(-a)×(-a)= a×a


121

我们都知道(希望如此),但是您能证明吗?-一种×-一种=一种×一种

您的任务是使用环形公理证明这一事实。什么是环公理?环公理是一组规则的列表,一组集合上的两个二进制操作必须遵循这些规则。这两个操作是加法和乘法。对于这个挑战,这里是环公理,其中和是对某个集合封闭二元运算,是对的封闭一元运算,而,和是成员:+×+×小号-小号一种bC小号

  1. 一种+b+C=一种+b+C

  2. 一种+0=一种

  3. 一种+-一种=0

  4. 一种+b=b+一种 *

  5. 一种×b×C=一种×b×C

  6. 一种×1个=一种

  7. 1个×一种=一种

  8. 一种×b+C=一种×b+一种×C

  9. b+C×一种=b×一种+C×一种

您的证明应该是一连串的等式,每个等式都是一个公理的应用。

您可以将公理应用于整个表达式或某些子表达式。例如,如果我们有则可以将公理4仅应用于项,项或整个表达式。变量也可以代表任意复杂的表达式,例如我们可以将公理4应用于以获得。在证明的每个步骤中,您只能将一个公理应用于一个表达式。所有公理都是双向的,这意味着替换可以沿任一方向进行。不允许以下内容一种+C+b+Cb+C(a+c)((a×c)+b)+((a)+1)((a)+1)+((a×c)+b)

(a + b) + (c + d) = (a + (b + c)) + d Ax. 1

这应该分两个步骤完成:

(a + b) + (c + d) = ((a + b) + c) + d Ax. 1
                  = (a + (b + c)) + d Ax. 1

你通常会以事实是理所当然的,但不是公理列表上列出不能假设,例如是真实的,但需要多个步骤瓶坯。(a)=(1)×a

Anthony用户已经提供了一个在线证明验证器 ,可以代替TIO。

样例证明

这是一个示例证明,其中,并且所用公理在每个步骤的右侧标记。(a)=a

 -(-a) = (-(-a)) + 0          Ax. 2
       = 0 + (-(-a))          Ax. 4
       = (a + (-a)) + (-(-a)) Ax. 3
       = a + ((-a) + (-(-a))) Ax. 1
       = a + 0                Ax. 3
       = a                    Ax. 2

在线尝试!

您将被要求使用如上所示的连续替换来证明。(a)×(a)=a×一种

计分

这是因此您的答案将按照从到的步数进行评分,分数越低越好。-一种×-一种一种×一种

引理

一些答案选择了在证明中使用Lemmas,因此,我将描述应如何评分以避免混淆。对于初学者来说,引理是您稍后在证明中使用的事实的证明。在实际数学中,它们可以帮助组织您的想法或将信息清楚地传达给读者。在这个挑战中,使用引理不会对您的分数产生直接影响。(尽管证明组织可以使打高尔夫球更容易或更难)

如果您选择使用引理,那么每次使用该引理将花费与首先证明该引理相同的步骤。例如,这是使用引理证明的分数分解。

Lemma:
a × 0 = 0

Proof (7 steps):
a × 0 = (a × 0) + 0                        Ax. 2 (1)
      = (a × 0) + ((a × b) + (-(a × b)))   Ax. 3 (1)
      = ((a × 0) + (a × b)) + (-(a × b))   Ax. 1 (1)
      = (a × (0 + b)) + (-(a × b))         Ax. 8 (1)
      = (a × (b + 0)) + (-(a × b))         Ax. 4 (1)
      = (a × b) + (-(a × b))               Ax. 2 (1)
      = 0                                  Ax. 3 (1)

Theorem:
(a × 0) + (b × 0) = 0

Proof (15 steps):
(a × 0) + (b × 0) = 0 + (b × 0)  Lemma (7)
                  = (b × 0) + 0  Ax. 4 (1)
                  = b × 0        Ax. 2 (1)
                  = 0            Lemma (7)

*:已经指出该公理不是严格证明该属性的必要条件,但是仍然可以使用它。

†:由于没有以期望的等式出现,因此使用这些公理的证明也不是最小的。那就是这些公理不能帮助证明期望的事实。仅出于完整性考虑,将它们包括在内。1个


8
我们编写的程序应该解决这个问题,还是只是打印答案?
塔赫格

8
@Tahg您应该证明它并提交证明作为答案。这与您将在此处看到的大多数(如果不是全部)问题不同。
HyperNeutrino

8
在我意识到a * 0 = 0不在公理列表之前,我感到非常沮丧。
Sparr

8
嗯...我可能是错的,但不是这样吗?答案不应该包含代码吗?
–totalhuman

34
@icrieverytim如果有帮助,可以将公理列表视为具有九个内置参数替换函数的编程语言,这是将特定输入转换为特定输出的函数的代码。
Sparr

Answers:


