I Math Myth: Reducing an equation

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the common misconception that if \( ab = ac \), then \( b = c \), emphasizing that this is often incorrect due to the potential for \( a \) to equal zero. It advocates for a more careful approach to algebraic manipulation, suggesting that avoiding division until necessary can prevent mistakes. The conversation also touches on the mathematical structures involved, noting that division requires a group while multiplication only requires a ring, which complicates the implications of the equation. Additionally, it suggests using visual aids to help students understand why multiplication by zero cannot be reversed, as it maps multiple inputs to zero. Overall, the dialogue stresses the importance of precision in mathematical reasoning to avoid fundamental errors.
Messages
19,792
Reaction score
10,749
From @fresh_42's Insight
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/10-math-things-we-all-learnt-wrong-at-school/

Please discuss!

This time I'm hopefully in accordance with teachers. The standard procedure is

$$ab=ac \;\Longrightarrow \;b=c$$

It is not only sloppy, it is even wrong sometimes, and belongs to the standard mistakes in class. If we all would take the time and write it down more carefully, this could really avoid the mistake: \begin{align*}ab=ac \;\Longrightarrow \;ab-ac=0\;\Longrightarrow \;a\cdot (b-c)=0\;\Longrightarrow \;a=0\quad\text{ or }\quad b=c\end{align*}

The second possibility is all of a sudden evident. The advice behind it is simple: avoid divisions as long as you can. And if, make sure you are allowed to.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The "avoid division" advice is one I began following very early in my programming career. Unless the denominator is known to be well clear of zero (for example, the constant pi), it needs to be checked. And if the check fails, you need to figure out what the computer should do next.
 
It seems to be some circular argumentation with your other point:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/10-math-things-we-all-learnt-wrong-at-school/ said:
#3. You cannot divide by ##0##.

[...] ##0## hasn't the least to do with multiplication and even less with division. The question to divide by ##0## doesn't even arise! The neutral element for multiplication is ##1,## not ##0##. That belongs to addition. [...]
So, do we consider ##0## as part of multiplication or not?
 
jack action said:
It seems to be some circular argumentation with your other point:

So, do we consider ##0## as part of multiplication or not?
Division needs a group, multiplication only a ring.
 
The implication here of ##ab = ac \implies ab-ac =0## seems to assume we are in a ring not a (semi?)group but never states anything about groups vs rings, so I found this a touch problematic.

In both cases the underlying idea is to consider whether the mapping given by left multiplication with ##a## is injective.

I think the core of this can be conveyed to early school kids with a diagram-- in particular why you can't "undo" multiplication by zero because it maps multiple elements (presumably in ##\mathbb Q## or some other ring that isn't the zero ring) to zero. In particular multiplication by 0 maps 0 to 0 and 1 to 0.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
142
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Back
Top