1
$\begingroup$

When reading (or writing, in fact) a proof, or the resolution of an equation, I often find myself in the following situation.

Say, for example, that the writer proves the statement $A=B$, where $A$ and $B$ represent any valid mathematical expressions. Along the course of the proof, the writer manipulates the equation until at some point they use a statement of the form $$X=Y=Z\ \text{,}$$ and then I find myself trying to decipher if it is something like $$A=A'=B$$ or $$A=B=B'$$ (or even $A=B'=B$), where the prime ($'$) symbol represents a "direct" algebraic manipulation of the corresponding expression.

To clarify what I mean, here's a simple example. Suppose we're solving the equation $(1+2)x=x^3$. At some point we write $$(1+2)x=3x=x^3\ .$$ In this example it is trivial to see that the second expression has been obtained by an algebraic manipulation of the first one: this statement is semantically equivalent to the sentence "A, which by the way is the same as A', is equal to B", where—in this particular case—$A$ is $\ (1+2)x\ $, $A'$ is $\ 3x\ $ and $B$ is $\ x^3\ $.

But for much more complicated expressions, it is not so trivial to see, without assuming a convention or using different symbols for each equality. Moreover, often algebraic manipulations are performed on both sides, but only one of them is "expanded" in the format $A=A'$—the other one is written directly ($B'$).

So my question is, is there a convention that allows a direct interpretation of the 'framework' of the statement without comparing the actual expressions?

For example, would the following use of the "defined as" symbol ($\doteq$) be customary?

$$A = A'\doteq B$$

If we were, instead of just solving an equation, proving that $A=B$, would the symbol $\stackrel{?}=$ make sense?

$$A = A' \stackrel{?}= B$$

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ $A=B$ says $A$ and $B$ are equal. It says nothing about how we know they are equal. That is usually better explained in text, rather than by notation. But if $A'=B$ is already known (perhaps from a definition of $A'$ or of $B$, perhaps from other results) and then $A$ is obtained by simplification of $A'$, then the most natural way to write this might be $B = A' = A$. $\endgroup$ – Robert Israel Aug 14 '18 at 19:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You might write something like "where the first equality comes from ... and the second from ...". $\endgroup$ – Robert Israel Aug 14 '18 at 19:34
1
$\begingroup$

I agree with your concern, this is a common situation. In cases the chain of identities would not seem obvious, textual explanations and/or splitting the derivation in more steps can be helpful.

E.e.

Given the equation

$$\tag1 (1+2)x=x^3$$ we can rewrite

$$(1+2)x=3x$$

so that from the initial identity

$$3x=x^3.$$

I wouldn't favor the "defined as" convention which doesn't sound logical. $$3x:=x^3$$ is not the intended meaning.

Alternatively, you could annotate the equal sign with a reference to where the identity appeared.

$$(1+2)x=3x\stackrel{(1)}=x^3.$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your insight; the annotation above the equals sign is a potential solution for enhancing readability while keeping things short. Alternatively, if the context of the initial equation was a proof, specifically (i.e. we wanted to prove $A=B$) would the use of the symbol $\stackrel{?}=$, as in $A=A'\stackrel{?}=B$, make sense? Or would it actually be more confusing? $\endgroup$ – Anakhand Aug 15 '18 at 8:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Anakhand: this is addressing a different issue. $\endgroup$ – Yves Daoust Aug 15 '18 at 8:04

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.