Need help with Associative proof [duplicate]












-1















This question already has an answer here:




  • Need to prove that (S,*) defined by the binary operation a*b = a+b+ab is an abelian group on S = R {1}

    4 answers




Let$ G = {x ∈ R | x neq -1} $and * a link to ¨G with $x * y: = x + y + xy.$
Show that $(G, *)$ is a group.



To determine if $ G$ is a group I have to make the associative proof:



Associative?



$(x * y) * z = (x + y +xy)+z -(x + y +xy)*z$



$= x + y + z + xy - xz - yz - xzy$



$= x + y + z + xy -z (x + y + xy)$



$= x + (y + z + xy) -z (x + y + xy)$



I kinda stop here, because I think I made a mistake










share|cite|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Dietrich Burde, Alexander Gruber Nov 30 at 3:31


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.















  • Please write $xneq 1$ and not x!=-1.
    – Dietrich Burde
    Nov 28 at 17:56












  • You have flipped a sign in the first line of your algebra.
    – Doug M
    Nov 28 at 18:06
















-1















This question already has an answer here:




  • Need to prove that (S,*) defined by the binary operation a*b = a+b+ab is an abelian group on S = R {1}

    4 answers




Let$ G = {x ∈ R | x neq -1} $and * a link to ¨G with $x * y: = x + y + xy.$
Show that $(G, *)$ is a group.



To determine if $ G$ is a group I have to make the associative proof:



Associative?



$(x * y) * z = (x + y +xy)+z -(x + y +xy)*z$



$= x + y + z + xy - xz - yz - xzy$



$= x + y + z + xy -z (x + y + xy)$



$= x + (y + z + xy) -z (x + y + xy)$



I kinda stop here, because I think I made a mistake










share|cite|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Dietrich Burde, Alexander Gruber Nov 30 at 3:31


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.















  • Please write $xneq 1$ and not x!=-1.
    – Dietrich Burde
    Nov 28 at 17:56












  • You have flipped a sign in the first line of your algebra.
    – Doug M
    Nov 28 at 18:06














-1












-1








-1








This question already has an answer here:




  • Need to prove that (S,*) defined by the binary operation a*b = a+b+ab is an abelian group on S = R {1}

    4 answers




Let$ G = {x ∈ R | x neq -1} $and * a link to ¨G with $x * y: = x + y + xy.$
Show that $(G, *)$ is a group.



To determine if $ G$ is a group I have to make the associative proof:



Associative?



$(x * y) * z = (x + y +xy)+z -(x + y +xy)*z$



$= x + y + z + xy - xz - yz - xzy$



$= x + y + z + xy -z (x + y + xy)$



$= x + (y + z + xy) -z (x + y + xy)$



I kinda stop here, because I think I made a mistake










share|cite|improve this question
















This question already has an answer here:




  • Need to prove that (S,*) defined by the binary operation a*b = a+b+ab is an abelian group on S = R {1}

    4 answers




Let$ G = {x ∈ R | x neq -1} $and * a link to ¨G with $x * y: = x + y + xy.$
Show that $(G, *)$ is a group.



To determine if $ G$ is a group I have to make the associative proof:



Associative?



$(x * y) * z = (x + y +xy)+z -(x + y +xy)*z$



$= x + y + z + xy - xz - yz - xzy$



$= x + y + z + xy -z (x + y + xy)$



$= x + (y + z + xy) -z (x + y + xy)$



I kinda stop here, because I think I made a mistake





This question already has an answer here:




  • Need to prove that (S,*) defined by the binary operation a*b = a+b+ab is an abelian group on S = R {1}

    4 answers








associativity






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 28 at 18:53









J.G.

21.9k22034




21.9k22034










asked Nov 28 at 17:54









NoobProgrammer

11




11




marked as duplicate by Dietrich Burde, Alexander Gruber Nov 30 at 3:31


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by Dietrich Burde, Alexander Gruber Nov 30 at 3:31


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • Please write $xneq 1$ and not x!=-1.
    – Dietrich Burde
    Nov 28 at 17:56












  • You have flipped a sign in the first line of your algebra.
    – Doug M
    Nov 28 at 18:06


















  • Please write $xneq 1$ and not x!=-1.
    – Dietrich Burde
    Nov 28 at 17:56












  • You have flipped a sign in the first line of your algebra.
    – Doug M
    Nov 28 at 18:06
















Please write $xneq 1$ and not x!=-1.
– Dietrich Burde
Nov 28 at 17:56






Please write $xneq 1$ and not x!=-1.
– Dietrich Burde
Nov 28 at 17:56














You have flipped a sign in the first line of your algebra.
– Doug M
Nov 28 at 18:06




You have flipped a sign in the first line of your algebra.
– Doug M
Nov 28 at 18:06










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1














I don't know from where minus sign from came in your solution .
If you're a beginner one easy way is to make seperate equation for LHS and RHS and show they are equal.



