MHB Why Is the Distributive Property Key in Simplifying 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 '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 »

Thread 'Fermat's Last Theorem'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Useless continued fraction for 1'

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.
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