Proving x=y or x=-y from x2=y2.

  • Thread starter Thread starter mishima
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus Spivak
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that if \( x^2 = y^2 \), then \( x = y \) or \( x = -y \). The proof utilizes the distributive law and the existence of additive and multiplicative inverses. The participant initially struggles with the multiplicative inverse condition when \( x - y = 0 \), leading to confusion about the validity of the proof. Ultimately, the zero product property is highlighted as a straightforward method to conclude the proof, confirming the two possible solutions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of algebraic identities, specifically \( x^2 - y^2 = (x - y)(x + y) \)
  • Familiarity with the distributive law in algebra
  • Knowledge of the existence of additive and multiplicative inverses
  • Concept of the zero product property in algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the zero product property in greater detail
  • Review proofs involving the distributive law and its applications
  • Explore the implications of the existence of inverses in algebraic structures
  • Practice similar algebraic proofs from Spivak's Calculus
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, particularly those tackling algebraic proofs, educators teaching foundational algebra concepts, and anyone seeking to strengthen their understanding of the properties of numbers in algebra.

mishima
Messages
576
Reaction score
43

Homework Statement


Prove that if x2=y2, then x=y or x=-y.

This is from Spivak's Calculus, problem 1(iii).

Homework Equations


Distributive law. If a, b, and c are any numbers, then a(b+c)=a*b+a*c.
Existence of additive inverse. If a is any number, then a+0=0+a.
Existence of multiplicative inverse. For every number a≠0, there is a number a-1 such that a*a-1=a-1*a=1.

The Attempt at a Solution


First by the existence of additive inverse,

x2+(-y2)=y2+(-y2)=0.

Then in an earlier problem I proved x2-y2=(x-y)(x+y) using a triple application of the distributive law and the existence of additive inverse. So,

x2-y2=0=(x-y)(x+y).

Now here's where I get uncomfortable. I want to use the existence of multiplicative inverses to do this

(x-y)-1(x-y)(x+y)=1*(x+y)=0

But multiplicative inverse has the stipulation that (x-y)≠0. So then when I do the other part

(x+y)-1(x-y)(x+y)=1*(x-y)=0

I get a contradiction. I must be making a mistake since this only shows that x=-y, right? Or is it just an exclusive "or" in the problem statement or something? Earlier he says to assume inclusive ors...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are two possibilities - x=y or x is not equal to y. If x=y you are done! That was one of the solutions you had to show is possible. If they're not equal do your division to find the other solution possibility
 
You can also just use the zero product property instead of imitating its proof. Recall that (x-y)(x+y)=0 implies (x-y)=0 or (x+y)=0. The proof is pretty simple from there.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K