Please try to avoid jumping directly the proof, the text before it is crucial to my question as well.

I had a proof of this here, but I have come to realize that the proof is circular since I implied the result in all $3$ lemmas. I also believe that the one liner given in a comment to that question ($e_1=e_1+e_2=e_2$) also relies on some assumptions which were not given in the text. So allow me to write exactly what is given, exactly as written from the text (Apostol's "Mathematical Analysis"):

Definition of addition and multiplication:

Along with the set R of real numbers we assume the existence of two operations, called addition and multiplication, such that for every pair of real numbers $x$ and $y$ the sum $x+y$ and the product $xy$ are real numbers satisfying the following axioms. (In the axioms that appeat below, $x, y, z$ represent arbitrary real numbers unless something is said to the contrary)

Axiom 1: Commutative Laws

$x+y=y+x$, $xy=yx$

Axiom 2: Associative Laws

$x+(y+z)=(x+y)+z$, $x(yz)=(xy)z$

Axiom 3: Distributive Law


Axiom 4:

Given any two real numbers $x$ and $y$, there exists a real number $z$ such that $x+z=y$. This $z$ is denoted by $y-x$; the number $x-x$ is denoted by $0$ (it can be proved that $0$ is independent of $x$.) We write $-x$ for $0-x$ and call $-x$ the negative of $x$.

Please Note:

I will denote the number $x-x$ as $0_x$ and $y-y$ as $0_y$. We are not given $x + 0 = x$ or $x + (-x) = 0$ in the general sense (which would imply a piece of information that is not given in the text about $0$). What I mean by that is that we are given that $x + (x-x)=x$, but we are not given that $x+(y-y)=x$. And we are given $x + ((x-x)-x) = x-x$, but we are not given $x + ((y-y)-x) = x-x$. The only piece of information we have about $0$ is that it is the symbol which denotes $x-x$, the number which when added to $x$ results in $x$.

Before I start the actual proof, I want to make another note; the way I understand it, the "uniqueness of $0$" can have at least $2$ different meanings:

$1)$ The number $0_x$ that satisfies $x + 0_x = x$ is unique

$2)$ The number $0_x$ is the same as $0_y$

I believe the first meaning of uniqueness follows from the definition of $z$ in axiom $4$, as the wording in axiom $4$ seems to imply that $z$ in axiom $4$ is unique (please let me know if I am correct/incorrect here). Also, were are not given $y-x=y+(-x)$; $y-x$ is just a symbol for the number $z$ in axiom $4$.

So now I am trying to prove the second meaning of uniqueness (this proof is similar to the one in the linked question, only hopefully witouth circular assumptions):

Lemma: If $x+z=y+z$, then $x=y$

Let $x=y$

Add $z$ to both sides


Therefore, if $x+z=y+z$, then $x=y$

I think the proof of this lemma is correct only if we assume that addition is an operation which maps two real numbers to one unique real number. Is this a fair assumption to make from the definition of addition given above? Is there a way to prove this lemma without this assumption?

Proof that $0_x=0_y$

So just a refresher on the definition, $0_x=x-x$ and $0_y=y-y$

$x + 0_x = x$

$y + 0_y = y$

By axiom $4$, we are guaranteed that there exists a (unique?) $z$ such that $x + z = y$, so we will replace $y$ by $x + z$.

