Need help with Associative proof [duplicate]
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
associativity
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.
add a comment |
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
associativity
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
add a comment |
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
associativity
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
associativity
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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
add a comment |
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.)
add a comment |
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: $$(xast y)ast z=sigma^{-1}(sigma(xast y)sigma(z))=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y)sigma(z))=xast (yast z).$$
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
edited Nov 28 at 18:10
answered Nov 28 at 18:03
Cloud JR
815417
815417
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.)
add a comment |
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.)
add a comment |
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.)
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.)
answered Nov 28 at 18:17
fleablood
68.1k22684
68.1k22684
add a comment |
add a comment |
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: $$(xast y)ast z=sigma^{-1}(sigma(xast y)sigma(z))=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y)sigma(z))=xast (yast z).$$
add a comment |
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: $$(xast y)ast z=sigma^{-1}(sigma(xast y)sigma(z))=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y)sigma(z))=xast (yast z).$$
add a comment |
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: $$(xast y)ast z=sigma^{-1}(sigma(xast y)sigma(z))=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y)sigma(z))=xast (yast z).$$
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: $$(xast y)ast z=sigma^{-1}(sigma(xast y)sigma(z))=sigma^{-1}(sigma(x)sigma(y)sigma(z))=xast (yast z).$$
edited Nov 28 at 18:54
answered Nov 28 at 18:22
J.G.
21.9k22034
21.9k22034
add a comment |
add a comment |
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