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

  • Thread starter Thread starter chemistry1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a proof concerning the proposition ax = a, as presented in Spivak's Calculus. The original poster explores the properties of numbers and their implications in the context of this proof, particularly focusing on cases where a is greater than or less than zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to prove the proposition by considering two cases based on the sign of "a". They reference various properties and laws from Spivak's text to support their reasoning.
  • Some participants question the validity of the steps taken, particularly the introduction of a^-1 in the proof and the interpretation of the equations presented.
  • There are inquiries about the clarity of the proof structure and the justification for the steps taken, especially regarding the multiplication and simplification processes.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback and raising questions about the proof's structure and logic. Some guidance has been offered regarding the need for clearer justification of certain steps, particularly in relation to the multiplication of both sides of equations. The original poster expresses a moment of understanding, indicating progress in their comprehension of the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of mathematical proofs and the specific properties outlined in Spivak's Calculus. There is an emphasis on ensuring that each step in the proof is logically sound and clearly articulated.

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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K