MHB Proving Properties of Multiplication for Natural Numbers

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving properties of multiplication for natural numbers defined through specific functions. Key properties to be demonstrated include commutativity, associativity, distributivity, and the identity property of multiplication. The proofs utilize mathematical induction, starting with base cases and applying inductive hypotheses to establish the required equalities. The participants clarify the steps and reasoning behind each proof, ensuring the definitions and previous results are consistently applied. Overall, the thread emphasizes the logical structure necessary for proving these foundational properties of multiplication.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

For each pair of natural numbers $m \in \omega, n \in \omega$ we define the multiplication between $m,n$ (as a function $\cdot: \omega \times \omega \to \omega $) like that:

$$m \cdot 0=0$$
$$m \cdot n'=m \cdot n+m$$

I want to show that for each $m \in \omega, n \in \omega, k \in \omega$ the following properties are satisfied:

  • $m \cdot n=n \cdot m$
  • $(m \cdot n) \cdot k=m \cdot (n \cdot k)$
  • $(m+n) \cdot k=m\cdot k+n \cdot k$
  • $1 \cdot n=n$
  • If $k \neq 0$ and $n \cdot k=m \cdot k$ then $n=m$.
In order to prove the first sentence we have to show that $0 \cdot m=0$, $n' \cdot m=m \cdot n'$ and that $m \cdot n=n \cdot m$, right?In order to prove that $0 \cdot m=0$ I tried the following:

For $m=0: 0 \cdot 0=0 \checkmark$

We suppose a $m$ such that $0 \cdot m=0$.

We want to show that $0 \cdot m'=0$.

$0 \cdot m'=0 \cdot m+0 \overset{\text{induction hypothesis}}{=}0$.

Therefore, $0 \cdot m=0$, for any $m \in \omega$.Then we want to show that $n' \cdot m=m \cdot n'$.

For $m=0$: $n' \cdot 0 \overset{\text{definition}}{=}0 \overset{\text{previous sentence}}{=}0 \cdot n' \checkmark$We suppose a $m$ such that $n' \cdot m=m \cdot n'$ for all $n \in \omega$.We want to show that $n' \cdot m'=m' \cdot n'$.

$n' \cdot m'=n' \cdot m+n'=m \cdot n'+n'$How could we continue? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
In order to prove the first sentence we have to show that $0 \cdot m=0$, $n' \cdot m=m \cdot n'$ and that $m \cdot n=n \cdot m$, right?
I would prove $0 \cdot m=0$ and
\[
n'm=nm+m\qquad(*)
\]
by induction on $m$. The equality (*) is used in the inductive step of proving $mn=nm$ by induction on $n$. Indeed,
\[
mn'\overset{\text{def}}{=}mn+m\overset{\text{IH}}{=}nm+m\overset{(*)}{=}n'm.
\]
 
Is it right like that?

We will show that $0 \cdot m=0$.
For $m=0: 0 \cdot 0 \overset{\text{definition}}{=}0$
We suppose a $m$ such that $0 \cdot m=0$.
We will show that $0 \cdot m'=0$.
$0 \cdot m'=0 \cdot m+0 \overset{\text{ind. hypothesis}}{=}0+0=0$
$$$$

We will prove that $m \cdot n=n \cdot m$.

For $m=0: 0 \cdot n=0=n \cdot 0 \checkmark$

We suppose a $m$ such that $\forall n \in \omega: m \cdot n=n \cdot m$.

We will show $m' \cdot n=n \cdot m', \forall n \in \omega$
.
For $n=0: m' \cdot 0 \overset{\text{definition}}{=} 0 \overset{\text{above proposition}}{=} 0 \cdot m'$

Let $n$ such that $m' \cdot n=n \cdot m'$.

We will show that $m' \cdot n'=n' \cdot m'$.

$$m' \cdot n'=m' \cdot n+m' \overset{\text{ind. hypothesis}}{=}n \cdot m'+m'=n \cdot m+n+m' \overset{\star \star }{=} n \cdot m+n'+m \\ =(n \cdot m+m)+n'=n' \cdot m+n'=n' \cdot m'$$$$\star \star: $$

We will show that $n+m'=n'+m$.

