MHB What Axioms Justify the Simplification of Polynomial Expressions?

paulmdrdo1
Messages
382
Reaction score
0
in this problem we drop the use of parentheses when this step is justified by associative axioms. thus we write $\displaystyle x^2+2x+3\,\,instead\,\,of\,\,\left(x^2+2x\right)+3\,or\,x^2+\left(2x+3\right)$. tell what axioms justify the statement:

1. $\displaystyle \left(x^2+2x+5\right)+\left(x^2+3x+1\right)\,=\, \left(1+1\right)x^2+\left(2+3\right)x+ \left(5+1\right)$

i don't understand the question.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
paulmdrdo said:
in this problem we drop the use of parentheses when this step is justified by associative axioms. thus we write $\displaystyle x^2+2x+3\,\,instead\,\,of\,\,\left(x^2+2x\right)+3\,or\,x^2+\left(2x+3\right)$. tell what axioms justify the statement:

1. $\displaystyle \left(x^2+2x+5\right)+\left(x^2+3x+1\right)\,=\, \left(1+1\right)x^2+\left(2+3\right)x+ \left(5+1\right)$

i don't understand the question.
You first have to prove: (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) = a + b + c. (I'm assuming the final form is meant to suggest addition of the terms in any order.)

Then for problem 1 use the above result to remove the parenthesis, use commutivity of addition to rearrange the terms, then use the distributive property to factor.

-Dan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
why did you use associativity of addition?
 
i still don't understand what the question means.
 
paulmdrdo said:
i still don't understand what the question means.
I'm assuming that if the addition is associative and commutative then we can show
(a + b) + c = (a + c) + b = (b + c) + a ... = a + b + c because we can show that order doesn't matter. So we simply call it a + b + c.

The problem is asking you to use this to remove the parenthesis in the following:
(x^2 + 2x + 5) + (x^2 + 3x + 1) = x^2 + 2x + 5 + x^2 + 3x + 1

To get to the final form you can use commutivity to rearrange the terms, then use the distributive property to factor them to the final form.

-Dan
 
paulmdrdo said:
tell what axioms justify the statement:

1. $\displaystyle \left(x^2+2x+5\right)+\left(x^2+3x+1\right)\,=\, \left(1+1\right)x^2+\left(2+3\right)x+ \left(5+1\right)$

i don't understand the question.
The answer to this question should be a list of axioms. The axioms in question are used in a proof of the equality above. Roughly speaking, a proof in this case is a chain of expressions $E_1=E_2=\dots=E_n$ where each $E_i$ has some subexpression $e$, $E_{i+1}$ is obtained from $E_i$ by replacing $e$ with $e'$ and $e=e'$ or $e'=e$ is an instance of an axiom of real numbers. For example, a proof may start with \[(x^2 + 2x + 5) + (x^2 + 3x + 1)=(1\cdot x^2 + 2x + 5) + (x^2 + 3x + 1)\]Here $E_1$ is $(x^2 + 2x + 5) + (x^2 + 3x + 1)$, $e$ is $x^2$ and $e'$ is $1\cdot x^2$. The axiom used here is $1\cdot x=x$ for all $x$, and $1\cdot x^2=x^2$ is its instance.

So you need to list all axioms that are used in the chain of equalities \[(x^2+2x+5)+(x^2+3x+1)=\dots=(1+1)x^2+(2+3)x+ (5+1)\]
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top