Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - rigorus proof

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    256
    Thanks
    1

    rigorus proof

    Using appropriate definitions axioms or theorems give a rigorus proof of the following;

    1) \frac{1}{b}.\frac{1}{d} = \frac{1}{bd}


    2) \frac{a}{b} + \frac{c}{d} = \frac{ad+cb}{bd}
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by xalk View Post
    1) \frac{1}{b}.\frac{1}{d} = \frac{1}{bd}
    In an abelian group (bd)^{-1} = b^{-1}d^{-1}.
    By definition, \tfrac{1}{b} = b^{-1}.


    \frac{a}{b} + \frac{c}{d} = \frac{ad+cb}{bd}
    You can write, \frac{ad}{bd} + \frac{bc}{bd} = \frac{1}{bd}(ad+bc).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Senior Member TheAbstractionist's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    328
    Thanks
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by xalk View Post
    Using appropriate definitions axioms or theorems give a rigorus proof of the following;

    1) \frac{1}{b}.\frac{1}{d} = \frac{1}{bd}


    2) \frac{a}{b} + \frac{c}{d} = \frac{ad+cb}{bd}
    Hi xalk.

    If a,b,c,d are elements of a ring R, the field of fractions of R is the field \mathrm{Frac}(R)=R\times(R\setminus\{0_R\}), where the element (x,y)\in\mathrm{Frac}(R) is written \frac xy, with addition and multiplication defined as in (2) and (1) respectively. This is how the field of rationals is constructed from the ring of integers. If you go along this line, then the results you want to prove are merely definitions of addition and multiplication in the field of fractions, and so there is nothing to prove!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Banned
    Joined
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    256
    Thanks
    1
    Thanks and sorry.

    The axioms are those of a field and the definitions are:

    b\neq 0\Longrightarrow\frac{a}{b} = a.\frac{1}{b}

    But the question is the rigorus proof.HOW do we give a rigorus proof of the above??
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,295
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by TheAbstractionist View Post
    Hi xalk.

    If a,b,c,d are elements of a ring R, the field of fractions of R is the field \mathrm{Frac}(R)=R\times(R\setminus\{0_R\}), where the element (x,y)\in\mathrm{Frac}(R) is written \frac xy, with addition and multiplication defined as in (2) and (1) respectively. This is how the field of rationals is constructed from the ring of integers. If you go along this line, then the results you want to prove are merely definitions of addition and multiplication in the field of fractions, and so there is nothing to prove!
    that R has to be a commutative domain and x/y is actually the equivalence class of (x,y) under the equivalence relation ~ defined over Frac(R) by (x,y) ~ (z,t) iff xt = yz. then the equality of

    two equivalence classes x/y and z/t becomes: x/y = z/t if and only if xt = yz. i guess they basically want xalk to prove that addition and multiplication defined on Frac(R) is well-defined.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by xalk View Post
    Thanks and sorry.

    The axioms are those of a field and the definitions are:

    b\neq 0\Longrightarrow\frac{a}{b} = a.\frac{1}{b}

    But the question is the rigorus proof.HOW do we give a rigorus proof of the above??
    I already explained this. The meaning of \tfrac{1}{b} it simply b^{-1} where the inverse is the multiplicative inverse from the group of non-zero elements over a field. You should know the result from group theory that says that (ab)^{-1} = b^{-1}a^{-1}, and so \tfrac{1}{ab} = \tfrac{1}{b}\cdot \tfrac{1}{a}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 19th 2010, 11:50 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 16th 2010, 02:26 PM
  3. [SOLVED] direct proof and proof by contradiction
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 27th 2010, 11:07 PM
  4. Proof with algebra, and proof by induction (problems)
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 8th 2008, 02:20 PM
  5. proof that the proof that .999_ = 1 is not a proof (version)
    Posted in the Advanced Applied Math Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 14th 2008, 05:07 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum