Proving Field Axioms: Help & Solutions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Demonoid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Proofs
Demonoid
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
URGENT Field Proofs help.

I need to prove the following:

1) Prove that if x, y are elements of a field, and X x Y = 0 then either x = 0 or y = 0 .
Write a detailed solution. and mention which of the eld axioms you are using.

2) Let F be a field in which 1 + 1 = 0 . Prove that for any x ∈ F , x = -x

I don't understand how to approach these proofs, since they are so obvious:

1) x times y = 0, of course it will be either x = 0 or y =0, since anything times 0 is 0, but how to go about proving this, I am stuck :confused:

2) 1+1=0 => just bring 1 to the right side 1=-1 then for any x=-x. But I don't think this any good of a proof.


I really need some help here, thanks !:smile:
---sdfx . drewd
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org


Demonoid said:
I need to prove the following:

1) Prove that if x, y are elements of a field, and X x Y = 0 then either x = 0 or y = 0 .
Write a detailed solution. and mention which of the eld axioms you are using.

2) Let F be a field in which 1 + 1 = 0 . Prove that for any x ∈ F , x = -x

I don't understand how to approach these proofs, since they are so obvious:
You're used to working with a specific field, the real numbers. But here you are working with an arbitrary field.
Demonoid said:
1) x times y = 0, of course it will be either x = 0 or y =0, since anything times 0 is 0, but how to go about proving this, I am stuck :confused:
Why is it true that anything times 0 is 0? What field properties are you using?
Demonoid said:
2) 1+1=0 => just bring 1 to the right side 1=-1 then for any x=-x. But I don't think this any good of a proof.
Right, it's not a good proof. If 1 + 1 = 0, what does that say about 1? For example, in the field of real numbers it is not true that 1 + 1 = 0.
Demonoid said:
I really need some help here, thanks !:smile:
---sdfx . drewd
You need to be looking at the properties that any field has.
 


Are you aware that it is true that the 0 matrix times any matrix is the 0 matrix- but there exist matrices A and B, neither equal to the 0 matrix such that AB= 0? Of course, matrices do not form a field. Which of the axioms does the ring of matrices not obey?

As for the second, that is a good proof- provided you have already proved that (-1)a= -a- which is NOT trivial- it says that "the additive inverse of 1 times x is equal to the additive inverse of x" which needs to be proved.

Perhaps better: from 1+ 1= 0, use x(1+ 1)= x(0) so x+ x= 0. Can you finish from there?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top