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

I Is this proof adequate?

  1. Jan 14, 2017 #1
    Is this proof even correct?! It places assumption on a and c NOT BEING ZERO.
    Thanks in advance. I am new to proofs.
    4o2b18S.png
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 14, 2017 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    If a|b, can a be zero?
    If c|d, can c be zero?

    If not, that case is not relevant for the proposition.
     
  4. Jan 14, 2017 #3
    No, I think. Nonumber can be divided by zero. Edot: I was confused because it said all are in integers

    Any other (creative) way to do this proof? :smile: (using a direct proof method)
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2017
  5. Jan 14, 2017 #4

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    No number can be divided by zero. Zero doesn't belong to multiplicative groups by definition of the group properties and zero as the additive neutral element.

    The other way around, if multiplication (of all elements including zero) doesn't form a group, one can have ##a\cdot b =0## ##a## and ##b## are then called zero divisors. E.g. the remainders of divisions by a non-prime have zero divisors, ##2\cdot 3 \equiv 0 \mod (6)##.
     
  6. Jan 14, 2017 #5

    FactChecker

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It looks good to me. Maybe it could use a little word-smithing.
     
  7. Jan 14, 2017 #6

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    The order of your proof needs work. You say
    "Thus ##\frac{bd}{ac} = l, l \in \mathbb{Z}##"
    Then you talk some more about ##\frac{bd}{ac}##, which should come before saying, "Thus..."
    Here's what I think is a more direct proof:
    a | b and c | d
    Then b = ka and d = mc, for integers k and m.
    So bd = kmac
    Hence ac | bd.​
    When we say that a number a divides another b, both numbers are assumed to be integers, and a is assumed to be nonzero.
    Edit: Fixed some typos caused by switching letters.
    In the future, please post your work here directly, rather than as an image. Everything you did can be done using TeX. If you are uncertain how to use this, take a look at our tutorial, under INFO --> Help/How-tos. The LaTeX tutorial is listed there.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2017
  8. Jan 14, 2017 #7
    ok, I will learn it. :-)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2017
  9. Jan 14, 2017 #8

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

  10. Jan 14, 2017 #9
  11. Jan 14, 2017 #10

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    You can do a lot with just a few tricks:
    Fractions: ##\frac{ab}{cd}##
    Script: ##\frac{ab}{cd}##

    Exponents, subscripts: ##c_1x^2##
    Script: ##c_1x^2##

    Integrals: ##\int_a^b f(t) dt##
    Script: ##\int_a^b f(t) dt##

    These are probably the ones I use the most

    Matrices: ##\begin{bmatrix} 2 & 3 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}##
    Script: ##\begin{bmatrix} 2 & 3 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}##
     
  12. Jan 14, 2017 #11

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    The best thing is ##\text {## math ##} ## is fast to type.
    I even downloaded me a tiny program (AutoHotkey) that allows me to add shortcuts to my keyboard. E.g. I have Alt+f which makes me \frac{}{} for quotients. One just have to ensure not to overload the shortcuts one usually uses, like Ctrl+c. But even then, this little helper can easily be switched on and off.
     
  13. Jan 15, 2017 #12
    the best way to learn this is That the internet make all the work :biggrin:o_O
    https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Is this proof adequate?
  1. A proof. (Replies: 2)

  2. Proofs Galore (Replies: 4)

  3. Proof of limits (Replies: 35)

  4. Proof Practice (Replies: 17)

  5. Mathematical proof (Replies: 1)

Loading...