$(x*y)*z=(x+y+xy)*z=x+y+xy+z+xz+yz+xyz$ ....(1)



Now consider ,



$x*(y*z)=x*(y+z+yz)= x+y+z+yz +xy+xz+xyz$ ...(2)



from (1) and (2) and using the fact real numbers commute, you can prove associative






share|cite|improve this answer































    1














    It's best not try to force $(x*y)*z = .... = something = .... x*(y*z)$, but to instead do $(x*y)*z = .... = something$ and $x*(y*z) = ... = the same something$.



    $(x*y)*z = (x*y) + z + (x*y)z = x + y + xy + z + (x+ y + xy)z = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}$.



    And $x*(y*z) = x + (y*z) + x(y*z) = x + y + z+ yz + x(y + z + yz) = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}$.



    So $(x*y)*z = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}= x*(y*z)$



    Now if you wanted to do it in one line you could with some factoring:



    $(x*y)*z = (x*y) + z + (x*y)z = x + y + xy + z + (x+ y + xy)z = x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz= x + y + z+ yz + x(y + z + yz)=x + (y*z) + x(y*z)= x*(y*z)$.



    But why kill our brain cells and give us a headache? (Okay, I know. A single equation is more idealist but... let's get practical.)






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      0














      The fact that $Bbb Rbackslash{-1}$ is a group under $(x+1)(y+1)-1$ is equivalent to the fact that $Bbb Rbackslash{0}$ is a group under $xy$; the two groups are isomorphic, since the invertible function $sigma (x):=x+1$ of inverse $sigma^{-1}(x):=x-1$ satisfies $xast y:=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y))$. In particular, you can prove the associativity in terms of this isomorphism without any messy arithmetic: $$(xast y)ast z=sigma^{-1}(sigma(xast y)sigma(z))=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y)sigma(z))=xast (yast z).$$






      share|cite|improve this answer






























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        1














        I don't know from where minus sign from came in your solution .
        If you're a beginner one easy way is to make seperate equation for LHS and RHS and show they are equal.



        $(x*y)*z=(x+y+xy)*z=x+y+xy+z+xz+yz+xyz$ ....(1)



        Now consider ,



        $x*(y*z)=x*(y+z+yz)= x+y+z+yz +xy+xz+xyz$ ...(2)



        from (1) and (2) and using the fact real numbers commute, you can prove associative






        share|cite|improve this answer




























          1














          I don't know from where minus sign from came in your solution .
          If you're a beginner one easy way is to make seperate equation for LHS and RHS and show they are equal.



          $(x*y)*z=(x+y+xy)*z=x+y+xy+z+xz+yz+xyz$ ....(1)



          Now consider ,



          $x*(y*z)=x*(y+z+yz)= x+y+z+yz +xy+xz+xyz$ ...(2)



          from (1) and (2) and using the fact real numbers commute, you can prove associative






          share|cite|improve this answer


























            1












            1








            1






            I don't know from where minus sign from came in your solution .
            If you're a beginner one easy way is to make seperate equation for LHS and RHS and show they are equal.



            $(x*y)*z=(x+y+xy)*z=x+y+xy+z+xz+yz+xyz$ ....(1)



            Now consider ,



            $x*(y*z)=x*(y+z+yz)= x+y+z+yz +xy+xz+xyz$ ...(2)



            from (1) and (2) and using the fact real numbers commute, you can prove associative






            share|cite|improve this answer














            I don't know from where minus sign from came in your solution .
            If you're a beginner one easy way is to make seperate equation for LHS and RHS and show they are equal.



            $(x*y)*z=(x+y+xy)*z=x+y+xy+z+xz+yz+xyz$ ....(1)



            Now consider ,



            $x*(y*z)=x*(y+z+yz)= x+y+z+yz +xy+xz+xyz$ ...(2)



            from (1) and (2) and using the fact real numbers commute, you can prove associative







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Nov 28 at 18:10

























            answered Nov 28 at 18:03









            Cloud JR

            815417




            815417























                1














                It's best not try to force $(x*y)*z = .... = something = .... x*(y*z)$, but to instead do $(x*y)*z = .... = something$ and $x*(y*z) = ... = the same something$.



                $(x*y)*z = (x*y) + z + (x*y)z = x + y + xy + z + (x+ y + xy)z = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}$.



                And $x*(y*z) = x + (y*z) + x(y*z) = x + y + z+ yz + x(y + z + yz) = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}$.



                So $(x*y)*z = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}= x*(y*z)$



                Now if you wanted to do it in one line you could with some factoring:



                $(x*y)*z = (x*y) + z + (x*y)z = x + y + xy + z + (x+ y + xy)z = x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz= x + y + z+ yz + x(y + z + yz)=x + (y*z) + x(y*z)= x*(y*z)$.



                But why kill our brain cells and give us a headache? (Okay, I know. A single equation is more idealist but... let's get practical.)






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  1














                  It's best not try to force $(x*y)*z = .... = something = .... x*(y*z)$, but to instead do $(x*y)*z = .... = something$ and $x*(y*z) = ... = the same something$.



                  $(x*y)*z = (x*y) + z + (x*y)z = x + y + xy + z + (x+ y + xy)z = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}$.



                  And $x*(y*z) = x + (y*z) + x(y*z) = x + y + z+ yz + x(y + z + yz) = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}$.



