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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the equation a(b-c) = ab - ac, as presented in a calculus textbook. Participants explore different approaches to proving this identity, examining the validity of their methods and the axioms involved in the proof process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their approach using substitution and the definition of subtraction, questioning whether their proof is sufficient.
  • Another participant points out that using a specific step in their proof may assume what they are trying to prove, suggesting a need for clarity on allowed operations.
  • A different participant outlines a structured proof using axioms related to subtraction and identity, showing both sides equal to ax.
  • Another participant proposes an alternative proof using the distributive property and questions whether a specific manipulation is valid.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the sufficiency of various proof methods and the axioms that can be used. No consensus is reached on a single approach being definitively correct.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the existence of multiple ways to establish group operations and the potential ambiguity in the use of certain axioms. There is also uncertainty regarding the validity of specific manipulations in the proofs presented.

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 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K