47

18步

(-a)*(-a) = ((-a)*(-a))+0                                             Axiom 2
          = ((-a)*(-a))+(((a*a)+(a*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a)))))        Axiom 3
          = (((-a)*(-a))+((a*a)+(a*(-a))))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a))))        Axiom 1
          = (((a*a)+(a*(-a)))+((-a)*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a))))        Axiom 4
          = ((a*a)+((a*(-a))+((-a)*(-a))))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a))))        Axiom 1
          = ((a*a)+((a+(-a))*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a))))               Axiom 9
          = ((a*a)+(0*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a))))                      Axiom 3
          = ((a*(a+0))+(0*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a))))                  Axiom 2
          = ((a*(a+(a+(-a))))+(0*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a))))           Axiom 3
          = (((a*a)+(a*(a+(-a))))+(0*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a))))       Axiom 8
          = ((a*a)+((a*(a+(-a)))+(0*(-a))))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a))))       Axiom 1
          = (a*a)+(((a*(a+(-a)))+(0*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a)))))       Axiom 1
          = (a*a)+((((a*a)+(a*(-a)))+(0*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a)))))   Axiom 8
          = (a*a)+(((a*a)+((a*(-a))+(0*(-a))))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a)))))   Axiom 1
          = (a*a)+(((a*a)+((a+0)*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a)))))          Axiom 9
          = (a*a)+(((a*a)+(a*(-a)))+(-((a*a)+(a*(-a)))))              Axiom 2
          = (a*a)+0                                                   Axiom 3
          = a*a                                                       Axiom 2

我写了一个程序来检查我的解决方案。因此,如果您发现此错误,则我的程序也是错误的。


@Etoplay出于好奇,您是否在Prolog中编写了程序?
JalilCompaoré17年

23
如果可以包含您的程序,那就太好了。它肯定可以帮助验证其他解决方案。
精神主义O'Zaic

2
仅一次应用一个公理,如何从第一行转到第二行?
SztupY

4
@SztupY Axiom 3 v + (-v) = 0v = ((a*a)+(a*(-a))您一步一步到达那里。
MT0


29

18步

与已经发布的18步骤解决方案不同。

a*a = a*a + 0                                                 A2
    = a*a + ((a*(-a) + a*(-a)) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a))))        A3
    = (a*a + (a*(-a) + a*(-a))) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))        A1
    = (a*a + a*((-a) + (-a))) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))          A8
    = a*(a + ((-a) + (-a))) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))            A8
    = a*((a + (-a)) + (-a)) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))            A1
    = a*(0 + (-a)) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))                     A3
    = a*((-a) + 0) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))                     A4
    = a*(-a) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))                           A2
    = (a + 0)*(-a) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))                     A2
    = (a + (a + (-a)))*(-a) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))            A3
    = ((a + a) + (-a))*(-a) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))            A1
    = ((-a) + (a + a))*(-a) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))            A4
    = ((-a)*(-a) + (a + a)*(-a)) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))       A9
    = ((-a)*(-a) + (a*(-a) + a*(-a))) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a)))  A9
    = (-a)*(-a) + ((a*(-a) + a*(-a)) + (-(a*(-a) + a*(-a))))  A1
    = (-a)*(-a) + 0                                           A3
    = (-a)*(-a)                                               A2

有趣的是看到有人倒过来做。所有步骤都是可逆的,因此这是一个很好的证明。
精神分裂症O'Zaic,2017年

它倒挂大多是偶然的。证明实际上是相当对称的:我使用两个相似的步骤序列从两端到中间项a*(-a) + stuff
埃米尔·杰拉贝克(EmilJeřábek)


28

29 26个步骤

没有引理!