                  So $(x*y)*z = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}= x*(y*z)$



                  Now if you wanted to do it in one line you could with some factoring:



                  $(x*y)*z = (x*y) + z + (x*y)z = x + y + xy + z + (x+ y + xy)z = x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz= x + y + z+ yz + x(y + z + yz)=x + (y*z) + x(y*z)= x*(y*z)$.



                  But why kill our brain cells and give us a headache? (Okay, I know. A single equation is more idealist but... let's get practical.)






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    1












                    1








                    1






                    It's best not try to force $(x*y)*z = .... = something = .... x*(y*z)$, but to instead do $(x*y)*z = .... = something$ and $x*(y*z) = ... = the same something$.



                    $(x*y)*z = (x*y) + z + (x*y)z = x + y + xy + z + (x+ y + xy)z = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}$.



                    And $x*(y*z) = x + (y*z) + x(y*z) = x + y + z+ yz + x(y + z + yz) = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}$.



                    So $(x*y)*z = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}= x*(y*z)$



                    Now if you wanted to do it in one line you could with some factoring:



                    $(x*y)*z = (x*y) + z + (x*y)z = x + y + xy + z + (x+ y + xy)z = x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz= x + y + z+ yz + x(y + z + yz)=x + (y*z) + x(y*z)= x*(y*z)$.



                    But why kill our brain cells and give us a headache? (Okay, I know. A single equation is more idealist but... let's get practical.)






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    It's best not try to force $(x*y)*z = .... = something = .... x*(y*z)$, but to instead do $(x*y)*z = .... = something$ and $x*(y*z) = ... = the same something$.



                    $(x*y)*z = (x*y) + z + (x*y)z = x + y + xy + z + (x+ y + xy)z = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}$.



                    And $x*(y*z) = x + (y*z) + x(y*z) = x + y + z+ yz + x(y + z + yz) = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}$.



                    So $(x*y)*z = color{blue}{x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz}= x*(y*z)$



                    Now if you wanted to do it in one line you could with some factoring:



                    $(x*y)*z = (x*y) + z + (x*y)z = x + y + xy + z + (x+ y + xy)z = x + y + z + xy + xz + yz + xyz= x + y + z+ yz + x(y + z + yz)=x + (y*z) + x(y*z)= x*(y*z)$.



                    But why kill our brain cells and give us a headache? (Okay, I know. A single equation is more idealist but... let's get practical.)







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Nov 28 at 18:17









                    fleablood

                    68.1k22684




                    68.1k22684























                        0














                        The fact that $Bbb Rbackslash{-1}$ is a group under $(x+1)(y+1)-1$ is equivalent to the fact that $Bbb Rbackslash{0}$ is a group under $xy$; the two groups are isomorphic, since the invertible function $sigma (x):=x+1$ of inverse $sigma^{-1}(x):=x-1$ satisfies $xast y:=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y))$. In particular, you can prove the associativity in terms of this isomorphism without any messy arithmetic: $$(xast y)ast z=sigma^{-1}(sigma(xast y)sigma(z))=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y)sigma(z))=xast (yast z).$$






                        share|cite|improve this answer




























                          0














                          The fact that $Bbb Rbackslash{-1}$ is a group under $(x+1)(y+1)-1$ is equivalent to the fact that $Bbb Rbackslash{0}$ is a group under $xy$; the two groups are isomorphic, since the invertible function $sigma (x):=x+1$ of inverse $sigma^{-1}(x):=x-1$ satisfies $xast y:=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y))$. In particular, you can prove the associativity in terms of this isomorphism without any messy arithmetic: $$(xast y)ast z=sigma^{-1}(sigma(xast y)sigma(z))=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y)sigma(z))=xast (yast z).$$






                          share|cite|improve this answer


























                            0












                            0








                            0






                            The fact that $Bbb Rbackslash{-1}$ is a group under $(x+1)(y+1)-1$ is equivalent to the fact that $Bbb Rbackslash{0}$ is a group under $xy$; the two groups are isomorphic, since the invertible function $sigma (x):=x+1$ of inverse $sigma^{-1}(x):=x-1$ satisfies $xast y:=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y))$. In particular, you can prove the associativity in terms of this isomorphism without any messy arithmetic: $$(xast y)ast z=sigma^{-1}(sigma(xast y)sigma(z))=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y)sigma(z))=xast (yast z).$$






                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            The fact that $Bbb Rbackslash{-1}$ is a group under $(x+1)(y+1)-1$ is equivalent to the fact that $Bbb Rbackslash{0}$ is a group under $xy$; the two groups are isomorphic, since the invertible function $sigma (x):=x+1$ of inverse $sigma^{-1}(x):=x-1$ satisfies $xast y:=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y))$. In particular, you can prove the associativity in terms of this isomorphism without any messy arithmetic: $$(xast y)ast z=sigma^{-1}(sigma(xast y)sigma(z))=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y)sigma(z))=xast (yast z).$$







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Nov 28 at 18:54

























                            answered Nov 28 at 18:22









                            J.G.

                            21.9k22034




                            21.9k22034















                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Wiesbaden

                                Marschland

                                Dieringhausen