Understanding Proofs in Spivak's Calculus: Properties P1-P3 Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter chemistry1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the properties P1, P2, and P3 from Spivak's "Calculus," specifically addressing the proof of P2: a + 0 = a. The user questions how properties P1 and P3 are utilized in the proof of P2, particularly in the context of subtracting 'a' from both sides of an equation. The consensus is that while P2 is proven through the operation of subtracting 'a', properties P1 and P3 are essential for justifying the steps taken in the proof, highlighting the interconnectedness of these foundational properties.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic algebraic properties, specifically associativity and identity.
  • Familiarity with Spivak's "Calculus" and its foundational propositions.
  • Knowledge of mathematical proofs and logical reasoning.
  • Experience with manipulating equations and understanding equality.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proofs of algebraic properties in Spivak's "Calculus."
  • Learn about the role of identity elements in algebraic structures.
  • Explore the concept of mathematical induction as a proof technique.
  • Review examples of how properties of numbers are applied in proofs.
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying calculus and algebra, educators teaching foundational math concepts, and anyone interested in understanding the logical structure of mathematical proofs.

chemistry1
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
I'm studying Spivak's calculus and I have a really simple question :

I'm only in the first chapter on "The basic properties of numbers"

So far, we have the following propostion

P1 : (a+b)+c=a+(b+c)

P3 : a+(-a)=(-a)+a=0

P2 : a+0=0+a=a

Now, he tries to prove P2 (He doesn't do it for P3, so it's granted) He also says :

"The proof of this assertion involves nothing more than subtracting a from both sides of the equation, in other word, adding -a to both sides." Now, that I understand

"as the following detailled proof shows, all three properties P1-P3 must be used to justify this operation." That I don't understand. First, how can you use a proof of something you haven't proven ? Second, when he says all three properties to justify this operation, he means to substract "a" from both sides, right ? If so, I don't understand how they (properties) can be used ...

He starts with this :

If a+x=a

then (-a)+(a+x)=(-a)+a=0

hence ((-a)+a)+x=0

hence 0+x=0

hence x=0

My comments : For the first line, he starts with the assertion that an equation a+x=a exists. Now, he substract "a" from borth sides and with property 3 the right hand sides equals 0. With property 1 we regroup and cancel with property 3.Now we have 0+x=0 and we subtract zero from both sides to have x=0. Where is property 2 used ? How is subtracting "a" from both sides proven with all three properties ?

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are mistaken when you say this is a proof of P2. He starts with "a+ x= a" and concludes "x= 0". That is NOT "P2". It is a separate theorem completely. His proof uses P1, P2, and P3.
 
Yeah, I didn't understand it in the correct way. Thank you !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K