MHB Why Is the Distributive Property Key in Simplifying Algebraic Expressions?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the importance of the distributive property in simplifying algebraic expressions, specifically in the context of given equations involving an unknown real number x. The participants confirm that the distributive property justifies statements b and c, but note that statement a requires the associative property of multiplication instead. The initial assumptions about x being a real number and the definition of x² are emphasized as necessary for clarity in algebraic notation. Overall, understanding these properties is crucial for correctly simplifying and manipulating algebraic expressions.
bergausstein
Messages
191
Reaction score
0
in the following exercises, assume that x stands for an unknown real number, and assume that $x^2=x\times x$. which of the properties of real numbers justifies each of the following statement?

a. $(2x)x=2x^2$
b. $(x+3)x=x^2+3x$
c. $4(x+3)=4x+4\times 3$

my answers
a. distributive property
b. distributive property
c. distributive property.

i just don't know if my answers are complete. and I'm also bothered why this part " assume that x stands for an unknown real number, and assume that $x^2=x\times x$." is important.

thanks!
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
bergausstein said:
in the following exercises, assume that x stands for an unknown real number, and assume that $x^2=x\times x$. which of the properties of real numbers justifies each of the following statement?

a. $(2x)x=2x^2$
b. $(x+3)x=x^2+3x$
c. $4(x+3)=4x+4*3$

my answers
a. distributive property
b. distributive property
c. distributive property.

i just don't know if my answers are complete. and I'm also bothered why this part " assume that x stands for an unknown real number, and assume that $x^2=x\times x$." is important.

thanks!

Hi bergausstein!

The extra assumptions are needed, since in abstract algebra you can't really assume anything. In principle you're limited to exactly what the axioms give you. Anything else needs to be specified. These assumptions are matters of notation, so that you know that squaring a number is in all respects the same as multiplying that number by itself.
Actually, the extra assumptions in this case are so standard, that I consider it a bit of overkill to mention them.

Your answers to (b) and (c) are correct. However, for (a) you will need a different axiom.

Btw, is there a reason you used a different multiplication operator in (c)?
Luckily there is only 1 multiplication operator in the field of the real numbers, but otherwise that would be ambiguous.
 
what axiom do i need for a? let me guess, is it an axiom of equality?
 
bergausstein said:
what axiom do i need for a? let me guess, is it an axiom of equality?

Axiom of equality? That's not really one of the axioms of the real numbers, although you are implicitly using the axioms that belong to an equivalence relation.

What I mean is that the distributive property is a(b+c)=ab+ac.
But if I look at (a) I have (2x)x = 2(xx).
Those do not look like they have the same structure...
 
I like Serena said:
Axiom of equality? That's not really one of the axioms of the real numbers, although you are implicitly using the axioms that belong to an equivalence relation.

What I mean is that the distributive property is a(b+c)=ab+ac.
But if I look at (a) I have (2x)x = 2(xx).
Those do not look like they have the same structure...

we can use associative property of multiplication (ab)b = a(bb) am i correct?
 
bergausstein said:
we can use associative property of multiplication (ab)b = a(bb) am i correct?

Yep!
 

Thread 'Non-orthogonal bases'

Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
View full post »

Thread 'What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

MHB Inequality of positive real numbers
Replies
1
Views
1K
MHB Find a,b,c,d for Max $a+b-c+d$
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Commutative & Associative property of negative numbers
Replies
4
Views
3K
B Justification of addition in Spivak, Ch.1
Replies
6
Views
1K
MHB What is the Sum of x, y, and z in a Non-Negative Real Number System?
Replies
4
Views
1K
MHB Which procedure takes the minimum time to solve modulus functions?
Replies
5
Views
1K
I On base-b expansion of nonnegative reals
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Algebraic property of real numbers
Replies
30
Views
2K
MHB Using Properties of Real Numbers: Justifying Equalities
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Real Roots of Cubic Equation: $x^3+a^3x^2+b^3x+c^3=0$
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top