How Do You Prove (ab)^-1 Equals a^-1b^-1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jgens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that (ab)^-1 equals a^-1b^-1 for non-zero a and b. One proof utilizes the multiplicative inverse property and transitivity to show the equality through manipulation of the expressions. The other proof attempts to derive the result using division, which is deemed inappropriate since division is defined later in terms of multiplication. The consensus is that the first proof is valid while the second is not, as it relies on an unproven assumption about division. The conversation emphasizes the importance of adhering strictly to multiplication and its axioms in such proofs.
jgens
Gold Member
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
50

Homework Statement



Prove (ab)-1 = a-1b-1 for all a,b =! 0.

Homework Equations



Multiplicative inverse property: (a)(a-1) = 1
Commutivity: ab = ba
Associativity: (ab)c = a(bc)
Transitivity: If a = b and b = c then a = c

The Attempt at a Solution



Early today, my friend and I had a discussion regarding this statement and its proof using the principles stated above. The proof I provided is as follows:

(ab)(ab)-1 = 1 and 1 = (a)(a-1)(b)(b-1); therefore it follows by transitivity that (ab)(ab)-1 = (a)(a-1)(b)(b-1). By commutivity and associativity it follows that (ab)(ab)-1 = (ab)(a-1)(b-1), ultimately yielding (ab)-1 = (a-1)(b-1).

The proof my friend posted is as follows:

(ab)-1 = 1/(ab) = (1/a)(1/b) = (a-1)(b-1)

I argued that my friend's proof was not valid as it relies on the unproven (yet true) assumption that (ab)-1 = 1/(ab) which he would need to demonstrate was true before using it in a proof. I think my friend is right on this one and my criticisms aren't truly valid; however, I thought I would check here with people who are familiar with mathematics to ensure that any of the proofs, criticisms, etc. are valid or invalid.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your proof is correct, and your friend's isn't. These proofs should only refer to addition, multiplication, and the axioms. Division is defined later in terms of multiplication. So things like 1/(ab) shouldn't even be showing up here.
 
I tried to combine those 2 formulas but it didn't work. I tried using another case where there are 2 red balls and 2 blue balls only so when combining the formula I got ##\frac{(4-1)!}{2!2!}=\frac{3}{2}## which does not make sense. Is there any formula to calculate cyclic permutation of identical objects or I have to do it by listing all the possibilities? Thanks
Since ##px^9+q## is the factor, then ##x^9=\frac{-q}{p}## will be one of the roots. Let ##f(x)=27x^{18}+bx^9+70##, then: $$27\left(\frac{-q}{p}\right)^2+b\left(\frac{-q}{p}\right)+70=0$$ $$b=27 \frac{q}{p}+70 \frac{p}{q}$$ $$b=\frac{27q^2+70p^2}{pq}$$ From this expression, it looks like there is no greatest value of ##b## because increasing the value of ##p## and ##q## will also increase the value of ##b##. How to find the greatest value of ##b##? Thanks
Back
Top