如果发现任何错误,请发表评论。(很容易犯错误)

(-a) × (-a) = ((-a) + 0) × (-a)                                                  Ax. 2
            = ((-a) + (a + (-a))) × (-a)                                         Ax. 3
            = ((a + (-a)) + (-a)) × (-a)                                         Ax. 4
            = (a + ((-a) + (-a))) × (-a)                                         Ax. 1
            = (a × (-a)) + (((-a) + (-a)) × (-a))                                Ax. 9
            = (a × ((-a) + 0)) + (((-a) + (-a)) × (-a))                          Ax. 2
            = (a × ((-a) + (a + (-a)))) + (((-a) + (-a)) × (-a))                 Ax. 3
            = (a × ((a + (-a)) + (-a))) + (((-a) + (-a)) × (-a))                 Ax. 4
            = (a × (a + ((-a) + (-a)))) + (((-a) + (-a)) × (-a))                 Ax. 1
            = ((a × a) + (a × ((-a) + (-a)))) + (((-a) + (-a)) × (-a))           Ax. 8
            = (a × a) + ((a × ((-a) + (-a))) + (((-a) + (-a)) × (-a)))           Ax. 1
            = (a × a) + (((a × (-a)) + (a × (-a))) + (((-a) + (-a)) × (-a)))     Ax. 8
            = (a × a) + (((a + a) × (-a)) + (((-a) + (-a)) × (-a)))              Ax. 9
            = (a × a) + (((a + a) + ((-a) + (-a))) × (-a))                       Ax. 9
            = (a × a) + ((((a + a) + (-a)) + (-a)) × (-a))                       Ax. 1
            = (a × a) + (((a + (a + (-a))) + (-a)) × (-a))                       Ax. 1
            = (a × a) + (((a + 0) + (-a)) × (-a))                                Ax. 3
            = (a × a) + ((a + (-a)) × (-a))                                      Ax. 2
            = (a × a) + (0 × (-a))                                               Ax. 3
            = (a × a) + ((0 × (-a)) + 0)                                         Ax. 2
            = (a × a) + ((0 × (-a)) + ((0 × (-a)) + (-(0 × (-a)))))              Ax. 3
            = (a × a) + (((0 × (-a)) + (0 × (-a))) + (-(0 × (-a))))              Ax. 1
            = (a × a) + (((0 + 0) × (-a)) + (-(0 × (-a))))                       Ax. 9
            = (a × a) + ((0 × (-a)) + (-(0 × (-a))))                             Ax. 2
            = (a × a) + 0                                                        Ax. 3
            = (a × a)                                                            Ax. 2

归功于Maltysen0×(-a)= 0



14

18步

这不是第一个18步证明,而是比其他方法更简单。

(-a)*(-a)
= (-a)*(-a) + 0                             [Axiom 2]
= (-a)*(-a) + ((-a)*a + -((-a)*a))          [Axiom 3]
= ((-a)*(-a) + (-a)*a) + -((-a)*a)          [Axiom 1]
= ((-a)*(-a) + ((-a) + 0)*a) + -((-a)*a)    [Axiom 2]
= ((-a)*(-a) + ((-a)*a + 0*a)) + -((-a)*a)  [Axiom 9]
= (((-a)*(-a) + (-a)*a) + 0*a) + -((-a)*a)  [Axiom 1]
= ((-a)*((-a) + a) + 0*a) + -((-a)*a)       [Axiom 8]
= ((-a)*(a + (-a)) + 0*a) + -((-a)*a)       [Axiom 4]
= ((-a)*0 + 0*a) + -((-a)*a)                [Axiom 3]
= (0*a + (-a)*0) + -((-a)*a)                [Axiom 4]
= ((a + (-a))*a + (-a)*0) + -((-a)*a)       [Axiom 3]
= ((a*a + (-a)*a) + (-a)*0) + -((-a)*a)     [Axiom 9]
= (a*a + ((-a)*a + (-a)*0)) + -((-a)*a)     [Axiom 1]
= (a*a + (-a)*(a + 0)) + -((-a)*a)          [Axiom 8]
= (a*a + (-a)*a) + -((-a)*a)                [Axiom 2]
= a*a + ((-a)*a + -((-a)*a))                [Axiom 1]
= a*a + 0                                   [Axiom 3]
= a*a                                       [Axiom 2]

