Proving (-a)(-b)=ab Using Field Axioms

  • Thread starter Thread starter omri3012
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axioms Field
Click For Summary
To prove that (-a)(-b) = ab using field axioms, one must avoid relying on intuition and instead apply formal definitions. The discussion emphasizes that "-a" represents the additive inverse of "a" rather than simply (-1)(a). A suggested approach involves proving that if x + a = 0 and y + b = 0, then xy = ab, utilizing the distributive property. The proof can be structured by manipulating equations to show that (-a)(-b) leads to ab, while ensuring each step cites the appropriate axiom. Clarity in distinguishing between additive and multiplicative inverses is crucial for a correct proof.
omri3012
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
hall,

i need to prove by using the field axioms that:

(-a)(-b)=ab, i think i know how to this but I'm very insecure with using those

axioms cause i want to make sure I'm not using my intuition.

i tried something like: (-a)(-b)=(-1)(a)(-1)b=(-1)(-1)(a)(b)=ab and i guess it's wrong (in the formal way).

could someone show me how this mechanism works in this case?

thanks,

Omri
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well the way you presented it, you actually used what you were trying to prove in the last equality.

Can you prove that -(ab) = (-a)(b)? The hint is that you'll need the distributive property. If you can prove this, then (-a)(-b) = ab is the exact same proof.
 
so if i undrstood you correctly, i can write
-a(b+(-b))=0
-ab+(-a)(-b)=0
ab-ab+(-a)(-b)=0+ab
(-a)(-b)=ab
is that too much stepd for an answer?
thanks
Omri
 
I think you are implicitly using the fact that (-a)b = -ab, but otherwise that looks fine.
 
You will have to cite which axiom you are using at each step.
You probably have them listed with some numbering, so use that.
 
You need to understand that, in the field axioms, "-a" does NOT mean (-1)(a). It means "the additive inverse of a". In order to prove that (-a)(-b)= ab, you need to show that "if x+ a= 0 and y+ b= 0, then xy= ab". You might start by looking at (x+a)(x+b)= 0(0)= 0.

(Yes, you can then show that if x+a= 0, x= -1(a) where "-1" is defined as the additive inverse of the multiplicative identity but I was talking about using the axioms.)
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K