If a is not equal to zero then b/a=b*a^-1

  • Thread starter a_skier
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Zero
In summary, the conversation discusses the proof of the equation b/a = b*a^-1 and the limitations on using certain axioms. The attempt at a solution uses the axioms to show that b/a can be rewritten as b*a^-1, but the poster is unsure if this is a sufficient proof. They are also restricted from using the axiom 1/a = a^-1 and are asking for guidance on how to approach the problem. However, without a definition for a^-1 in the given axioms, it is not possible to prove the equation.
  • #1
a_skier
17
0

Homework Statement



Prove: if a[itex]\neq[/itex]0 then b/a=b*a^-1

I don't know if my proof is sufficient with this one but I cannot think of another way. Also I am only supposed to use the basic axioms (e.g. commutative, distributive, existence of reciprocal...)

Homework Equations


1/a=a^-1 (I am not supposed to use this)
Distributive law


The Attempt at a Solution



b/a=b*(1/a)
=b*(a^-1)
=b*a^-1

I am not allowed to use the (1/a)=a^-1 thing, but I can't think of how to tackle this one any other way. Could someone at least get me pointed in the right direction? I am confused because the property seems too obvious hahaha.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
a_skier said:

Homework Statement



Prove: if a[itex]\neq[/itex]0 then b/a=b*a^-1

I don't know if my proof is sufficient with this one but I cannot think of another way. Also I am only supposed to use the basic axioms (e.g. commutative, distributive, existence of reciprocal...)

Homework Equations


1/a=a^-1 (I am not supposed to use this)
Distributive law

The Attempt at a Solution



b/a=b*(1/a)
=b*(a^-1)
=b*a^-1

I am not allowed to use the (1/a)=a^-1 thing, but I can't think of how to tackle this one any other way. Could someone at least get me pointed in the right direction? I am confused because the property seems too obvious hahaha.

It is obvious, hahaha. And I don't think you can 'prove' it. It's a definition. As far as I know, b/a is defined by b*a^(-1). If you have an alternate definition of b/a then you might be able to prove it. What might that definition be?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I don't see any alternate definitions of a/b. I only have these six axioms:

AXIOM 1. COMMUTATIVE LAWS. X +y =y + X, xy = yx.
AXIOM 2. ASSOCIATIVE LAWS. x + (y + z) = (x + y) + z, x(yz) = (xy)z. AXIOM 3. DISTRIBUTIVE LAW. x(y + z) = xy + xz.
AXIOM 4. EXISTENCE OF IDENTITY ELEMENTS. There exist two distinct real numbers, which we denote by0and 1,such that for ecery real x we have x+0=x and1’ x =x.
AXIOM 5. EXISTENCE OF NEGATIVES. For every real number x there is a real number y such that x + y = 0.
AXIOM 6. EXISTENCE OF RECIPROCALS. For every real number x # 0 there is a real number y such that xy = 1.

and these 4 theorems:

THEOREM 1.1. CANCELLATION LAW FOR ADDITION. Zf a + b = a + c, then b = c. (In particular, this shows that the number 0 of Axiom 4 is unique.)
THEOREM 1.2. POSSIBILITY OF SUBTRACTION. Given a and b, there is exactly one x such thata+x=6. Thisxisdenotedbyb-a.Inparticular,0-aiswrittensimply -aand is called the negative of a.
THEOREM 1.3. b - a=b+(-a).
THEOREM 1.4. -(-a) = a.
 
  • #4
If you can't directly use [itex]\dfrac{1}{a} = a^{-1}[/itex], then can you use [itex]a \cdot a^{-1} = 1[/itex]? If not, then what exactly is [itex]a^{-1}[/itex]? How is it defined?

Edit: I don't see either [itex]\dfrac{1}{a}[/itex] or [itex]a^{-1}[/itex] defined in the axioms you posted. I believe it's safe to assume [itex]\dfrac{1}{a}[/itex] is defined as the multiplicative inverse of [itex]a[/itex]. If [itex]a^{-1}[/itex] isn't defined in the same way (from which the desired proof would follow from definition), then how exactly is it defined?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
a_skier said:
I don't see any alternate definitions of a/b. I only have these six axioms:

AXIOM 1. COMMUTATIVE LAWS. X +y =y + X, xy = yx.
AXIOM 2. ASSOCIATIVE LAWS. x + (y + z) = (x + y) + z, x(yz) = (xy)z. AXIOM 3. DISTRIBUTIVE LAW. x(y + z) = xy + xz.
AXIOM 4. EXISTENCE OF IDENTITY ELEMENTS. There exist two distinct real numbers, which we denote by0and 1,such that for ecery real x we have x+0=x and1’ x =x.
AXIOM 5. EXISTENCE OF NEGATIVES. For every real number x there is a real number y such that x + y = 0.
AXIOM 6. EXISTENCE OF RECIPROCALS. For every real number x # 0 there is a real number y such that xy = 1.

and these 4 theorems:

THEOREM 1.1. CANCELLATION LAW FOR ADDITION. Zf a + b = a + c, then b = c. (In particular, this shows that the number 0 of Axiom 4 is unique.)
THEOREM 1.2. POSSIBILITY OF SUBTRACTION. Given a and b, there is exactly one x such thata+x=6. Thisxisdenotedbyb-a.Inparticular,0-aiswrittensimply -aand is called the negative of a.
THEOREM 1.3. b - a=b+(-a).
THEOREM 1.4. -(-a) = a.

There is no definition in there of what b/a means or what a^(-1) means, though I assume the latter is that a^(-1) is the y in the expression that is supposed to exist in ay=1 in AXIOM 6. There is no way to prove anything if your axioms don't tell you what the notation means in terms of the axioms. See the problem?
 
Last edited:

1. What does the equation "b/a=b*a^-1" mean?

This equation is stating that if the value of "a" is not equal to zero, then the division of "b" by "a" is equal to the multiplication of "b" by the inverse of "a". In other words, it is a way to rewrite a division problem as a multiplication problem.

2. Why is the condition "a is not equal to zero" important in this equation?

The condition "a is not equal to zero" is important because division by zero is undefined in mathematics. Therefore, this equation only holds true if "a" has a non-zero value. Otherwise, the equation is not valid.

3. How is the inverse of a number calculated?

The inverse of a number is calculated by taking the reciprocal of the number. In other words, the inverse of "a" is equal to 1/a.

4. Can this equation be used for any value of "a" and "b"?

No, this equation can only be used if the value of "a" is not equal to zero. If "a" is equal to zero, the equation is not valid and cannot be used. However, it can be used for any value of "b".

5. How is this equation useful in scientific calculations?

This equation is useful in scientific calculations because it allows us to rewrite a division problem as a multiplication problem. This can make calculations simpler and more efficient, especially when dealing with complex equations involving fractions.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
248
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
802
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
569
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
506
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
501
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
680
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
489
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
783
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
453
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top