For $m=0$: $n+m'=n+0'=(n+0)'=n'=n'+0=n'+m$

Let $m$ such that $n+m'=n'+m$.

We will show that $n+m''=n'+m'$.

$n+m''=(n+m')' \overset{\text{ind. hypothesis}}{=} (n'+m)' \overset{\text{definition}}{=} n'+m'$
 
evinda said:
We will show that $m' \cdot n'=n' \cdot m'$.

$$m' \cdot n'=m' \cdot n+m' \overset{\text{ind. hypothesis}}{=}n \cdot m'+m'=n \cdot m+n+m' \overset{\star \star }{=} n \cdot m+n'+m \\ =(n \cdot m+m)+n'=n' \cdot m+n'=n' \cdot m'$$
Note that $nm+m=n'm$ (second last equality) is not an instance of definition. You could justify it as follows.
\begin{align}
nm+m&=mn+m&&\text{external induction hypothesis (on }m)\\
&=mn'&&\text{definition}\\
&=n'm&&\text{external induction hypothesis}.
\end{align}

evinda said:
We will show that $n+m'=n'+m$.
You used other properties of addition, including commutativity and associativity. It is not clear why you are proving this particular fact and not others.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Note that $nm+m=n'm$ (second last equality) is not an instance of definition. You could justify it as follows.
\begin{align}
nm+m&=mn+m&&\text{external induction hypothesis (on }m)\\
&=mn'&&\text{definition}\\
&=n'm&&\text{external induction hypothesis}.
\end{align}
I see... (Nod)

Evgeny.Makarov said:
You used other properties of addition, including commutativity and associativity. It is not clear why you are proving this particular fact and not others.

I didn't prove the other properties because they are given at the proposition of my other thread about addition. (Blush) I tried to show like that that $(m \cdot n) \cdot k=m \cdot (n \cdot k)$:
For $k=0: (m \cdot n) \cdot 0 \overset{definition}{=}0=m \cdot (n \cdot 0)=m \cdot 0=0$

Let $k$ such that $(m \cdot n) \cdot k=m \cdot (n \cdot k)$.We will show that $(m \cdot n) \cdot k'=m \cdot (n \cdot k')$.

$(m \cdot n) \cdot k' \overset{definition}{=} (m \cdot n)k +(m \cdot n) \overset{ind. hypothesis}{=} m \cdot (n \cdot k)+(m \cdot n) \overset{\star}{=} m \cdot (n \cdot k+n)\\=m \cdot (n \cdot k')$$$\star:$$

We will show that $m \cdot (n \cdot k)+(m \cdot n)=m \cdot (n \cdot k+n)$For $m=0: 0 \cdot (n \cdot k)+(0 \cdot n)=0= 0 \cdot (n \cdot k+n) \checkmark$Let $m$ such that $m \cdot (n \cdot k)+(m \cdot n)=m \cdot (n \cdot k+n), \forall n,k \in \omega$

We will show that $m' \cdot (n \cdot k)+(m' \cdot n)=m' \cdot (n \cdot k+n)$$m' \cdot (n \cdot k)+(m' \cdot n)=m \cdot (n \cdot k)+(n \cdot k)+m \cdot n+n=m \cdot (n \cdot k)+m \cdot n+(n \cdot k)+n \overset{ind. hypothesis}{=} m \cdot (n \cdot k+n)+(n \cdot k)+n=m' \cdot (n \cdot k+n)$

Am I right? (Smile)
 
First trick I learned this one a long time ago and have used it to entertain and amuse young kids. Ask your friend to write down a three-digit number without showing it to you. Then ask him or her to rearrange the digits to form a new three-digit number. After that, write whichever is the larger number above the other number, and then subtract the smaller from the larger, making sure that you don't see any of the numbers. Then ask the young "victim" to tell you any two of the digits of the...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
804
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K