验证


9
A2: (-a) x (-a) = ((-a) + 0) x (-a)
A3:             = ((-a) + (a + (-a))) x (-a)
A9:             = ((-a) x (-a)) + ((a + (-a)) x (-a))
A4:             = ((-a) x (-a)) + (((-a) + a) x (-a))
A9:             = ((-a) x (-a)) + (((-a) x (-a)) + (a x (-a)))
A1:             = (((-a) x (-a)) + ((-a) x (-a))) + (a x (-a))
A2:             = (((-a) x (-a)) + ((-a) x (-a))) + (a x ((-a) + 0))
A3:             = (((-a) x (-a)) + ((-a) x (-a))) + (a x ((-a) + (a + (-a))))
A8:             = (((-a) x (-a)) + ((-a) x (-a))) + ((a x (-a)) + (a x (a + (-a))))
A8:             = (((-a) x (-a)) + ((-a) x (-a))) + ((a x (-a)) + ((a x a) + (a x (-a))))
A4:             = (((-a) x (-a)) + ((-a) x (-a))) + ((a x (-a)) + ((a x (-a)) + (a x a)))
A1:             = (((-a) x (-a)) + ((-a) x (-a))) + (((a x (-a)) + (a x (-a))) + (a x a))
A8:             = ((-a) x ((-a) + (-a))) + (((a x (-a)) + (a x (-a))) + (a x a))
A8:             = ((-a) x ((-a) + (-a))) + ((a x ((-a) + (-a))) + (a x a))
A1:             = (((-a) x ((-a) + (-a))) + (a x ((-a) + (-a)))) + (a x a)
A9:             = (((-a) + a) x ((-a) + (-a))) + (a x a)
A4:             = ((a + (-a)) x ((-a) + (-a))) + (a x a)
Lemma:          = (0 x ((-a) + (-a))) + (a x a)
A3:             = 0 + (a x a)
A4:             = (a x a) + 0
A2:             = (a x a)

Lemma: 0 = 0 x a

A3: 0 = (0 x a) + (-(0 x a))
A2:   = ((0 + 0) x a) + (-(0 x a))
A9:   = ((0 x a) + (0 x a)) + (-(0 x a))
A1:   = (0 x a) + ((0 x a) + (-(0 x a)))
A3:   = (0 x a) + 0
A2:   = (0 x a)

27 26个步骤 谢谢 Funky Computer Man注意到重复的行。


1
欢迎光临本站!我不确定为什么您创建一个引理仅使用一次,但是我认为它不违反规则。
精神主义O'Zaic,2017年

@FunkyComputerMan谢谢!你是对的; 我不确定写引理^^时的想法。并感谢您的编辑和评论。
JalilCompaoré17年

1
@JalilCompaoré我想您可以A3通过应用A2第二个(-a)而不是第一个开始来保存最后一个。不过,我不确定,因为我现在没有时间进行处理。
H.PWiz

7

6 + 7 + 7 + 6 + 3 = 29个步骤

我真的希望我没有搞砸,如果您认为我有做,请发表评论。

Lemma 1. a*0=0 (6 steps)

0 = a*0 + -(a*0)  axiom 3
= a*(0+0) + -(a*0) axiom 2
= (a*0 + a*0) + -(a*0) axiom 8
= a*0 + (a*0 + -(a*0)) axiom 1
= a*0 + 0 axiom 3
= a*0 axiom 2

Lemma 2. a*(-b) = -(a*b) (7 steps)

a*(-b) = a*(-b) + 0 axiom 2
= a*(-b) + (a*b + -(a*b)) axiom 3
= (a*(-b) + a*b) + -(a*b) axiom 1
= a*(-b+b) + -(a*b) axiom 8
= a*0 + -(a*b) axiom 3
= 0 + -(a*b) lemma 1
= -(a*b) axiom 2

Lemma 3. (-a)*b = -(a*b) (7 steps)
    same as above

Lemma 4. -(-(a)) = a (6 steps)

 -(-a) = (-(-a)) + 0    axiom 2
 = 0 + (-(-a))          axiom 4
 = (a + (-a)) + (-(-a)) axiom 3
 = a + ((-a) + (-(-a))) axiom 1
 = a + 0                axiom 3
 = a                    axiom 2

Theorem. -a*-a=0 (3 steps)

-a*-a = -(a*(-a)) lemma 3
= -(-(a*a)) lemma 2
= a*a lemma 4

Q.E.D.

