MHB What Axioms Justify the Simplification of Polynomial Expressions?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the axioms that justify the simplification of polynomial expressions, particularly focusing on the removal of parentheses in the expression (x^2 + 2x + 5) + (x^2 + 3x + 1). Participants emphasize the importance of the associative and commutative properties of addition, which allow for rearranging and regrouping terms without changing the result. The distributive property is also highlighted as essential for factoring the final expression. The conversation reveals some confusion regarding the question's requirements, with a call for a clear list of axioms used in the proof chain. Ultimately, the axioms of real numbers, including the identity property, are crucial for justifying the simplification process.
paulmdrdo1
Messages
382
Reaction score
0
in this problem we drop the use of parentheses when this step is justified by associative axioms. thus we write $\displaystyle x^2+2x+3\,\,instead\,\,of\,\,\left(x^2+2x\right)+3\,or\,x^2+\left(2x+3\right)$. tell what axioms justify the statement:

1. $\displaystyle \left(x^2+2x+5\right)+\left(x^2+3x+1\right)\,=\, \left(1+1\right)x^2+\left(2+3\right)x+ \left(5+1\right)$

i don't understand the question.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
paulmdrdo said:
in this problem we drop the use of parentheses when this step is justified by associative axioms. thus we write $\displaystyle x^2+2x+3\,\,instead\,\,of\,\,\left(x^2+2x\right)+3\,or\,x^2+\left(2x+3\right)$. tell what axioms justify the statement:

1. $\displaystyle \left(x^2+2x+5\right)+\left(x^2+3x+1\right)\,=\, \left(1+1\right)x^2+\left(2+3\right)x+ \left(5+1\right)$

i don't understand the question.
You first have to prove: (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) = a + b + c. (I'm assuming the final form is meant to suggest addition of the terms in any order.)

Then for problem 1 use the above result to remove the parenthesis, use commutivity of addition to rearrange the terms, then use the distributive property to factor.

-Dan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
why did you use associativity of addition?
 
i still don't understand what the question means.
 
paulmdrdo said:
i still don't understand what the question means.
I'm assuming that if the addition is associative and commutative then we can show
(a + b) + c = (a + c) + b = (b + c) + a ... = a + b + c because we can show that order doesn't matter. So we simply call it a + b + c.

The problem is asking you to use this to remove the parenthesis in the following:
(x^2 + 2x + 5) + (x^2 + 3x + 1) = x^2 + 2x + 5 + x^2 + 3x + 1

To get to the final form you can use commutivity to rearrange the terms, then use the distributive property to factor them to the final form.

-Dan
 
paulmdrdo said:
tell what axioms justify the statement:

1. $\displaystyle \left(x^2+2x+5\right)+\left(x^2+3x+1\right)\,=\, \left(1+1\right)x^2+\left(2+3\right)x+ \left(5+1\right)$

i don't understand the question.
The answer to this question should be a list of axioms. The axioms in question are used in a proof of the equality above. Roughly speaking, a proof in this case is a chain of expressions $E_1=E_2=\dots=E_n$ where each $E_i$ has some subexpression $e$, $E_{i+1}$ is obtained from $E_i$ by replacing $e$ with $e'$ and $e=e'$ or $e'=e$ is an instance of an axiom of real numbers. For example, a proof may start with \[(x^2 + 2x + 5) + (x^2 + 3x + 1)=(1\cdot x^2 + 2x + 5) + (x^2 + 3x + 1)\]Here $E_1$ is $(x^2 + 2x + 5) + (x^2 + 3x + 1)$, $e$ is $x^2$ and $e'$ is $1\cdot x^2$. The axiom used here is $1\cdot x=x$ for all $x$, and $1\cdot x^2=x^2$ is its instance.

So you need to list all axioms that are used in the chain of equalities \[(x^2+2x+5)+(x^2+3x+1)=\dots=(1+1)x^2+(2+3)x+ (5+1)\]
 
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...
Back
Top