Proving -(a + b + c) = -a + (-b) + (-c)

  • Thread starter Thread starter badateverything
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the equation -(a + b + c) = -a + (-b) + (-c) using the properties of associativity and commutativity in addition. Participants clarify that the goal is to demonstrate that -a + (-b) + (-c) serves as the additive inverse of (a + b + c), thereby validating the distribution of the negative sign. The proof emphasizes that only the rules of associativity and commutativity should be applied, avoiding any assumptions about multiplication or the distributive property.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of additive inverses in algebra
  • Familiarity with the properties of associativity and commutativity
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical proofs and notation
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of additive inverses in more depth
  • Learn about formal proof techniques in mathematics
  • Explore examples of using associativity and commutativity in proofs
  • Investigate the implications of not assuming distributivity in algebraic contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students learning algebra, educators teaching mathematical proofs, and anyone interested in the foundational properties of addition in mathematics.

badateverything
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


show that -(a + b + c) = -a + (-b) + (-c) using associativity/commutativity

Homework Equations


a + b = b + a
(a + b )+ c = a + (b + c)
a = -(-a)

The Attempt at a Solution


-(a + b + c) = -a + (-b) + (-c)
-a - b - c = -a + (-b) + (-c)
-a + (-b) + (-c) = -a + (-b) + (-c)

the solution according to lang
(a+b+c) + (-a) + (-b) + (-c) = 0
(a+b+c) + (-a) + (-b) + (-c) = a + b + c - a - b - c
= a - b - a + c - b - c
= a - a + b + c - b - c
= a - a + b - b + c - c
= (a-a) + (b-b) + (c - c)
= 0 + 0 + 0 = 0am i supposed to be rearranging until both sides look the same or am i supposed to solve until i get to 0?? he didn't really explain proofs. sorry if this is a dumb question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It doesn't matter - you are free to choose the application of the rules, but you should write a short sentence at each stage saying which rule you are using to get that step.
 
These problems can look a bit strange if you're unclear on what you're supposed to be showing and what the notation means. You also need to pay attention to what you're "allowed" to know in some cases. It can be a bit of a challenge to force yourself to discard some of your more closely held "beliefs" of how the symbol-pushing works.

##-(a+b+c)## is meant to denote the additive inverse of the sum of ##a##, ##b##, and ##c##; the unique element satisfying ##-(a+b+c)+(a+b+c)=0##. And ##-a+(-b)+(-c)## is the sum of the additive inverses of ##a##, ##b## and ##c##, respectively.

The point of the exercise is, essentially, to show that ##-a+(-b)+(-c)## is the additive inverse of ##(a+b+c)##, thus verifying that it is a valid move to "distribute" the minus sign through. Note that you're meant to use only the associativity and commutativity of addition to accomplish this. You're not supposed to use distributivity of multiplication (multiplication ma not even be a defined operation depending on context), nor are you allowed to assume that ##-a=(-1)\cdot a##.

So Lang's proof shows that adding ##-a+(-b)+(-c)## to ##a+b+c## results in ##0##, demonstrating that ##-a+(-b)+(-c)## is the additive inverse of ##a+b+c##.

Also, while there is often nothing logically incorrect about rearranging both sides of an equation to derive a truth from an unknown, it is generally considered "bad form" in many cases once you reach a certain level of mathematical maturity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K