$x +z + 0_y = x+z$

By associative and commutative laws,

$(x + 0_y)+z = (x)+z$

By the lemma,

$(x + 0_y) = (x)$


$(x + 0_x) = (x)$

And if meaning number $1$ of uniqueness given above is true, then $0_x = 0_y$

  • $\begingroup$ Your "proof" of the lemma actually proves the converse: if $x=y$ then $x+z=y+z$. You would have to start by assuming $x+z=y+z$ and then deduce that $x=y$. $\endgroup$ – kccu Dec 28 '15 at 4:26
  • $\begingroup$ Note that if the real number guaranteed in axiom 4 is unique, the lemma follows immediately - you have $z+x=z+x$ and $z+y=z+x$, so $x=y$. $\endgroup$ – kccu Dec 28 '15 at 4:40
  • $\begingroup$ Ovi, I've upvoted this question, but I think you may also want to post a separate question asking whether these axioms are in fact enough (that is, not "Is my proof right?" but "Is Apostol's claim right?"). (If you don't want to ask it, I would be happy to.) $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Dec 28 '15 at 6:32
  • $\begingroup$ It's possible, I have not worked out the details, that you need the unstated 5th axiom that for any non zero x, y there is a z so that xz = y. Distribution says $y0_x = y(x - x) = xy - xy = 0xy$ So maybe $0x = z\frac 1 z 0x = z0_{x/z}$ can eventually yield $0_z = 0_x$. Although there is a reason I never open my Apostol as much as my other analysis books. Sheesh. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Dec 28 '15 at 21:01
  • $\begingroup$ Actually that is the 5th axiom given, but unfortunately we can't deduce $y(x-x)=xy-xy$ until we prove that $x-x=x+(-x)$, which I couldn't find a way to prove without first proving the uniqueness of zero. From this website I got the impression that Apostol's book was a classic and very good though! How are other analysis books better? $\endgroup$ – Ovi Dec 28 '15 at 21:06

I also believe that, in its current form, Axiom 4 is not strong enough to prove unicity. I think we need to modify the first sentence of Axiom 4 to read:

Given any two real numbers $x$ and $y$, there exists a unique real number $z$ such that $x + z = y$.

Then to show that $0_x$ = $0_y$ it suffices to show that $x + y + 0_x = x + y = x + y + 0_y$, and this follows from the definitions of $0_x$ and $0_y$ and the commutativity and associativity axioms.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for the answer! This is exactly the same proof that was given here math.stackexchange.com/questions/1580808/… , where the author assumed that axiom 4 implied uniqueness. I'm really curious, if I may ask what was the motivation behind proving it like this? What was your thought process in coming up with this proof? $\endgroup$ – Ovi Dec 28 '15 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Ovi I wondered how to use the added uniqueness hypothesis in the most straightforward manner. To use this hypothesis to conclude that $0_x = 0_y$ I thought we would need to have some expression of the form $f(x,y) + 0_x = f(x,y)$ hold true, as well as $f(x,y) + 0_y = f(x,y)$. Also, $f(x,y)$ had to include both a term in $x$ and a term in $y$ in order for $0_x$ to be absorbed by $x$, $0_y$ to be absorbed by $y$, and leave us with $f(x,y)$. The simplest such $f$ is $f(x,y) = x + y$, but even something like $f(x,y) = x + y + y$ would have worked (it's just not as elegant!). $\endgroup$ – Alex Provost Dec 28 '15 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Ovi You're welcome! For completeness I added the uniqueness hypothesis in my answer to your related question and filled out the remaining details. $\endgroup$ – Alex Provost Dec 28 '15 at 21:18
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry to bother you on an old question but the finish I came up with for your proof would be$0_x=0_{x+y}$ and $0_y=0_{x+y}$, therefore $0_x=0_y$? This is a little unsettling, because what if we came along with 2 different numbers $a, b$ and used the same steps to deduce $0_a=0_{a+b}$ and $0_b=0_{a+b}$, it would be true that $0_a=0_{b}$ but would it necessarily follow that $0_{x+y}=0_{a+b}$ and therefore $0_x=0_y=0_a=0_b$? $\endgroup$ – Ovi Dec 30 '15 at 6:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Ovi No, we show $0_x = 0_y$ without ever considering $0_{x+y}$. What we do is we show that the numbers $z = 0_x$ and $z = 0_y$ both satisfy the relation $x + z = y$; but the the uniqueness part added in Axiom 4 says that there is only one such $z$, so we must have $0_x = 0_y$. $\endgroup$ – Alex Provost Dec 30 '15 at 8:08

The "proof" of the lemma is incorrect: when you write "let $x=y$," you are assuming what you are trying to prove. You need to start with "$x+z=y+z$" and deduce "$x=y$."

As a matter of fact, I'm worried the axioms you've given are not enough, although I don't immediately see how to construct a model proving this. Apostol does give other axioms (the order axioms), but they seem to take the uniqueness of $0$ for granted. I wouldn't be too surprised if there is a clever way to show that $0_x=0_y$ just from the axioms he gives, but I can't see it right now, and I also wouldn't be surprised if it's his mistaske.

