Proving Field Elements Equality: a+b=a+c $\Rightarrow$ b=c

In summary, the conversation states that in order to prove that a+b=a+c implies b=c, one must assume a+b=a+c and then use the given equations to prove the implication. It is also mentioned that this is a simple proof, although not obvious to some, and that the equality sign in a+b=a+c means that a+b and a+c represent the same thing. It is suggested to write out each step of the proof until one becomes more familiar with these types of problems.
  • #1
Dansuer
81
1

Homework Statement



Prove that if a,b,c are elements of a field.

than a+b = a+c implies b=c

Homework Equations



a + (-a) = 0

0 + a = a

The Attempt at a Solution


The solution i found is:

a+b = a+c
a+b+(-a) = a+c+(-a)
0+b = 0+c
b=c

what I'm not sure about is that since i don't know that a+b = a+c is the same as b=c, in other words, that i can subtract from both sides of an equation. can i assume that i can add to both sides of the equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yes because when you have something implies something else: you assume the first and you show the implication. In your case you have a+b=a+c implies b=c.

You assume a+b=a+c and you prove b=c:

You were given that 0+a=a so therefore: a+b=a+c implies a+b-(a)=c which then implies b=c

And that is correct.
 
  • #3
but how do i know that a+b = a+c implies a+b+(-a) = a+c+(-a) ?
 
  • #4
Dansuer said:
but how do i know that a+b = a+c implies a+b+(-a) = a+c+(-a) ?

Well weren't you given 0+a=a?
 
  • #5
or you can use proof by contradiction: a≠b implies a+b≠a+c
 
  • #6
mtayab1994 said:
Well weren't you given 0+a=a?

i don't see the connection
 
  • #7
Dansuer said:
i don't see the connection

If you were given 0+a=a then you have to use it in your proof .
 
  • #8
ok to make it simpler for you: 0+a=0 means that 0+a-(a)=a-(a) then you get 0=0 which is true. now: a+b=a+c

a+b-(a)=a+c-(a) (because of what you reached ^) and when you subtract a from both sides you don't change anything. This is really simple proof, nothing too complicated.
 
  • #9
a+b+(-a-b)=0 [from a+(-a)=0]
a+c+(-a-b)=0 [from a+b=a+c]
a+c-a-b=0
c-b=0
c=b.
 
  • #10
mtayab1994 said:
ok to make it simpler for you: 0+a=0 means that 0+a-(a)=a-(a) then you get 0=0 which is true.

you added -(a) on the left and a+(-a) on the right.
 
  • #11
am adding in the right side only, am not gettin , where i take on left?
 
  • #12
mallesh.koram said:
am adding in the right side only, am not gettin , where i take on left?

i was not talking to you :)

i like your proof but still

c-b = 0
c = b

is not obvious
 
  • #13
Dansuer said:
but how do i know that a+b = a+c implies a+b+(-a) = a+c+(-a) ?
The answer is actually extremely trivial. The equality sign in a+b=a+c means that a+b and a+c represent exactly the same thing, i.e. the same member of the field. So what you're asking is equivalent to asking if x=x implies x+y=x+y. Yes, it's that simple. :smile:

This doesn't mean that I think it was a bad question. A lot of people don't see this right away. So you shouldn't feel bad about not seeing it. Instead you should try to remember that you would have seen it if you had only asked yourself what the notation you're looking at really means. You will encounter many problems in the future that will seem difficult at first, but will be really easy (or at least significantly easier) if you just ask yourself that same question.

By the way, the solution will be slightly simpler if you add -a from the left instead of from the right. a+b=a+c implies -a+(a+b)=-a+(a+c). Now use that addition is associative. Then use that -x+x=0 for all x. And finally, use that 0+x=x for all x. (If you start by adding -a from the right, then there are two extra steps: Use that addition is commutative and use that addition is associative one more time: (a+c)+(-a)=a+(c+(-a))=a+((-a)+c)=(a+(-a))+c=0+c=c).

