Proof that (-a)(-b)=ab: Is It Logical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nickto21
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof that (-a)(-b) equals ab, which is derived using the properties of multiplication and the definition of negative numbers. The proof presented by Steve is critiqued for its reliance on the assumption that (-1)(-1) equals 1 before it has been established. Participants suggest that foundational concepts, such as the definition of negative numbers and their properties, must be understood to validate this proof. Additionally, LaTeX is recommended as a tool for posting mathematical symbols effectively in forum discussions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic algebraic properties, including multiplication and negative numbers.
  • Familiarity with the concept of proofs in mathematics.
  • Knowledge of LaTeX for formatting mathematical expressions.
  • Awareness of foundational mathematical definitions, such as (-x) = (-1) * x.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of negative numbers in algebra.
  • Study mathematical proofs and their structures to enhance understanding.
  • Learn how to use LaTeX for mathematical notation in online discussions.
  • Explore the concept of multiplicative inverses and their role in algebra.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students learning algebra, educators teaching mathematical proofs, and anyone interested in the logical foundations of mathematics.

nickto21
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hey All,
I found this proof on the internet, but its logic seems flawed.
Let x = (-a)(-b)
=(-1 * a)(-1 * b)
=-1 * a * -1 * b
=-1 * -1 * a * b
=(-1 * -1)(a * b)
= ab
So it's saying that (-a)(-b) = ab. This doesn't seem like a logical proof, or at least a satisfying one. Using what you're trying to prove in the proof itself seems wrong. It's trying to prove that two negatives multiplied together equal a positive, but it's using (-1 * -1) in the proof before it's been proven.
I'm trying to learn proofs, and this just seemed wrong, and I wanted clarification.
I appreciate any feedback.
Steve
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
nickto21 said:
but it's using (-1 * -1) in the proof before it's been proven.
Read further back in whatever source you're using -- this was probably proven earlier. Specifically, it seems to have already proven/assumed that (-x) = (-1) * x, and I bet has also shown that -(-x)=x.
 
Thanks for the reply. I"ll check on what you suggested.
BTW, Is there a software program that makes posting math symbols easier?
Maybe a graphics program where I can just post an image?
Thanks,
Steve
 
On this board you can use LaTex. Just surround your code with [ tex ] and [ /tex] or [ itex] and [ /itex] (without the spaces):
\int_{-\infty}^\infty} e^{-x^2}dx

Click on that to see the code. There is also a thread about LaTex on this board.
 
Thanks for the info, both of you.
Steve
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
8K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K