Simple proof, just using the axioms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ed Quanta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axioms Proof
Ed Quanta
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
How could I show that (-m)(-n)= mn? The only thing I am allowed to use to prove this are the 5 basic mathematical axioms which allow for the commutative property and associative propery of the binary operations multiplication and addition;there exists an additive inverse for each integer, 1 is the multiplicative identity, and 0 is the additive identity, while mn=mp implies p=n where m is not equal to 0.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
presumably you know that 0.0=0

so that 0=0.0=(1-1)(1-1)=1-1.1+1.(-1)+(-1)(-1),

=>

1=(-1)(-1)

the general case now follows easily from the fact -n = (-1).n

you could do it more directly 0=m-m=n-n but you'd still have to use -n=(-1).n at some point.
 
Thanks my man
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top