Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Confused about this logic

  1. Jan 27, 2008 #1
    So my teacher said that when proving something, I can't start out with what I'm trying to prove. But what if it is an "if this than that proof"

    For example,

    If A(squared)=A, then I-A=(I-A)inverse

    Well, I started using what I'm trying to prove by multiplying both sides by I-A

    I get (I-A)squared=I
    implies I-4A+4AA=I
    implies I-4A+4A=I b/c A(squared)=A using the hypothesis
    implies I+0=I
    implies I=I both sides equal

    The thing is that I have proven that if AA=A, then I-A=(I-A)inverse by using the hypothesis somewhere in the solution. Would this be a logical conclusion?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 27, 2008 #2
    No, everything that you have just written is complete nonsense. First of all, (I-A)^2 = I - 2A + A^2, so your proof that I=I is flawed anyway.

    What you have tried to do is to take some statement and to use it to derive a true statement. However, I can easily derive a true statement from a false one. For instance, you have assumed that (I-A)^2 = I-4A+4A^2 and that A^2 = A. These two statements are not in general true (This is in fact only true if A = 0). Then you have used these statements to derive that I=I, which is true, but meaningless.
     
  4. Jan 27, 2008 #3

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    if every step in your proof is correct and reversable, then after geting to a true stTEMENT, just reverse field and reason bCKWrds to the desired statement.
     
  5. Jan 27, 2008 #4

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    here i would try proving the statement directly, i.e. ask whether indeed 1-A is its own inverse by squaring it and seeing if you get 1. along the way you get to replace A^2 by A.

    i.e. (1-A)^2 = 1-2A + A^2 = 1-2A+A = 1-A. this does not seem to prove what you asked for.

    this seems to prove that if you start from a projection operator and subtract it from 1, you get another projection operator.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?