3
我认为您虽然不能做引理
HyperNeutrino

11
“定理-a * -a = 0”应为= a * a?
Sparr

2
@ H.PWiz我对使用引理的人没有问题,但是每次使用它们时,它们花费的时间就长了。我建议不要使用它们,因为它们会妨碍优化,但是就我而言,这篇文章很好。
精神主义奥扎伊克

4
在公理2的单个应用中从“ 0 +-(a * b)”变为“-(a * b)”是不正确的。您需要先使用公理4来交换+的边。
Sparr

2
我的阅读方式是引理2/3是6个步骤,再加上引理1的实例需要12个步骤,引理4是6个步骤,总共需要30个步骤。我在这里想念什么吗?
塔赫格

6

23个步骤

(-a) * (-a) = ((-a) * (-a)) + 0                                 ✔ axiom 2
            = ((-a) * (-a)) + (((-a) * a) + -((-a) * a))        ✔ axiom 3
            = (((-a) * (-a)) + (-a) * a) + -((-a) * a)          ✔ axiom 1
            = (-a) * (-a + a) + -((-a) * a)                     ✔ axiom 8
            = (-a) * (a + (-a)) + -((-a) * a)                   ✔ axiom 4
            = ((-a) * 0) + -((-a) * a)                          ✔ axiom 3
            = (((-a) * 0) + 0) + -((-a) * a)                    ✔ axiom 2
            = ((-a) * 0 + ((-a)*0 + -((-a)*0))) + -((-a) * a)   ✔ axiom 3
            = (((-a) * 0 + (-a)*0) + -((-a)*0)) + -((-a) * a)   ✔ axiom 1
            = ((-a) * (0 + 0) + -((-a)*0)) + -((-a) * a)        ✔ axiom 8
            = ((-a) * 0 + -((-a)*0)) + -((-a) * a)              ✔ axiom 2
            = 0 + -((-a) * a)                                   ✔ axiom 3
            = (0* a) + -(0*a) + -((-a) * a)                     ✔ axiom 3
            = ((0+0)* a) + -(0*a) + -((-a) * a)                 ✔ axiom 2
            = ((0 * a ) + (0*a) + -(0*a)) + -((-a) * a)         ✔ axiom 9
            = ((0 * a ) + ((0*a) + -(0*a))) + -((-a) * a)       ✔ axiom 1
            = ((0 * a ) + 0) + -((-a) * a)                      ✔ axiom 3
            = (0 * a ) + -((-a) * a)                            ✔ axiom 2
            = ((a + -a) * a ) + -((-a) * a)                     ✔ axiom 3
            = ((a * a) + (-a) * a) + -((-a) * a)                ✔ axiom 9
            = (a * a) + (((-a) * a) + -((-a) * a))              ✔ axiom 1
            = (a * a) + 0                                       ✔ axiom 3
            = a * a                                             ✔ axiom 2

在线尝试!

是的,您没看错,我为此难题写了一个校对检查器(自然地,检查器本身有可能出错)


5

34级

Lemma 1: 0=0*a (8 steps)
    0
A3: a*0 + -(a*0)
A4: -(a*0) + a*0
A2: -(a*0) + a*(0+0)
A8: -(a*0) + (a*0 + a*0)
A1: (-(a*0) + a*0) + a*0
A3: 0 + a*0
A4: a*0 + 0
A2: a*0

Theorem: -a*-a = a*a (49 steps)

    -a * -a
A2: (-a+0) * -a
A2: (-a+0) * (-a+0)
A3: (-a+(a+-a)) * (-a+0)
A3: (-a+(a+-a)) * (-a+(a+-a))
A8: -a*(-a+(a+-a)) + (a+-a)*(-a+(a+-a))
A8: -a*(-a+(a+-a)) + -a*(-a+(a+-a)) + a*(-a+(a+-a))
A3: -a*(-a+0)      + -a*(-a+(a+-a)) + a*(-a+(a+-a))
A3: -a*(-a+0)      + -a*(-a+0)      + a*(-a+(a+-a))
A8: -a*(-a+0)      + -a*(-a+0)      + a*-a + a*(a+-a)
A8: -a*(-a+0)      + -a*(-a+0)      + a*-a + a*a + a*-a
A2: -a*-a          + -a*(-a+0)      + a*-a + a*a + a*-a
A2: -a*-a          + -a*-a          + a*-a + a*a + a*-a
A8: -a*-a          + (-a+a)*-a             + a*a + a*-a
A3: -a*-a          + 0*-a                  + a*a + a*-a
L1: -a*-a          + 0                     + a*a + a*-a
A2: -a*-a                                  + a*a + a*-a
A4: a*a + -a*-a + a*-a
A8: a*a + (-a+a)*-a
A3: a*a + 0*-a
L1: a*a + 0
A2: a*a

1
我注意到一段时间后缺少paren。因为关联需要花费很多时间,所以我认为,如果您加入了括号,则将更容易验证您的证明。
精神主义O'Zaic

仍在改进和更新。完成后,将尝试包含所有括号。
Sparr

5

25步

注意:基于这个问题,我假设逻辑规则(包括相等性)是隐含的,不计入总步数。也就是说,可以隐式使用“如果x = y,则y = x”和“如果((P AND Q)AND R)然后(P AND(Q AND R))”之类的东西。

引理ž [6个步骤]0*a = 0

0 = (0*a) + (-(0*a))       | Ax. 3
  = ((0+0)*a) + (-(0*a))   | Ax. 2
  = (0*a + 0*a) + (-(0*a)) | Ax. 9
  = 0*a + (0*a + (-(0*a))) | Ax. 1
  = 0*a + (0)              | Ax. 3
  = 0*a                    | Ax. 2

Lemma M [12个步骤](-a)*b = -(a*b)

(-a)*b = (-a)*b + 0                | Ax. 2
       = (-a)*b + (a*b + (-(a*b))) | Ax. 3
       = ((-a)*b + a*b) + (-(a*b)) | Ax. 5
       = ((-a)+a)*b + (-(a*b))     | Ax. 9
       = 0*b + (-(a*b))            | Ax. 3
       = 0 + (-(a*b))              | Lem. Z [6]
       = -(a*b)                    | Ax. 2

定理 [25个步骤](-a)*(-a) = a*a

(-a)*(-a) = (-a)*(-a) + 0                | Ax. 2
          = 0 + (-a)*(-a)                | Ax. 4
          = (a*a + (-(a*a))) + (-a)*(-a) | Ax. 3
          = a*a + ((-(a*a)) + (-a)*(-a)) | Ax. 1
          = a*a + ((-a)*a + (-a)*(-a))   | Lem. M [12]
          = a*a + ((-a)*(a + (-a)))      | Ax. 8
          = a*a + ((-a)*0)               | Ax. 3
          = a*a + 0                      | Lem. Z [6]
          = a*a                          | Ax. 2

我觉得这里还有改进的余地;例如,我使用加法的可交换性质,尽管感觉这应该是不必要的,因为(-a)*(-a) = a*a在加法不可交换的代数结构中确实如此。另一方面,在那些结构中,加法恒等式是可交换的,这就是我为证明所需要的。我不知道。更普遍的说,证明的结构似乎没有方向。我只是在问题上投入了很多东西,直到问题解决为止,所以我敢打赌,需要做一些优化。

这很有趣-感谢有趣和创造性的问题OP!我以前从未见过这样的挑战。希望成为一件事情!


我看到引理Z中使用的方法如何可以0=(-a)*0在6个步骤中做出等效的证明。从技术上讲,它值得拥有自己的引理,不是吗?
SmileAndNod

4

22 23个步骤

新的答案,因为我以前有缺陷。首先让我添加一些一般性评论:

  • 这个问题不允许在方程的两边都加上项。相反,我们只能修改初始字符串。
  • 乘法不被认为是可交换的。
  • 给我们一个单元1,但是它在拼图中没有任何作用,因为它只涉及定义它的规则。

现在为证明(注意,我定义n =(-a)以简化阅读):

(-a)×(-a) :=
n×n =
n×n + 0 =                                [Ax. 2]
n×n + [n×a + -(n×a)] =                   [Ax. 3]
[n×n + n×a] + -(n×a) =                   [Ax. 1]
[n×(n+a)] + -(n×a) =                     [Ax. 8]
[n×(n+a) + 0] + -(n×a) =                 [Ax. 2]
[n×(n+a) + (n×a + -(n×a))] + -(n×a) =    [Ax. 3]
[(n×(n+a) + n×a) + -(n×a)] + -(n×a) =    [Ax. 1]
[n×((n+a) + a) + -(n×a)] + -(n×a) =      [Ax. 8]
[n×((a+n) + a) + -(n×a)] + -(n×a) =      [Ax. 4]
[n×(0 + a) + -(n×a)] + -(n×a) =          [Ax. 3]
[n×(a + 0) + -(n×a)] + -(n×a) =          [Ax. 4]
[n×a + -(n×a)] + -(n×a) =                [Ax. 2]
[(n+0)×a + -(n×a)] + -(n×a) =            [Ax. 2]
[(0+n)×a + -(n×a)] + -(n×a) =            [Ax. 4]
[((a+n)+n)×a + -(n×a)] + -(n×a) =        [Ax. 3]
[((a+n)×a+n×a) + -(n×a)] + -(n×a) =      [Ax. 9]
[(a+n)×a+(n×a + -(n×a))] + -(n×a) =      [Ax. 1]
[(a+n)×a + 0] + -(n×a) =                 [Ax. 3]
[(a+n)×a] + -(n×a) =                     [Ax. 2]
[a×a+n×a] + -(n×a) =                     [Ax. 9]
a×a+[n×a + -(n×a)] =                     [Ax. 1]
a×a+0 =                                  [Ax. 3]
a×a                                      [Ax. 2]

