Results 1 to 3 of 3

Math Help - Fields

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    130

    Fields

    I'm terrible at these proofs, so I was wondering if someone could please check this proof for me:

    Question: Suppose a and b are non-zero elements of a field F. Using only the field axioms, prove that  a^{-1}b^{-1} is a multiplicative inverse of ab.

    Proof:

     (ab)(a^{-1}b^{-1}) = (aba^{-1})(b^{-1}) = by associativity.

     (aba^{-1})(b^{-1}) = (aa^{-1}b)(b^{-1})  by commutativity.

      (aa^{-1}b)(b^{-1}) =  (aa^{-1})(bb^{-1}) by associativity.

     (aa^{-1})(bb^{-1}) = 1*1 By the axiom that every non-zero real number has a multiplicative inverse.

     1*1 = 1 By the axiom that 1 is the multiplicative identity.

    Since the multiplicative inverse of an element of a field is unique, this implies  a^{-1}b^{-1} is the multiplicative inverse of ab.

    How does it look? Do I have to mention at the end that the multiplicative inverse of an element of a field is unique, or would it be good enough if I left that out?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by JG89 View Post
    I'm terrible at these proofs, so I was wondering if someone could please check this proof for me:

    Question: Suppose a and b are non-zero elements of a field F. Using only the field axioms, prove that  a^{-1}b^{-1} is a multiplicative inverse of ab.

    Proof:

     (ab)(a^{-1}b^{-1}) = (aba^{-1})(b^{-1}) = by associativity.

     (aba^{-1})(b^{-1}) = (aa^{-1}b)(b^{-1})  by commutativity.

      (aa^{-1}b)(b^{-1}) =  (aa^{-1})(bb^{-1}) by associativity.

     (aa^{-1})(bb^{-1}) = 1*1 By the axiom that every non-zero real number has a multiplicative inverse.

     1*1 = 1 By the axiom that 1 is the multiplicative identity.

    Since the multiplicative inverse of an element of a field is unique, this implies  a^{-1}b^{-1} is the multiplicative inverse of ab.

    How does it look? Do I have to mention at the end that the multiplicative inverse of an element of a field is unique, or would it be good enough if I left that out?
    The proof looks fine. I don't think you need to include that the inverse is unique. It is of course unique, but you don't need it directly in your proof. For instance, you don't say that 1 is the unique multiplicative identity, even though it is. But I am just talking about presentation and your proof is exactly right.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    130
    Thanks for checking
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. fields
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 4th 2010, 03:34 AM
  2. vector fields - graphing gradient fields
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 20th 2010, 05:53 PM
  3. Fields
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 20th 2009, 02:05 PM
  4. Fields
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 3rd 2008, 10:09 AM
  5. Extension fields / splitting fields proof...
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 19th 2007, 07:29 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum