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

  • Thread starter Thread starter jgens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the equation (ab)-1 = a-1b-1 for all non-zero elements a and b. The proof provided by the original poster utilizes the multiplicative inverse property, commutativity, and associativity to establish the validity of the equation. In contrast, the friend's proof incorrectly relies on the assumption that (ab)-1 = 1/(ab), which is not valid in this context. The consensus is that the original proof is correct while the friend's proof is flawed due to its reliance on division, which is not defined in the axioms being used.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the multiplicative inverse property
  • Familiarity with commutativity and associativity in algebra
  • Knowledge of basic algebraic proofs and axioms
  • Ability to work with non-zero elements in algebraic structures
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of multiplicative inverses in algebra
  • Learn about the axioms of algebra, particularly regarding multiplication
  • Explore the differences between multiplication and division in mathematical proofs
  • Practice constructing algebraic proofs using commutativity and associativity
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying algebra and proof techniques, as well as educators looking to clarify concepts related to multiplicative inverses and algebraic properties.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
13K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K