Proof of ax=a: A Simple Proposition in Spivak's Calculus

  • Thread starter Thread starter chemistry1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the proof of the proposition ax = a, where a is a non-zero number, using properties from Spivak's calculus. The proof is structured around two cases, a > 0 and a < 0, applying the trichotomy law and the existence of multiplicative inverses. Spivak's response confirms the correctness of the proof, emphasizing the importance of properly manipulating equations, particularly multiplying both sides by a^-1. Some participants express confusion over the steps and the interpretation of factorization in the proof. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for clarity in mathematical proofs and the significance of each step in the reasoning process.
chemistry1
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
I haven't written a lot of proofs so I need the opinion of the experts on my proof of a simple proposition. Here's the various properties I used: (P10) (Trichotomy law) For every number a, one and only one of the following holds: (i) a = 0, (ii) a is in the collection P, (iii) —a is in the collection P.

(P7) For every number a not equal to 0, there is a number a^-1 such that a • a^-1 = a^-1 • a = 1.

(P6) If a is any number, then a • 1 = 1 • a = a.

If ax=a for some number "a" different from 0, then x=1.(Spivak's calculus.)

I consider two cases: a>0 or a<0. By definition (Given in Spivak's calculus) :

a>b if a-b is in the collection P (P being the collection of all positive numbers.)

a>0 because a-o is in collection P by trichotomy law(P10)

So a*x=a

by P7 a*a^-1*x= a*a^-1

1*x=1

by P6 x=1

Second case :

By definition :

a< to b if b>a

a<0 because 0>a Now, we do the same thing as the previous case.

Proposition proven !

Here's Spivak's answer

1=a^-1*a=a^-1*(a*x)=(a^-1*a)*x=1*x=x

Here's my interpretation line by line (just to be sure I am understanding it)

a^-1*a=1
a^-1*(a*x)=1 (Is my interpretation correct in saying that the number "a" can be factorized in a way that makes a=a*x, "x" being a variable which the value is to be determined)
(a^-1*a)*x=1
1*x=1
x=1

So, basically, Spivak is constructing his proof. Is it correct ?

Any opinions ? Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
chemistry1 said:
So a*x=a

by P7 a*a^-1*x= a*a^-1
None of your rules would lead to the left-hand side where a^-1 appears in the middle of the previous multiplication.

Second case :
Second case of what?

a^-1*(a*x)=1 (Is my interpretation correct in saying that the number "a" can be factorized in a way that makes a=a*x, "x" being a variable which the value is to be determined)
That does not make sense. This equation is not proven at this step.

1=a^-1*a=a^-1*(a*x)=(a^-1*a)*x=1*x=x
This is right, but it hides the important step: take the initial equation a*x=x and multiply both sides by a^-1 on the left, afterwards simplify.
 
-Wait, what do you mean that my rules won't result in a*a^-1*x= a*a^-1 ? Is it only because I've put a^-1 in the middle that it isn't correct ?

-The way I thought about the proof was to justify that it would work wether we were talking about positive numbers or negative numbers, hence the the second case.

-Then did he just put the the variable "x" just like that ?

-You meant a*x=a. Also, "multiply both sides by a^-1 on the left" you meant to multiply both sides and to simplify on only the left side ? Could you rephrase?
 
No need to answer, I understand now. THank you!
 
I tried to combine those 2 formulas but it didn't work. I tried using another case where there are 2 red balls and 2 blue balls only so when combining the formula I got ##\frac{(4-1)!}{2!2!}=\frac{3}{2}## which does not make sense. Is there any formula to calculate cyclic permutation of identical objects or I have to do it by listing all the possibilities? Thanks
Back
Top