0

I can show it is reflexive and symmetric but I don't know how to show transitivity using only the properties of natural numbers (no division).

janmarqz
  • 10,538

2 Answers2

1

Suppose $(a,b)\sim (c,d)$ and also that $(c,d)\sim (e,f)$.

By definition of our relation, you have then that $ad(b+c) = bc(a+d)$ and that $cf(d+e)=de(c+f)$

We ask if it follows that $af(b+e)=be(a+f)$ (which would imply that $(a,b)\sim (e,f)$ and that $\sim$ is transitive).

From $(a,b)\sim(c,d)$ we know that $ad(b+c)=bc(a+d)\Leftrightarrow acd - bcd = abc - abd\Leftrightarrow (a-b)cd = (c-d)ab$

Similarly, $(c,d)\sim (e,f)$ implies $(c-d)ef = (e-f)cd$

Then we have $((a-b)ef)cd=((a-b)cd)ef = ((c-d)ab)ef = ((c-d)ef)ab = ((e-f)cd)ab=((e-f)ab)cd$

Since $c\neq 0$ and $d\neq 0$, this implies that $(a-b)ef=(e-f)ab$. This in turn implies that $(a,b)\sim (e,f)$ and the relation is indeed transitive.


Without using subtraction:

Note that $(a,b)\sim (c,d)\Leftrightarrow ad(b+c) = bc(a+d) \Leftrightarrow abd + acd = abc + bcd~~~$ (eqn 1)

Similarly, $(c,d)\sim (e,f)\Leftrightarrow cdf + cef = cde + def~~~$(eqn 2)

We have then:

$\begin{array}{ll|l} abcdf+abdef+acdef & =abcdf + (abd+acd)ef&\text{rearranging and distributivity}\\ &=abcdf + (abc+bcd)ef&\text{by eqn 1}\\ &=abcdf+abcef+bcdef&\text{rearranging and distributivity}\\ &=ab(cdf+cef) + bcdef&\text{rearranging and distributivity}\\ &=ab(cde+def)+bcdef&\text{by eqn 2}\\ &=abcde + abdef + bcdef&\text{rearranging and distributivity} \end{array}$

So, $abcdf + \color{blue}{abdef} + acdef = abcde + \color{blue}{abdef} + bcdef$

So, $ab\color{blue}{cd}f + a\color{blue}{cd}ef = ab\color{blue}{cd}e + b\color{blue}{cd}ef$.

Since $cd\neq 0$, we have $abf + aef = abe + bef$

This implies then that $af(b+e) = be(a+f)$, showing that $(a,b)\sim (e,f)$

JMoravitz
  • 79,518
  • @user284927 As requested then, even without subtraction. It is much more tedious to come up with these arguments without the use of division or subtraction. In my opinion, you should be allowed to lift the naturals to the reals in order to use the properties of the reals for them, but it apparently wasn't necessary. – JMoravitz Oct 29 '15 at 04:31
  • Thank you so much I really appreciate it! –  Oct 29 '15 at 04:50
  • I understand everything except for how you came up with the abcdf+abdef+acdef. Could you explain where that came from? Thanks! –  Oct 29 '15 at 04:55
  • @user284927 I took my argument which had subtractions, set it as one long string of equalities, and then added anything which had a negative sign to all expressions in the string of equalities. I then took what the string of equalities now looked like and came up with justifications for them. – JMoravitz Oct 29 '15 at 04:58
0

Rewrite the equivalence as $\;\dfrac1a+\dfrac1d=\dfrac1b+\dfrac1c$.

Bernard
  • 175,478