MHB Conservation of Symbols Law of Algebra

AI Thread Summary
The discussion proposes a "Conservation of Symbols" Law in mathematics, emphasizing that symbols in equations and expressions should not be omitted or altered without valid mathematical justification. It highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of symbols during algebraic manipulations to prevent errors. The conversation suggests that while symbols can be merged or converted, their underlying "units" must remain consistent, similar to principles in physics. The goal is to enhance students' understanding of detail-oriented approaches in algebra. Ultimately, the focus is on reinforcing the significance of symbol conservation in mathematical derivations.
Ackbach
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
93
So, I'm trying to think of some way to formulate a "Conservation of Symbols" Law of Mathematics. Something like this:

By "symbol" I mean any atomic variable, constant, digit, operator, bracket, etc., that is present in a syntactically correct expression, equation, or inequality. So the beautiful $e^{i\pi}+1=0$ has precisely 7 symbols: $e, i, \pi, +, 1, =,$ and $0$. The equation $1.25+x=4.67$ has exactly 11 symbols in it: $1, ., 2, 5, +, x, =, 4, ., 6,$ and $7$.

It is unlawful to omit or introduce any symbol or combination of symbols from one line of a derivation to another, unless it is specifically allowed by a valid and relevant mathematical property. That is, symbols are conserved in mathematical derivations.

I'm posting in the algebra forum, because it seems to me that algebra is by far and away the area of mathematics most prone to violations of this rule.

So, my question is this: how could this law be sharpened? Also, how could it be made useful to students? My goal is to help students understand the importance of attention to detail in algebraic manipulations.

Thank you!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It seems to me it's not so much symbols that are conserved, but "units".
Algebraic rules allow merging and conversion of symbols, but their "unit" remains, just like in physics.

For instance $e+2e = 3e$ shows how the symbols are merged, but the $e$ doesn't go away.
It's only through $\pi\ln (3e) = (\ln 3 + 1)\pi$ that $e$ can disappear, but only because the final unit is $\pi$ and does not include $e$.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
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...
Back
Top