0
$\begingroup$

Note: my goal is maximum mathematical rigor.

The toy problem here is (from [{Spivak's Calculus book}'s 1st chapter]'s problems):

  • Prove that, if $b,d\ne 0$, then $\frac{a}{b} = \frac{c}{d}$ if and only if $ad = bc$.
  • Allowed axioms are only: additive association/inverse/identity, multiplicative association/inverse/identity, and distributive property of addition and multiplication.

Now, what puzzles me is: how would my proof be different if there was no "if and only if" phrase?

Below is my proving attempt:

First let's rewrite the problem in a language closer to the axioms:

  • Prove $ab^{-1} = cd^{-1}$ if and only if $ad = bc$ (of course, $b,d\ne 0$).

Proof--- By multiplying both sides by $bd$:

$$ ab^{-1}bd = cd^{-1}bd $$

By [axiom mul assotition]

$$ a(b^{-1}b)d = c(d^{-1}d)b $$

By [axiom mul inverse]:

$$ a(1)d = c(1)b $$

By [axiom mul identity]:

$$ ad = cb $$

$\blacksquare$

My questions

Is my proof above adequate to show "if" (way forward) and "and only if" (way back) properties?

If maximum rigor is to sought for my proof, should I add any extra wordings there to signify that my proof is actually proving the "iff" (both ways) and not only "if" (forward)? E.g. should I reverse the proof backwards to show that it's both ways?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Your proof assumes, from the start, that, given three real numbers $a$, $b$, and $c$, with $c\neq0$,$$a=b\iff ac=bc.$$Perhaps that you could prove it.

Besides, after multiplying both sides by $bd$, what you should get is $(ab^{-1})(bd)=(cd^{-1})(bd)$. Only then can you use associativity to prove what you want to prove. And note that you have used the commutativity of the multiplication, when you went from $cd^{-1}bd$ to $c(d^{-1}d)b$ .

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. What do you mean by "perhaps that you could prove it"? Are you implying that I did not prove it, but I could? I'm also confused, are you also saying that my proof is perfect rigor, except for only one fault as I misapplied the multiplication? $\endgroup$ – caveman May 8 at 23:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I meant that your proof is incomplete and that, in order to be complete you should prove that statement. And, yes, there was that small fail that I mentioned. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos May 9 at 6:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ At the first step, when you claim that $ab^{-1}=cd^{-1}\iff ab^{-1}bd=cd^{-1}bd$. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos May 19 at 22:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Almost. You should prove that $a=b\iff ac=bc$. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos May 21 at 13:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Substituting $a$ into $b$ only proves that $a=b\implies ac=bc$. In order to prove that $ac=bc\implies a=b$, you should do$$ac=bc\implies(ac)c^{-1}=(bc)c^{-1}\iff a(cc^{-1})=b(cc^{-1})\iff a=b.$$ $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos May 21 at 14:16

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.