Note that the existence of a specific zero element is usually taken as one of the field axioms; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)#Definition_and_illustration.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Hm yeah I'm worried about Apostol's lack of the use of symbols such as $0_x$ and $0_y$, makes it a little confusing. Do you think there is a way to properly prove the lemma, and thus prove $0_x=0_y$, or do we have to go another way? I asked a related question a while ago and somebody provided a proof of the uniqueness of zero which I didn't immediately understand, but I'll go over it again and post a question about it probably, ill notify you with another comment here when I do. $\endgroup$ – Ovi Dec 28 '15 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ Ah now I understand the proof, I think it's valid but I wonder what the motivation behind solving it this way is: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1580808/… $\endgroup$ – Ovi Dec 28 '15 at 13:56

I was thinking about this on the train today.

You left out axiom 6 and 7 : two order axioms:

Axiom 6: Exactly one of the following holds: $x = y, x < y,$ or $x > y$.

Axiom 7: If $x < y$ then for every x $x + z < y + z$

With these we can conclude that $m + y = n + y \iff m = n$ (Precisely on $m < n; m = n; m > n$ assures precisely one possible condition for $m + y$ to $n + y$)

With that we can note that in Axiom 4, "given x and y there exists a z such that z + x = y" we can now know such a z is unique.

And thus $0_y = y - y$ is the unique element such that $0_y + y = y + 0_y = y$.

Okay. So suppose $x + 0_y = z$. Then $ \implies x + 0_y + y = x + y = z + y \implies x = z \implies x + 0_y = x \implies 0_y = x - x = 0_x$.

Thus $0$ is unique.

I don't think you can prove $m + y = n + y \iff m = n$ without the order principle. I could be wrong but I doubt it. ... Oh wait..

Suppose $m + y = n +y = z$. If $v = (n -y) -m$ and $w = m -y$.

With tedium we can show $v + w + y + y$ equals both $m$ and $n$ so $m = n$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, I don't have enough time to read your answer fully yet but I believe I found a way to prove that $m + y = n + y \iff m = n$. We set $m+y=a, n+y=a$. By axiom 4, we have $m=y-a$ and $n=y-a$, and if we can assume the uniqueness of $y-a$ (which I don't think we can prove much at all if we don't assume this) then we have $m=n$. Does this sound alright to you? Do you think this would complete my proof and make it valid? I still prefer A.P.'s proof time mine though. $\endgroup$ – Ovi Jan 4 '16 at 5:00
  • $\begingroup$ I'm going around in circles but, no, I don't see that we can assume y-a are unique. We can show that if m+y = n + y then m + n = n + n = m + m. And that m + $0_n = n$. And I've been able to show $m = n*1_y$ and $n = m*1_y$ but I just can't pin this 0s and 1s done to the ground. Also if m + y = n + y = z then $0_z = n -m$. I'm not convinced we can do this without the order principal but I can't come up with a good counter example. (I can come up with a two binary ops that are associative and distributive that doesn't have a 1 or 0). $\endgroup$ – fleablood Jan 4 '16 at 5:33
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean you can't pin them down to the ground? I still haven't gotten a chance to go over the answer in great detail but you seem to have proved the uniqueness of zero. Do you mean that you can't pin $0$ as the integer between $-1$ and $1$? $\endgroup$ – Ovi Jan 4 '16 at 7:23
  • $\begingroup$ I haven't proven the uniqueness of zero (without the order axioms) yet. I thought I might have, but what I had relied upon the uniqueness of 1 which is another thing I can not take for granted. I have proven the uniqueness of 0 with the order axioms. I suspect without the order axioms and Apostle's first five axioms, it is impossible to prove the 0s and 1s are universal and unique. The "normal" field axioms define a universal 0 first (which trivially must be unique) and axiomatically declare that (-m) exists for every m (which are easy to show are unique) ... to be continued... $\endgroup$ – fleablood Jan 4 '16 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ .... continued ... and it's not hard to show for an m there is no other "private" zero; i.e. if m + a = m then a must equal 0, and then declare subtraction is well-defined as the addition of the inverse. Apostle's axioms work backwards by first declaring subtraction exists and claiming from that we can prove every "private" zero are equal to a unique univeral zero. !BUT! he does not declare that subtraction yields a unique result. Without that I strongly suspect these two approaches are not equivalent as the "normal" approach required declaring the 0 to be universal by axiom. ..tbc.. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Jan 4 '16 at 16:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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