@ H.PWiz你为什么不能从去n0 + n一步到位?不只是A2吗?规则确实说过,变量也可以代表任意复杂的表达式
jq170727 '17

@ jq170727 Axiom 2仅指出了这a + 0 = a一点0 + a = a。你需要一个额外的交换步骤就可以得到n0 + n
精神主义O'Zaic

@ H.PWiz您不能反向阅读公理吗?
jq170727

1
@ jq170727不,您不必为此使用可交换性。
JalilCompaoré17年

4

304步

社区Wiki,因为此证明是由Mathematica的FindEquationalProof函数生成的。

证明很长。Mathematica不知道如何打高尔夫球。

这在数学代码生成证明(需要的Mathematica 11.3),其中ptn手段+×-分别为:

ringAxioms = {ForAll[{a, b, c}, p[a, p[b, c]] == p[p[a, b], c]],
   ForAll[a, p[a, 0] == a],
   ForAll[a, p[a, n[a]] == 0],
   ForAll[{a, b}, p[a, b] == p[b, a]],
   ForAll[{a, b, c}, t[a, t[b, c]] == t[t[a, b], c]],
   ForAll[a, t[a, 1] == a], ForAll[a, t[1, a] == a],
   ForAll[{a, b, c}, t[a, p[b, c]] == p[t[a, b], t[a, c]]],
   ForAll[{a, b, c}, t[p[b, c], a] == p[t[b, a], t[c, a]]]};

proof = FindEquationalProof[t[n[a], n[a]] == t[a, a], ringAxioms];

proof["ProofNotebook"]

直接计算步数并不容易,因此我根据从公理到“证明图”中结论的路径数来进行计算。

graph = proof["ProofGraph"];
score = Sum[
  Length[FindPath[graph, axiom, "Conclusion 1", Infinity, 
    All]], {axiom, 
   Select[VertexList[graph], StringMatchQ["Axiom " ~~ __]]}]

在线尝试!

这是由代码生成的证明:

Axiom 1

We are given that:

x1==p[x1, 0]

Axiom 2

We are given that:

x1==t[x1, 1]

Axiom 3

We are given that:

x1==t[1, x1]

Axiom 4

We are given that:

p[x1, x2]==p[x2, x1]

Axiom 5

We are given that:

p[x1, p[x2, x3]]==p[p[x1, x2], x3]

Axiom 6

We are given that:

p[x1, n[x1]]==0

Axiom 7

We are given that:

p[t[x1, x2], t[x3, x2]]==t[p[x1, x3], x2]

Axiom 8

We are given that:

p[t[x1, x2], t[x1, x3]]==t[x1, p[x2, x3]]

Axiom 9

We are given that:

t[x1, t[x2, x3]]==t[t[x1, x2], x3]

Hypothesis 1

We would like to show that:

t[n[a], n[a]]==t[a, a]

Critical Pair Lemma 1

The following expressions are equivalent:

p[0, x1]==x1

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[x1_, x2_]\[TwoWayRule]p[x2_, x1_]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, 0]->x1

where these rules follow from Axiom 4 and Axiom 1 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 2

The following expressions are equivalent:

p[x1, p[n[x1], x2]]==p[0, x2]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[p[x1_, x2_], x3_]->p[x1, p[x2, x3]]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, n[x1_]]->0

where these rules follow from Axiom 5 and Axiom 6 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 3

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[p[1, x1], x2]==p[x2, t[x1, x2]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[t[x1_, x2_], t[x3_, x2_]]->t[p[x1, x3], x2]

contains a subpattern of the form:

t[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

t[1, x1_]->x1

where these rules follow from Axiom 7 and Axiom 3 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 4

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[x1, p[1, x2]]==p[x1, t[x1, x2]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[t[x1_, x2_], t[x1_, x3_]]->t[x1, p[x2, x3]]

contains a subpattern of the form:

t[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

t[x1_, 1]->x1

where these rules follow from Axiom 8 and Axiom 2 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 5

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[p[1, x1], 0]==t[x1, 0]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[x1_, t[x2_, x1_]]->t[p[1, x2], x1]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[x1_, t[x2_, x1_]]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[0, x1_]->x1

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 3 and Critical Pair Lemma 1 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 6

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[0, 0]==t[1, 0]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

t[p[1, x1_], 0]->t[x1, 0]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[1, x1_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, 0]->x1

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 5 and Axiom 1 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 1

It can be shown that:

t[0, 0]==0

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 6, and apply the substitution:

t[1, x1_]->x1

which follows from Axiom 3.

