Results 1 to 11 of 11

Math Help - uniquiness

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    1

    uniquiness

    Suppose G is an additive group with the following properties:

    1) x+(y+z) =(x+y) +z for all x,y,z in G

    2) There exists 0 such that: x+0 =0+x = x for all x in G

    3) For all x in G there exists -x such that : x+(-x) = (-x)+x =0


    Now do we need to prove that 0 and -x are unique ,before we prove that:

    -(x+y) = (-y)+(-x) and -(-x) = x
    Last edited by psolaki; August 15th 2011 at 10:26 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21

    Re: uniquiness

    Quote Originally Posted by psolaki View Post
    Suppose G is an additive group with the following properties:

    1) x+(y+z) =(x+y) +z for all x,y,z in G

    2) There exists 0 such that: x+0 =0+x = x for all x in G

    3) For all x in G there exists -x such that : x+(-x) =0


    Now do we need to prove that 0 and -x are unique ,before we prove that:

    -(x+y) = (-y)+(-x) and -(-x) = x
    Additive in terms of abelian? A lot of this is actually unecessary. For example if you have a semigroup (S,\ast) (i.e. just a set with an associative binary operation \ast:S\times S\to S) then any identity would have to be unique, for if i,i' were both identities then i=i\ast i' because i' is an identity and i\ast i'=i' since i is an identity. Make sense? Now use this fact to prove that -x is unique, i.e. assume that y,z are both inverses of x and note that x+y and x+z are identities and so x+y=x+z...so
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    1

    Re: uniquiness

    Quote Originally Posted by Drexel28 View Post
    Additive in terms of abelian? A lot of this is actually unecessary. For example if you have a semigroup (S,\ast) (i.e. just a set with an associative binary operation \ast:S\times S\to S) then any identity would have to be unique, for if i,i' were both identities then i=i\ast i' because i' is an identity and i\ast i'=i' since i is an identity. Make sense? Now use this fact to prove that -x is unique, i.e. assume that y,z are both inverses of x and note that x+y and x+z are identities and so x+y=x+z...so
    I am sorry i did not ask for a proof for the uniqueness of 0 and -x

    I ask if uniqueness is necessary for the proof of :

    -(x+y) = (-y)+(-x) and -(-x) =x i.e do we have to prove that 0 and -x are unique before we prove that : -(x+y) = (-y)+(-x) and -(-x) =x.

    Because that is what a lot of books do.1st they prove uniqueness of 0 and -x and then they use this fact to prove : -(x+y) =(-y)+(-x) and -(-x) = x

    By the way the group i mentioned is not abelian
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21

    Re: uniquiness

    Quote Originally Posted by psolaki View Post
    I am sorry i did not ask for a proof for the uniqueness of 0 and -x

    I ask if uniqueness is necessary for the proof of :

    -(x+y) = (-y)+(-x) and -(-x) =x i.e do we have to prove that 0 and -x are unique before we prove that : -(x+y) = (-y)+(-x) and -(-x) =x.

    Because that is what a lot of books do.1st they prove uniqueness of 0 and -x and then they use this fact to prove : -(x+y) =(-y)+(-x) and -(-x) = x

    By the way the group i mentioned is not abelian
    Not strictly, no. But that all depends how you are thinking about the problem. If the problem is "If x+y=0 and y+z=0 then x=z since x=x+(y+z)=(x+y)+z=0+z=z. That said, to say that x=-(-x) you need uniqueness for a purely semantical reason. Namely, unless you are doing something strange, one thinks of - as a function G\to G, right? So that calling this function f:G\to G then the theorem states that f is an involution, namely that f\circ f=\text{id}. The problem is that f isn't a priori a function if we don't know that -x is unique. In much simpler terms, you need uniqueness to say that 'THE inverse of THE inverse of x is x". Make sense?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    1

    Re: uniquiness

    Quote Originally Posted by Drexel28 View Post
    In much simpler terms, you need uniqueness to say that 'THE inverse of THE inverse of x is x". Make sense?
    Thanks for the reply.

    But the following proof indicates that we can prove -(-x) =x without using the uniqueness of -x.

    for all a :a+(-a) =(-a)+a = 0 by using rule 2 of the above group.

    Now put a = -x and we have that: (-x) +[-(-x)] = [-(-x)] + (-x)= 0

    Add x to both sides and we have that:{[-(-x)] +(-x)} +x =0+x = x.....................(1) ..........by using rule 2 of the group


    But {[-(-x)]+(-x)} +x = [-(-x)] +[ (-x)+x] =................................by using rule 1 of the group

    = [-(-x)] +0 =................................................. ......................by using rule 3 of the group

    = [-(-x)].............(2) .................................................. ............................by using rule 2 of the group

    Hence :[-(-x)] = x................................................. ................By using equality rule : if a=b and b=c ,then a= c
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21

    Re: uniquiness

    Quote Originally Posted by psolaki View Post
    Thanks for the reply.

    But the following proof indicates that we can prove -(-x) =x without using the uniqueness of -x.

    for all a :a+(-a) =(-a)+a = 0 by using rule 2 of the above group.

    Now put a = -x and we have that: (-x) +[-(-x)] = [-(-x)] + (-x)= 0

    Add x to both sides and we have that:{[-(-x)] +(-x)} +x =0+x = x.....................(1) ..........by using rule 2 of the group


    But {[-(-x)]+(-x)} +x = [-(-x)] +[ (-x)+x] =................................by using rule 1 of the group

    = [-(-x)] +0 =................................................. ......................by using rule 3 of the group

    = [-(-x)].............(2) .................................................. ............................by using rule 2 of the group

    Hence :[-(-x)] = x................................................. ................By using equality rule : if a=b and b=c ,then a= c
    I think you missed the point entirely. Let me ask you this, what is -(-x)? Define it.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    1

    Re: uniquiness

    The inverse of the inverse
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21

    Re: uniquiness

    Quote Originally Posted by psolaki View Post
    The inverse of the inverse
    Why not a inverse of a inverse?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    1

    Re: uniquiness

    you mean an inverse of an inverse?If so what is the difference??
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,707
    Thanks
    1470

    Re: uniquiness

    Quote Originally Posted by psolaki View Post
    you mean an inverse of an inverse?If so what is the difference??
    The difference is in the words "a" and "the". When you say "the inverse of the inverse" you are assuming that the inverse is unique.

    Similarly, showing that -x+(-(-x))= 0 and that -(-x)+ (-x)= 0 does not show that -(-x)= x unless you have shown that the inverse is unique. Otherwise, -(-x) and x might be two different inverses for -x.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    1

    Re: uniquiness

    before i answer to your post,surely you mean x +(-x)=0 and (-x) +[-(-x)]=0 and not


    -x +(-(-x)) =0 and -(-x) + (-x) =0
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum