1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Prove that multiplication is commutative

  1. Aug 10, 2012 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    n * m = m * n where m, n are natural numbers.


    2. Relevant equations
    I am working from Terrence Tao's class notes and he includes 0 in the natural numbers. m++ stands for m+1. He calls it incrementation and uses it to explain the rules of addition.


    3. The attempt at a solution
    Proof. We will induct on m holding n constant. For the base case, let m = 0. Then we have n * 0 = 0 * n. Both sides of the equation equal to 0. Now we assume inductively that n * m = m * n. For the inductive step we need to show that n * (m++) = (m++) * n. Since m is a natural number, we know from a previous proposition that m++ is also a natural number. Thus we can choose q to be the successor of m or in other words q = m++. Then we have n * q = q * n. According to the inductive hypothesis, this is true. This closes our induction.

    Can someone take a quick look at my proof and tell me if there is anything wrong with it? Thanks!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 10, 2012 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It sounds to me like you are using "Peano's axioms" which take induction,
    "If a set X contains 0 and, whenever it contains a number a, it also contains a++, then X is the set of all non-negative integers", as a defining property of the non-negative integers. In particular, a+ b is defined by "b+ 1= b++" and if c is not 0, then there exist a such that c= a++ in which case b+ c= (b+a)++.

    However, the difficulty appears to be that you do not understand what induction says! You say, first, "Now we assume inductively that n * m = m * n." Later you say "Then we have n * q = q * n. According to the inductive hypothesis, this is true." No, it isn't. The "induction hypothesis" is that n*m= m*n for those particular values of m and n. q is NOT m so n*q= m*q does NOT follow from n*m= m*n. You are essentially asserting that your "induction hypothesis" is just what you are trying to prove.

    I also note that you don't say anything about how multiplication is defined here. You can't very well prove something about "multiplication" without using the definition of "multiplication"! I recommend that you talk to your teacher about this.
     
  4. Aug 10, 2012 #3
    That's exactly my problem! Thanks. With that clarified, I need to go back and fix a few other proofs I did before this one.

    I'm trying to teach myself by using the class notes that Professor Tao at UCLA uses to teach his honors analysis course so I don't have a teacher to talk to.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Prove that multiplication is commutative
  1. Prove commutative (Replies: 5)

Loading...