Benzoate said:
What if I were to supposed that (ab)^-1= b^-1 *a^-1.
Why would you suppose that? It is clearly true: just compose (ab) with b^-1a^-1.
then I can say that if (ab)^-1 =b^-1*a^-1 , then b^-1 * a^-1 =(ba)^-1 => (ab)^-1 =(ba)^-1 also => b^-1*a^-1 =a^-1 *b^-1
Therefore , (ab)^-1 = a^-1 *b^-1
You see, I'm still lost as to what it is that you think you have proved.
Suppose G is abelian, show that this implies (ab)^{-1}= a^-1b^-1.
Now, say where you assume abelianness, and use words, like 'hence we have shown that G abelian implies...' so that people can understand what you have written and why you have written it and what you think you have shown.
Once you've done that, reverse the process, and show that (ab)^-1 = a^-1b^-1 for all a,b imples G is abelian. Again, use words, not just a string of a,b,^,-1,=,> symbols so that we follow what it is you think you're doing.
Anyone can string together abstract symbols - you should be trying to show that you understand what stringing them together does and why. Do good textbooks look like this? Do papers? No, they contain lots of words and explanations. For a reason: maths is hard to comprehend at the best of times, but next to impossible if you don't write clearly.