15.12.2012 Views

Why Read This Book? - Index of

Why Read This Book? - Index of

Why Read This Book? - Index of

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

48 Chapter 2 Properties <strong>of</strong> Real Numbers<br />

Theorem 2.1.4 For every a ∈ R, −(−a) = a.<br />

Pro<strong>of</strong>. Pick a ∈ R. Then −a exists in R, where a + (−a) = 0. But then −(−a) also<br />

exists in R, where (−a) +[−(−a)] =0. Thus (−a) +[−(−a)] =a + (−a), which<br />

by cancellation yields −(−a) = a.<br />

Theorem 2.1.5 For all a, b ∈ R, −(a + b) = (−a) + (−b).<br />

Pro<strong>of</strong>. Pick a, b ∈ R. Then −a and −b both exist in R. By A3, (−a) + (−b) is also<br />

a real number. Exploiting associativity and commutativity <strong>of</strong> addition, we have<br />

(a + b) +[(−a) + (−b)] =[a + (−a)]+[b + (−b)] =0 + 0 = 0 (2.2)<br />

Thus −(a + b) = (−a) + (−b).<br />

One <strong>of</strong> the oldest gags around says that, if it quacks like a duck, it must be a<br />

duck. That is, the defining characteristic <strong>of</strong> ducks is that they quack. Now suppose<br />

you know that there is only one duck in the world, and you have just found an<br />

animal that quacks. Then, by golly, you have found the duck.<br />

In Theorem 2.1.5, the duck we are looking for is −(a + b). That is, we are<br />

looking for some real number, which, when added to (a + b), yields zero. After<br />

all, that is the quacking feature <strong>of</strong> −(a + b). Theorem 2.1.5 claims that the number<br />

(−a) + (−b) quacks, and Eq. (2.2) is the demonstration <strong>of</strong> that claim. Finally, since<br />

the additive inverse <strong>of</strong> a real number is unique, we know that this quacking thing<br />

we have found is indeed −(a + b).<br />

Theorem 2.1.5 gives us the right to make a statement like the following:<br />

The additive inverse <strong>of</strong> a sum is the sum <strong>of</strong> the additive inverses.<br />

It is quite common in mathematics to investigate the truth <strong>of</strong> a statement <strong>of</strong> the<br />

form<br />

The X <strong>of</strong> the Y is equal to the Y <strong>of</strong> the X. (2.3)<br />

Statements <strong>of</strong> this form can be very powerful if true. However, sometimes such<br />

a statement is false. For example, let X = “square root” and let Y = “sum” and<br />

you have the statement √ a + b = √ a + √ b.<br />

EXERCISE 2.1.6 Calling on your experience from previous math courses, construct<br />

several statements with the same form as (2.3), some <strong>of</strong> which are true and<br />

some false.<br />

Theorem 2.1.7 −0 = 0.<br />

The behavior <strong>of</strong> zero yields the next theorem.<br />

Pro<strong>of</strong>. Since 0 is the additive identity, 0 + (−0) =−0. Also, since −0 is<br />

the additive inverse <strong>of</strong> 0, by definition it satisfies 0 + (−0) = 0. Thus we have<br />

−0 = 0 + (−0) = 0.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!