MHB Using Properties of Real Numbers: Justifying Equalities

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on justifying equalities using properties of real numbers. Participants emphasize the importance of the associative and commutative laws for addition in simplifying expressions. There is a mention of a typo regarding a missing term in one of the equations. Additionally, it is suggested that studying the axioms of real numbers is essential for understanding the justification process. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for clarity in applying mathematical properties to validate equalities.
paulmdrdo1
Messages
382
Reaction score
0
justify each of the steps in the following equalities.

i don't know where to start. what i know is i have to use properties of real numbers. please help!

1. $\displaystyle \left ( x+3 \right )\left(x+2\right)\,=\,\left ( x+3 \right )x+\left ( x+3 \right )2\,=\,\left ( x^2+3x \right )+\left ( 2x+3*2 \right ) $

2. $\displaystyle \left(3x^2+2\right)+\left(x^2+2x\right)\,=\,\left(\left (3x^2+2\right)+x^2\right)\,=\,\left(x^2+\left(3x^2+2\right)\right)+2x$
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
paulmdrdo said:
2. $\displaystyle \left(3x^2+2\right)+\left(x^2+2x\right)\,=\,\left(\left (3x^2+2\right)+x^2\right)\,=\,\left(x^2+\left(3x^2+2\right)\right)+2x$
Apart from missing the 2x term in the middle expression (a typo I presume) this is just regrouping using the associative and commutative laws for addition.

-Dan
 
I am not sure which properties are meant, but you probably should study the axioms of real numbers (see, e.g., http://www.calvin.edu/~rpruim/courses/m361/F03/overheads/real-axioms-print-pp4.pdf). Then study https://driven2services.com/staging/mh/index.php?threads/5700/. For each equality, you have to say which axiom is used.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top