On the Implication of Addition Axioms

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the validity of two proofs for the proposition "If $x+y=x+z$, then $y=z$" based on addition axioms. The original poster (OP) presents a proof using the properties of additive inverses and the additive identity, while Walter Rudin's proof employs a different approach but reaches the same conclusion. Participants agree that both proofs are correct, emphasizing that the uniqueness of additive inverses and the additive identity is not necessary for the proofs to hold. The discussion highlights the equivalence of the two proofs within the framework of formal calculi.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of addition axioms in mathematics
  • Familiarity with additive inverses and the additive identity
  • Knowledge of formal proofs in mathematical logic
  • Basic concepts of associativity in addition
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of additive inverses in abstract algebra
  • Explore the concept of the additive identity in various mathematical structures
  • Learn about formal proof techniques in mathematical logic
  • Investigate the implications of associativity in different mathematical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in the foundations of mathematical proofs and addition 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.
 

Similar threads

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