Proving x=y using field axioms in R | Field Axiom Proof

Tomp
Messages
27
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Using only the fi eld axioms, prove that if x,y ε R and x = y then wx = wy.

Homework Equations



http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FieldAxioms.html

The Attempt at a Solution



The solution to this can be solved within 2 lines or so using the field axiom inverses/multiplications ,however, this is one of a couple of assignment questions and it seems a little too easy? Am I thinking about this question correctly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's a very easy problem - there is no "trick" to it. I just did this quickly to check it; I got it using distributivity and additive inverses.
 
Tomp said:

Homework Statement



Using only the fi eld axioms, prove that if x,y ε R and x = y then wx = wy.

Homework Equations



http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FieldAxioms.html

The Attempt at a Solution



The solution to this can be solved within 2 lines or so using the field axiom inverses/multiplications ,however, this is one of a couple of assignment questions and it seems a little too easy? Am I thinking about this question correctly?

Notice :

x = y ⇔ x - y = 0

So similarly :

wx = wy
wx - wy = 0
w(x-y) = 0
w0 = 0

So either w=0 or 0=0. I am pretty sure your question should require that w≠0 and then the rest should be obvious.
 
Zondrina said:
Im pretty sure your question should require that w≠0 and then the rest should be obvious.

Why should you require w≠0? It's still a true statement if you take any w real.
 
Zondrina said:
Notice :

x = y ⇔ x - y = 0

So similarly :

wx = wy
NO![/size]
The equation above is what the OP needs to show. You can't start off by assuming what you're trying to prove.
Zondrina said:
wx - wy = 0
w(x-y) = 0
w0 = 0

So either w=0 or 0=0. I am pretty sure your question should require that w≠0 and then the rest should be obvious.
 
I don't think it can be proven from the field axioms. Rather, you need axioms for the equality operator. This is usually handled in logic courses.

For now, I think it is enough to say that: x and y are the same number, so wx and wy must be the same number as well.

For a more rigorous approach, you need mathematical logic.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top