MHB On the Implication of Addition Axioms

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of two proofs for the proposition that if x+y=x+z, then y=z, based on addition axioms. The original poster presents their proof, while referencing Rudin's alternative proof, both claiming correctness. Participants agree that both proofs are valid, emphasizing that uniqueness of additive inverses and the additive identity is not necessary for the argument. However, some raise concerns about the necessity of uniqueness in the context of the proofs, questioning how certain identities are established without it. Ultimately, the consensus is that both proofs effectively demonstrate the proposition under the assumed axioms.
OhMyMarkov
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone!

I was trying to prove the propositions that follow the addition axioms as a revision, I got a different proof for the following proposition:

If $x+y=x+z$ then $y=z$

My proof was the following:
$x+y=x+z$, $(-x)+x+y=(-x)+x+z$, $0+y=0+z$, $y=z$

Rudin however, in his book, provides a different proof:
$y=0+y=(-x+x)+y=-x+(x+y)=-x+(x+z)=(-x+x)+z=0+z=z$

This is how I was thinking, I start from the condition, to reach the result. Is my proof incorrect?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think both proofs are fine, so long as you can assume the following:

1. Existence and uniqueness of additive inverses
2. Existence and uniqueness of the additive identity
3. Associativity of addition
 
It is not necessary to assume the uniqueness of additive inverses and the additive identity.

I agree that both proofs are correct and essentially the same. In some formal calculi, which identify proofs with simple variations, they may literally be the same proof.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
It is not necessary to assume the uniqueness of additive inverses and the additive identity.

I agree that both proofs are correct and essentially the same. In some formal calculi, which identify proofs with simple variations, they may literally be the same proof.

Are you sure you don't need uniqueness of, say, the identity? I'm just wondering how
$$y=0+y=(-x+x)+y$$
would work if you didn't have uniqueness. How could you be sure that $-x+x=0$ and not $-x+x=0'$?
 
The OP's proof does not use the uniqueness.

Ackbach said:
Are you sure you don't need uniqueness of, say, the identity? I'm just wondering how
$$y=0+y=(-x+x)+y$$
would work if you didn't have uniqueness. How could you be sure that $-x+x=0$ and not $-x+x=0'$?
You could use the 0 for which -x + x = 0. Then you rewrite y as 0 + y using that particular 0.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
919
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
892
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K