In fact, in any group with binary operation, say +, the identity element 0, and a non-identity element a, we have a + a + a = a if and only if a + a = 0 (i.e. a has order 2).
There are plenty of groups with elements a satisfying a + a = 0. ℤ₂ as mentioned above has its unique non-zero element of order 2. The Klein group V₄ has three non-identity elements, each of order 2. Dihedral groups D₂ₙ (the symmetry groups of regular n-gons) contain reflections, all of which have order 2. Symmetric groups Sₙ (n ≥ 2) contain transpositions, each of which has order 2.
For example, in the dihedral group D₈, if we let a be a reflection of the square, then a + a = 0 and a + a + a = a. But this is conventionally written in multiplicative notation as a² = the identity element, so a³ = a.
Similarly, in the symmetric group S₃ under the binary operation of composition, if a denotes the transposition (12), then (12)(12) is the identity element and (12)(12)(12) = (12). In other words, applying a transposition three times is the same as applying it once.
In the last two examples, it is conventional to use product notation instead of +, although whether we use + or · for the binary operation does not matter mathematically. It is conventional to use + in some subjects (coding theory, additive groups of integers modulo n, etc.) and · in others (permutation groups, dihedral groups, etc.). Often + is used for the binary operation in abelian groups and · in non-abelian ones. I'm sure none of this is particularly insightful to someone who has studied group theory, but still I wanted to share a few concrete examples here.
> In fact, in any group with binary operation +, identity element 0, and a non-identity element a, we have a + a + a = a if and only if a + a = 0 (i.e. a has order 2).
The "if" is correct. The "only if" is not. (I assume that '+' and '0' are used as shorthand for "any binary operation" and "the identity of that binary operation", as I don't recall cases where "+" and "*" are used for specific types of binary operations).
Both "if" and "only if" are correct.
Let a + a + a = a. Adding the inverse of a to both sides, we get a + a = 0.
Let a + a = 0. Adding a to both sides, we get a + a + a = a.
> I assume that '+' and '0' are used as shorthand for "any binary operation" and "the identity of that binary operation"
Yes. As I mentioned in my previous comment, "In the last two examples, it is conventional to use product notation instead of +, although whether we use + or · for the binary operation does not matter mathematically."
In multiplicative notation, the statement becomes: a·a·a = a holds if and only if a·a = e, where e denotes the identity element.
You did. I'm sorry I glossed over the ending to your comment. I was focused on a counterexample I was working on and went only on my memory of group theory.
> Adding the additive inverse of a, i.e., -a from both sides, we get a + a = 0.
That assumes associativity, but that's a nitpick, not a real objection.
In reality, I got a bit tired and mentally shifted the question to a + a + a = 0, not a + a + a = a. That of course has numerous examples. But is irrelevant.
Thanks for taking the time for the thoughtful, and non-snarky, response. Sorry if I was abrupt before.
I don't think that is a valid nitpick. My earlier comments assume associativity because a group operation is associative by definition. If we do not allow associativity, then the algebraic structure we are working with is no longer a group at all. It would just be a loop (which is a quasigroup which in turn is magma).
> Thanks for taking the time for the thoughtful, and non-snarky, response. Sorry if I was abrupt before.
No worries at all. I'm glad to have a place on the Internet where I can talk about these things now and then. Thank you for engaging in the discussion.
Thank you again. It's been too long since I've had to use this knowledge and am happy to have the opportunity to (try to) use it.
Unrelated, but this calls out for a link to the classic song Finite Simple Group (of Order Two) by the Klein Four: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BipvGD-LCjU
That’s a good example of an algebra where 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, but the article is specifically about systems where in addition to that condition, this second condition is also true: 1 + 1 != 0 (not equal!). ℤ₂ is not an example of that.
In the modulo 2 congruence, 1 + 1 + 1 is the same element as 1.
https://d1gesto.blogspot.com/2025/11/math-education-what-if-...
Interesting! Earlier I had a shower thought about "what would be an variant of idempotence?" That's where an operation has the same effect whether done one or many times.
One variant would be "has the same effect whether one two or many times". Another would be "can be in any one of two possible states after done one or many times" (as opposed to one possible state for idempotence). This looks like the latter!
not : Type -> Type
not P = P -> ⊥
modus-ponens : P -> ((f : P -> Q) -> Q)
modus-ponens p = λf. f p
-- p implies not-not-p
not-not : P -> ((f : P -> ⊥) -> ⊥)
not-not p = λf. f p
-- not-p implies not-not-not-p
not-not-not : (P -> ⊥) -> (((P -> ⊥) -> ⊥) -> ⊥)
not-not-not np = λf. f np
-- not-not-not-p implies not-p
not-p : (((P -> ⊥) -> ⊥) -> ⊥) -> (P -> ⊥)
not-p nnnp = λp. nnnp (not-not p)
Now it all just turns into function application :)
pyuser583•2mo ago
I'm not a math whiz, so I'm just stuck with "1 + 1 = 2."
aatd86•2mo ago
lisper•2mo ago
aatd86•2mo ago
not_a_bot_4sho•2mo ago
He said, "no, it's eleven." And that's when I realized he's going to be a JavaScript coder.
harperlee•2mo ago