Validate Peano Arithmetic Approach

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the properties of natural numbers, specifically the commutativity of multiplication and the distributivity of multiplication over addition. The user initially proved left distributivity using a set M and then attempted to use this result in their proof of commutativity. They raised concerns about potential circular reasoning, particularly regarding the use of distributivity in the commutativity proof. The consensus suggests that both left and right distributivity are necessary for a valid proof, and a structured approach is recommended: proving left distributivity, establishing the multiplicative identity, proving right distributivity, and finally proving commutativity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Peano Arithmetic
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction
  • Knowledge of properties of natural numbers
  • Basic concepts of commutativity and distributivity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of Peano Arithmetic in detail
  • Learn about mathematical induction techniques
  • Explore proofs of commutativity and distributivity in algebra
  • Investigate the role of the multiplicative identity in proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying number theory, educators teaching foundational mathematics, and anyone interested in formal proofs within Peano Arithmetic.

snipez90
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Show that the natural numbers satisfy commutativity of multiplication and distributivity of multiplication over addition.


Homework Equations





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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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]
 
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).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K