Edit: Another "by the way": I think that until you have gotten really used to doing these proofs, it's a good idea to write out exactly what you're doing at each step, as I did for another problem here: (I avoided the term "field" because that guy was clearly not familiar with it).
Fredrik said:
I would take these assumptions as the starting point:

ℝ is a set.
0 and 1 are members of ℝ.
Addition and multiplication are both functions from ℝ×ℝ into ℝ.
For each x in ℝ, there's a member of ℝ denoted by -x.
For each x in ℝ except 0, there's a member of ℝ denoted by x-1.

For all x,y,z in ℝ,

(1) (x+y)+z=x+(y+z)
(2) x+0=0+x=0
(3) x+(-x)=(-x)+x=0
(4) x+y=y+x
(5) (xy)z=x(yz)
(6) x1=1x=x
(7) xx-1=x-1x=1
(8) xy=yx
(9) x(y+z)=xy+xz
(10) (x+y)z=xz+yz

Then I would state and prove the theorem like this:

Theorem: For all x in ℝ, x0=0.

Proof: Let x be an arbitrary member of ℝ. Axiom (2) implies that 0=0+0.
\begin{align}
& x0=x(0+0) &&\text{Use axiom (9).}\\
& x0=x0+x0 && \text{Add $-x0$ to both sides.}\\
& x0+(-x0)=(x0+x0)+(-x0) && \text{Use axioms (3) and (1).}\\
& 0=x0+(x0+(-x0)) &&\text{Use axiom (3).}\\
& 0=x0+0 &&\text{Use axiom (2).}\\
& 0=x0
\end{align}
 
Last edited:
  • #14
I probably explained myself not clearly, English is not my main language so please forgive me :)

x = x implies x+y = x+y that's exactly what i want to know if it's true.

i know it's true for real numbers, i learned it in elementary school. I know it's true even for complex numbers. But now I'm starting to deal with abstract objects where the operations are not the usual ones.
They asked me to prove that a+b = a+c implies b=c which in words is the old "subtract 'a' from both sides". That means that nothing can be taken for granted in those abstract stuff, not even a rule that even 12 years old children had master. Now I'm asking myself if i can "add a to both sides" namely x=x implies x+y = x+y. can it be proven? or it's an axiom? or...?
 
  • #15
It follows from the meaning of the equality sign. An implication "A implies B" is false if and only if A is true and B is false. So the statement "for all x and y, x=x implies x+y=x+y" can only be false if there's a choice of x and y such that x+y≠x+y, and how can anything not be equal to itself?
 
  • #16
awesome! thanks a lot!:biggrin:
 

FAQ: Proving Field Elements Equality: a+b=a+c $\Rightarrow$ b=c

Can you explain the concept of "Proving Field Elements Equality"?

"Proving Field Elements Equality" is a mathematical concept that involves showing that two elements, represented by the variables a and b, are equal to each other. This is typically done by manipulating equations and using properties of fields, which are mathematical structures that have operations such as addition and multiplication defined on them.

How is the equation a+b=a+c related to "Proving Field Elements Equality"?

The equation a+b=a+c is a common starting point for proving field elements equality. It is known as the "addition property of equality" and states that if two quantities have the same sum, then they are equal to each other. This property is used as a starting point for manipulating equations in order to show that two elements are equal.

What is the importance of proving field elements equality?

Proving field elements equality is important in many areas of mathematics and science, as it allows us to make deductions and draw conclusions about the relationships between different quantities. It is also a fundamental concept in algebra, and is often used as a building block for more complex mathematical concepts.

Can you provide an example of "Proving Field Elements Equality" in action?

Sure, for example, let's say we want to prove that 2x+4=2x+6. We can start by subtracting 2x from both sides, which gives us 4=6. This is not a true statement, so we know that our original equation, 2x+4=2x+6, must be false. This means that the two elements, 2x+4 and 2x+6, are not equal to each other, and we have proved this using the properties of fields.

Are there any limitations to "Proving Field Elements Equality"?

While "Proving Field Elements Equality" is a powerful tool in mathematics, it does have some limitations. It relies heavily on the properties of fields, so if these properties do not hold for a particular set of elements, then this method may not be applicable. Additionally, some equations may be too complex to manipulate using this method, and alternative approaches may be needed in those cases.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
607
Replies
12
Views
772
Replies
7
Views
662
Replies
1
Views
984
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top