On the Implication of Addition Axioms

In summary: Then you rewrite -x+x using the same 0. Then you use associativity of addition to group -x + x with y. Then you use associativity again to group -x with a particular 0. Then you use associativity to group that particular 0 with z. Then you rewrite that particular 0 + z as z.In summary, the conversation discusses two different proofs for the proposition "If x+y=x+z, then y=z." The first proof uses the existence and uniqueness of additive inverses and the additive identity, while the second proof does not require these assumptions. Both proofs are considered correct and essentially the same, but in some formal calculi they may be considered the same proof.
  • #1
OhMyMarkov
83
0
Hello everyone!

I was trying to prove the propositions that follow the addition axioms as a revision, I got a different proof for the following proposition:

If $x+y=x+z$ then $y=z$

My proof was the following:
$x+y=x+z$, $(-x)+x+y=(-x)+x+z$, $0+y=0+z$, $y=z$

Rudin however, in his book, provides a different proof:
$y=0+y=(-x+x)+y=-x+(x+y)=-x+(x+z)=(-x+x)+z=0+z=z$

This is how I was thinking, I start from the condition, to reach the result. Is my proof incorrect?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think both proofs are fine, so long as you can assume the following:

1. Existence and uniqueness of additive inverses
2. Existence and uniqueness of the additive identity
3. Associativity of addition
 
  • #3
It is not necessary to assume the uniqueness of additive inverses and the additive identity.

I agree that both proofs are correct and essentially the same. In some formal calculi, which identify proofs with simple variations, they may literally be the same proof.
 
  • #4
Evgeny.Makarov said:
It is not necessary to assume the uniqueness of additive inverses and the additive identity.

I agree that both proofs are correct and essentially the same. In some formal calculi, which identify proofs with simple variations, they may literally be the same proof.

Are you sure you don't need uniqueness of, say, the identity? I'm just wondering how
$$y=0+y=(-x+x)+y$$
would work if you didn't have uniqueness. How could you be sure that $-x+x=0$ and not $-x+x=0'$?
 
  • #5
The OP's proof does not use the uniqueness.

Ackbach said:
Are you sure you don't need uniqueness of, say, the identity? I'm just wondering how
$$y=0+y=(-x+x)+y$$
would work if you didn't have uniqueness. How could you be sure that $-x+x=0$ and not $-x+x=0'$?
You could use the 0 for which -x + x = 0. Then you rewrite y as 0 + y using that particular 0.
 

FAQ: On the Implication of Addition Axioms

1. What are addition axioms?

Addition axioms are fundamental mathematical principles that govern the operation of addition. They provide the rules for adding two or more numbers together and ensure that the result is always unique and consistent.

2. How many addition axioms are there?

There are five addition axioms in total, which are also known as Peano's axioms. They are the axiom of identity, the axiom of commutativity, the axiom of associativity, the axiom of distributivity, and the axiom of closure.

3. Why are addition axioms important?

Addition axioms are important because they form the basis of all mathematical operations involving addition. They allow us to make accurate and consistent calculations, and they apply to all types of numbers, including whole numbers, fractions, and even complex numbers.

4. How do addition axioms relate to other mathematical concepts?

Addition axioms are closely related to other mathematical concepts, such as multiplication, subtraction, and division. In fact, these operations can be derived from the addition axioms, making them fundamental to all mathematical operations.

5. Can addition axioms be broken or disproven?

No, addition axioms cannot be broken or disproven. They are considered to be self-evident truths and are accepted as the foundation of mathematics. However, they can be modified or extended to apply to different mathematical systems, such as in abstract algebra or non-Euclidean geometry.

Back
Top