1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Validate Peano Arithmetic Approach

  1. Oct 2, 2009 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Show that the natural numbers satisfy commutativity of multiplication and distributivity of multiplication over addition.


    2. Relevant equations



    3. The attempt at a solution
    I'm wondering if there is any potential circularity in this reasoning. I proved distributivity over addition first by say, fixing n, m and showing that M = {p in naturals | (n+m)p = np + mp} is equal to the set of natural numbers.

    Then I used distributivity in the final step of my commutativity proof where the inductive hypothesis was mk = km and the inductive step m(k+1) = mk + m = km + m = k(m+1) (literally the last equality follows from distributivity).

    This seems valid, but I know that distributivity is usually stated with both (n+m)p = np + mp and p(n+m) = pn + pm. Typically this follows from commutativity, but would this still follow even if I used the distributive law in my commutativity proof?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 3, 2009 #2

    CompuChip

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I suppose it would be fine to have a sequence like:
    - Show left distributivity: (n+m)p = np + mp
    - Show commutativity, only using left distributivity
    - Right distributivity follows

    However, it looks like you are using right distributivity in the proof of commutativity. If you had in the final step: mk + m = (k + 1)m it would be fine, as you have just proven that to be true (assuming you know that 1k = k, and fun stuff like that).

    By the way, note that
    m(k + 1) = k(m + 1)
    is not true (m = 1, k = 2 is a counter example) -- you meant: km + m = (k + 1)m ?


    [edit]On closer inspection, I think you need both right and left distributivity, if you set it up this way. However, my guess is that right distributivity is an almost-copy of the proof of left distributivity [/edit]
     
  4. Oct 3, 2009 #3
    Sorry that was a huge typo. I mean m(k+1) = mk + m = km + m = (k+1)m, which should be permissible since I proved that 1 is the multiplicative identity for the base case of the same commutativity proof. I'll try to set up right distributivity and then prove commutativity I guess.

    *EDIT* I guess the smartest route to take would be left distributivity -> multiplicative identity -> right distributivity -> commutativity (use multiplicative identity for base case).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Validate Peano Arithmetic Approach
  1. Valid proof? (Replies: 3)

  2. Valid mapping? (Replies: 5)

  3. Cardinal arithmetic (Replies: 39)

Loading...