinks in this graph, we cannot use the !
mechanism to return from groups to B -algebras. This does not mean that there
are no other ways to do so, but it does argue for the observation that B -algebras
are not only \dierent", but in a deep sense \non-equivalent', and from the point
of view of the digraph ;d (V ) the B -algebra is seen to be a predecessor of the group.
Given a group (X   e), if we dene x
y := x  y;1 , then (X 
 0 = e) is seen
to be a B -algebra, and furthermore, it also follows that (X 
 0 = e) ! (X   e),
since x
(e
y) = x  (e  y;1 );1 = x  (y;1 );1 = x  y.
The problem here is that there is not a formula involving only (X   e) which
produces x
y, i.e., we have to introduce (X   ;;1  e) as the type to describe a
group to permit us to perform this task. In fact, we may use this observation as
another piece of evidence that B -algebras (X 
 0) are not \equivalent" to groups
(X 
 0). If we introduce the mapping x ! 0
x as the `inverse'. i.e., if we write
x;1 = 0
x, then (X 
 ;;1  0) becomes a species like (X   ;;1  e), but in the case of
the B -algebra the mapping x ! 0
x is not a new item which needs to be introduced,
while in the case of groups it is.
The diculty we are observing in the situation above is also visible in the case
of \the subgroup test". If (X   e) is an innite group, and if 6= S
X , then if S
is closed under multiplication it is not the case that S need a subgroup. Indeed,
the rule is that if x y 2 S , then also x  y;1 2 S . From what we have already seen,
x  y;1 is precisely the element x
y if (X 
 e) ! (X   e) in ;d (V ). Thus we have
the the following \subgroup test" for B -algebras: 6= S
X is a subalgebra of the
B -algebra (X 
 0), precisely when x y 2 S implies x
y 2 S .
Also, suppose (X 
 0) ! (X   e = 0) in ;d(V ) where it is given that (X   e)
is a group. Then it is not immediately clear that (X 
 0) must be a uniquely
dened B -algebra, even if we know that there is at least one B -algebra with this
property.
Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank referee for some very
helpful comments in improving several aspects of this paper.
REFERENCES
1] J. Cho and H. S. Kim, On B-algebras and quasi-groups, Quasigroups and related systems,
7 (2001), 1{6.
2] Qing Ping Hu and Xin Li, On BCH -algebras, Math. Seminar Notes, 11 (1983), 313{320.
3] Qing Ping Hu and Xin Li, On proper BCH -algebras, Math. Japonica, 30 (1985), 659{661.
4] K. Iseki and S. Tanaka, An introduction to theory of BCK -algebras, Math. Japonica, 23
(1978), 1{26.
5] K. Iseki, On BCI -algebras, Math. Seminar Notes, 8 (1980), 125{130.
6] Y. B. Jun, E. H. Roh and H. S. Kim, On BH -algebras, Sci. Mathematicae, 1 (1998), 347{354.
 On B-algebras 29
7] J. Meng and Y. B. Jun, BCK -algebras, Kyung Moon Sa Co., Seoul 1994.
8] J. Neggers and H. S. Kim, On d-algebras, Math. Slovaca, 49 (1999), 19{26.
9] J. Neggers and H. S. Kim, On analytic T -algebras, Sci. Math. Japonicae, 53 (2001), 25{31.
10] J. Neggers and H. S. Kim, A fundamental theorem of B- homomorphism for B-algebras,
Intern. Math. J., 2 (2002), 207{214.
(received 01.02.2002, in revised form 10.12.2002)
J. Neggers, Department of Mathematics, University of Alabama, Tuscalosa, AL 35487-0350,
U.S.A.
E-mail : jneggers@gp.as.ua.edu
Hee Sik Kim, Department of Mathematics, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Korea
E-mail : heekim@hanyang.ac.kr

View publication stats