Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Identity: Let $R$ be a ring and $x \in R$. Then $x^2=(-x)^2.$

It's exam marking time here, and one of the students used the above identity in a proof. The identity is true, but I can't think of a straightforward proof of this.

Question: Is there a short proof of this identity? (Note: $R$ might not have a multiplicative identity.)

Here's a proof generated by Prover9, which makes me think there might not be a shorter proof. However, this might not necessarily be true, since Prover9 can only work with the ring theory axioms I input (and would have to prove any auxiliary lemmata we would take for granted).

============================== PROOF =================================

% Proof 1 at 0.01 (+ 0.00) seconds.
% Length of proof is 26.
% Level of proof is 10.
% Maximum clause weight is 16.
% Given clauses 30.

1 x * x = -x * -x # label(non_clause) # label(goal).  [goal].
2 x + (y + z) = (x + y) + z.  [assumption].
3 (x + y) + z = x + (y + z).  [copy(2),flip(a)].
4 x + 0 = x.  [assumption].
5 0 + x = x.  [assumption].
6 x + -x = 0.  [assumption].
8 x + y = y + x.  [assumption].
10 x * (y + z) = (x * y) + (x * z).  [assumption].
11 (x + y) * z = (x * z) + (y * z).  [assumption].
12 -c1 * -c1 != c1 * c1.  [deny(1)].
13 x + (-x + y) = y.  [para(6(a,1),3(a,1,1)),rewrite([5(2)]),flip(a)].
18 (x * 0) + (x * y) = x * y.  [para(5(a,1),10(a,1,2)),flip(a)].
19 (x * y) + (x * -y) = x * 0.  [para(6(a,1),10(a,1,2)),flip(a)].
24 --x = x.  [para(6(a,1),13(a,1,2)),rewrite([4(2)]),flip(a)].
25 x + (y + -x) = y.  [para(8(a,1),13(a,1,2))].
27 (x * y) + ((-x * y) + (z * y)) = z * y.  [para(13(a,1),11(a,1,1)),rewrite([11(5)]),flip(a)].
33 -x + (y + x) = y.  [para(24(a,1),25(a,1,2,2))].
40 x + -(x + y) = -y.  [para(33(a,1),33(a,1,2)),rewrite([8(3)])].
57 -(x + y) = -y + -x.  [para(33(a,1),40(a,1,2,1)),flip(a)].
69 x * 0 = 0.  [para(18(a,1),33(a,1,2)),rewrite([8(4),6(4)]),flip(a)].
70 (x * y) + (x * -y) = 0.  [back_rewrite(19),rewrite([69(6)])].
78 -(x * -y) = x * y.  [para(70(a,1),33(a,1,2)),rewrite([8(5),5(5)])].
87 x * -y = -(x * y).  [para(78(a,1),24(a,1,1)),flip(a)].
88 -(-c1 * c1) != c1 * c1.  [back_rewrite(12),rewrite([87(5)])].
101 -(-x * y) = x * y.  [para(27(a,1),33(a,1,2)),rewrite([57(5),8(8),13(8)])].
102 $F.  [resolve(101,a,88,a)].

============================== end of proof ==========================
share|improve this question
add comment

6 Answers 6

up vote 19 down vote accepted

Let $\rm\:y=x\:$ in the Law of Signs: $\rm\:xy = xy+(x+-x)(-y) = x(y+-y) + (-x)(-y) = (-x)(-y)$

Remark $\ $ The proof has the following conceptual intepretation: $\rm\:xy = (-x)(-y)\:$ since they are both additive inverses of $\rm\:x(-y)\:$ hence are equal by uniqueness of inverses. As I frequently emphasize, uniqueness theorems provide powerful tools for proving equalities.

share|improve this answer
1  
Boy do you emphasize on that often! Nice link... you made your point! –  Patrick Da Silva Nov 1 '12 at 6:54
add comment

\begin{align} 0=(x-x)^2 &= x^2+x(-x)+(-x)x+(-x)^2 \\ &= x^2+x(-x)+(-x)x+x^2-x^2+(-x)^2 \\ &= x(x-x)+(-x+x)x-x^2+(-x)^2 \\ &= -x^2+(-x)^2 \end{align}

share|improve this answer
    
Great! This is exactly what I'm after. Thanks (and thanks to the other answerers too). –  Douglas S. Stones Nov 1 '12 at 1:20
2  
@DouglasS.Stones: Bill Dubuque just posted a far superior answer - please take a look! –  wj32 Nov 1 '12 at 1:31
    
I agree, it is very insightful (sorry, I'm retracting your "accepted answer", but at least, since you hinted at it, I feel less guilty). –  Douglas S. Stones Nov 1 '12 at 1:51
add comment

what about $x^2-(-x)^2 = (x-(-x))*(x+(-x)) = (x-(-x))*0 = 0$ ?

share|improve this answer
add comment

We have:

$$ (-x) * x + x * x = 0 * x = 0 $$

Therefore:

$$ -(x * x) = (-x) * x $$

Similarly:

$$ -(x * x) = x * (-x) $$

Apply these results to $(-x) * (-x)$ To get what you want:

$$ (-x) * (-x) = -(x * (-x)) = -(-(x * x)) = x * x $$

share|improve this answer
add comment

Another approach: The proof is easy if the ring has identity, and if not, the ring can always be embedded in a ring with identity. If the statement is true in the larger ring, it's true in the original subring.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Has anyone thought of using |x|=|-x|=x preposition? M trying to use this,see...

   We also have,
                    |x|=|-x|
   Multiplying both sides by -x;
                    |x.-x|=|-x.-x|
                    |-x square|=|x square|

Is it worth or foolish, just came in my mind so wrote... Need u'r opinion....plz

share|improve this answer
2  
The trouble with this approach is that |x| might not even be defined in an arbitrary ring. –  Douglas S. Stones Nov 1 '12 at 4:13
    
Yes, I second Douglas S. Stone, the definition of $|x|$ is either in terms of its values on positive and negative numbers (which uses an order relation that an arbitrary ring doesn't have) or as $\sqrt{x^2}$, which presupposes that square roots (of squares) exist in the ring, and it's not clear that such square roots exist. –  Jonah Sinick Nov 1 '12 at 4:47
    
k guys...i got u! –  deepeshkumar Nov 1 '12 at 6:32
    
This is not an answer to the question. If you have another question, please use the Ask Question link near the upper right of the page. If you have a comment on a question or answer, when you have enough reputation, you can leave a comment. You can always comment on your own question or answer. –  robjohn May 1 '13 at 8:00
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.