5
$\begingroup$

I'm learning the basics of group theory, and must justify every step of a proof by referring to the basic axioms/theorems. Which axioms/theorems justify multiplying or adding an element of a group to both sides of an equation?

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It depends on how deep you want to go. It's not a group theory axiom, it's a "mathematics axiom", (in $\sf ZFC$ it would boil down to the Axiom of Extensionality). Morally, if you have "two" equal objects, whatever you do to them results in yet two equal objects. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Mar 17 '18 at 23:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ By the way, the identities $aa^{-1}=e$ and $a^{-1}a=e$ tell us that $a$ satisfies the required properties for being the inverse of $a^{-1}$, so it is the inverse of $a^{-1}$. No manipulation is necessary. As to your question, have you got doubts when passing from $2x=4$ to $x=2$ in elementary algebra? I guess not. Well, it's the same, because you multiply both sides by $1/2$. $\endgroup$ – egreg Mar 17 '18 at 23:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $a = b$ then $a$ and $b$ are the same element (call it "fred"). A group has a binary operation and doing the operation on two elements will constantly yield the same result. So fred$\times c$ will be an elment (call it "sally") and fred$\times c$ will always be sally. So if $a = b$ and $a\times c = b\times c$ because $a$ and $b$ diferent ways of saying fred, and $a\times c$ will be fred$\times c$ and $b\times c$ is just fred$\times c$. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Mar 18 '18 at 0:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "As to your question, have you got doubts when passing from 2x=4 to x=2 in elementary algebra? " I imagine the OP doesn't but that the OP doesn't know how one can justify that by group axioms. In a way it's not really fair the we say "you must justify everything" and then when comes to justifying things actually exists we say "of things are what they are! We don't have to justify that, duh". And as Git Gud points out we do have existence axioms for that. But usually "equality" is considered "is the same specific thing" and whatever you do to the thing, is done to the thing is assumed. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Mar 18 '18 at 0:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Anyway, it's a good question. I'm sorry that my way of dealing with it isn't a good answer. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Mar 18 '18 at 0:58

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.