Prove a(b-c)=ab-ac: Is It Enough?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Velcroe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the algebraic identity a(b-c) = ab - ac using foundational axioms and properties of arithmetic. The user demonstrates their proof by substituting x = b - c and applying the associative and identity properties, ultimately showing both sides equal ax. However, they question whether their approach is valid compared to a more traditional method of equating both sides directly. The consensus indicates that while their proof is valid, reliance on certain axioms like distributivity may require clarification.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic algebraic operations and properties (associative, identity, distributive)
  • Familiarity with axioms of arithmetic, particularly the existence of negatives and subtraction
  • Knowledge of proof techniques in mathematics, including substitution and equivalence
  • Basic calculus concepts as introduced in "Calculus" by Tom Apostol
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the axioms of arithmetic in detail, focusing on the existence of negatives and the properties of addition and multiplication
  • Learn about different proof techniques in mathematics, particularly direct proof and proof by substitution
  • Explore the concept of distributive property in algebra and its applications in proofs
  • Review examples of proofs from "Calculus" by Tom Apostol to understand standard approaches
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying algebra and calculus, educators looking for proof techniques, and anyone interested in foundational mathematical principles.

Velcroe
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I am currently working my way though Calculus by Tom Apostol. One of the really early proofs ask the reader to prove: a(b-c)=ab-ac. Here is what I did, I let x=b-c which by the definition of subtraction equals x+c=b. Substituting that value into the right hand side I got a((x+c)-c)=a(x+(c-c))=a(x+0)=ax.

I then plugged the exact same value into the right hand side getting a(x+c)-ac=(ax+ac)-ac=ax+(ac-ac)=ax.

Is this sufficient as a proof? In a proof that I looked up the author of the proof instead let part of the left hand side =x and part of the right hand side equal y then showed that x=y. Is that the way I should have approached this problem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Velcroe said:
I am currently working my way though Calculus by Tom Apostol. One of the really early proofs ask the reader to prove: a(b-c)=ab-ac. Here is what I did, I let x=b-c which by the definition of subtraction equals x+c=b. Substituting that value into the right hand side I got a((x+c)-c)=a(x+(c-c))=a(x+0)=ax.

I then plugged the exact same value into the right hand side getting a(x+c)-ac=(ax+ac)-ac=ax+(ac-ac)=ax.

Is this sufficient as a proof? In a proof that I looked up the author of the proof instead let part of the left hand side =x and part of the right hand side equal y then showed that x=y. Is that the way I should have approached this problem?
When you write a(x+c)-ac=(ax+ac)-ac don't you use already what you want to prove? Or is it all about the subtraction in the formula?
You should start with a list of what you are allowed to use (and tell us). There is more than one possible way to establish group operations.
 
Sorry let me fix it.
Prove a(b-c)=ab-ac
let x=b-c existence of subtraction (axiom)
x+c=b (part of the subtraction axiom)
a[(x+c)-c] substitution which is never spelled out but used repeatedly in books proofs so I assume its allowed
a[x+(c-c)] associative property axiom
a[x+0] existence of negatives axiom
ax identity axiom

For Right hand side
ab-ac given
a(x+c)-ac substitution as I did above
(ax+ac)-ac distributive axiom
ax+(ac-ac) associative axiom
ax+0 existence of negative axiom
ax identity axiom

This shows both left hand side and right hand side =ax so both sides are equal.
 
If you already have the distributivity for addition this is correct. But you could as well simply write
$$a(b-c) = a(b+(-c))= ab + a (-c) = ab + a((-1)c) + ab + (a(-1))c = ab +(-a)c = ab-ac$$
Edit: Maybe ## -c = (-1)c## is cheating here.
 
Thanks so much for your help. That makes a lot of sense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K