Critical Pair Lemma 7

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[x1, 0]==t[p[x1, 1], 0]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

t[p[1, x1_], 0]->t[x1, 0]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[1, x1_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, x2_]\[TwoWayRule]p[x2_, x1_]

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 5 and Axiom 4 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 8

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[0, p[1, x1]]==t[0, x1]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[x1_, t[x1_, x2_]]->t[x1, p[1, x2]]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[x1_, t[x1_, x2_]]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[0, x1_]->x1

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 4 and Critical Pair Lemma 1 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 9

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[p[x1, 1], p[1, 0]]==p[p[x1, 1], t[x1, 0]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[x1_, t[x1_, x2_]]->t[x1, p[1, x2]]

contains a subpattern of the form:

t[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

t[p[x1_, 1], 0]->t[x1, 0]

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 4 and Critical Pair Lemma 7 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 2

It can be shown that:

t[p[x1, 1], 1]==p[p[x1, 1], t[x1, 0]]

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 9, and apply the substitution:

p[x1_, 0]->x1

which follows from Axiom 1.

Substitution Lemma 3

It can be shown that:

p[x1, 1]==p[p[x1, 1], t[x1, 0]]

Proof

We start by taking Substitution Lemma 2, and apply the substitution:

t[x1_, 1]->x1

which follows from Axiom 2.

Substitution Lemma 4

It can be shown that:

p[x1, 1]==p[x1, p[1, t[x1, 0]]]

Proof

We start by taking Substitution Lemma 3, and apply the substitution:

p[p[x1_, x2_], x3_]->p[x1, p[x2, x3]]

which follows from Axiom 5.

Critical Pair Lemma 10

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[0, x1]==t[0, p[x1, 1]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

t[0, p[1, x1_]]->t[0, x1]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[1, x1_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, x2_]\[TwoWayRule]p[x2_, x1_]

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 8 and Axiom 4 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 11

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[p[1, 0], p[x1, 1]]==p[p[x1, 1], t[0, x1]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[x1_, t[x2_, x1_]]->t[p[1, x2], x1]

contains a subpattern of the form:

t[x2_, x1_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

t[0, p[x1_, 1]]->t[0, x1]

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 3 and Critical Pair Lemma 10 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 5

It can be shown that:

t[1, p[x1, 1]]==p[p[x1, 1], t[0, x1]]

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 11, and apply the substitution:

p[x1_, 0]->x1

which follows from Axiom 1.

Substitution Lemma 6

It can be shown that:

p[x1, 1]==p[p[x1, 1], t[0, x1]]

Proof

We start by taking Substitution Lemma 5, and apply the substitution:

t[1, x1_]->x1

which follows from Axiom 3.

Substitution Lemma 7

It can be shown that:

p[x1, 1]==p[x1, p[1, t[0, x1]]]

Proof

We start by taking Substitution Lemma 6, and apply the substitution:

p[p[x1_, x2_], x3_]->p[x1, p[x2, x3]]

which follows from Axiom 5.

Substitution Lemma 8

It can be shown that:

p[x1, p[n[x1], x2]]==x2

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 2, and apply the substitution:

p[0, x1_]->x1

which follows from Critical Pair Lemma 1.

Critical Pair Lemma 12

The following expressions are equivalent:

n[n[x1]]==p[x1, 0]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[x1_, p[n[x1_], x2_]]->x2

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[n[x1_], x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, n[x1_]]->0

where these rules follow from Substitution Lemma 8 and Axiom 6 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 9

It can be shown that:

n[n[x1]]==x1

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 12, and apply the substitution:

p[x1_, 0]->x1

which follows from Axiom 1.

Critical Pair Lemma 13

The following expressions are equivalent:

x1==p[n[x2], p[x2, x1]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[x1_, p[n[x1_], x2_]]->x2

contains a subpattern of the form:

n[x1_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

n[n[x1_]]->x1

where these rules follow from Substitution Lemma 8 and Substitution Lemma 9 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 14

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[x1, x2]==p[n[x2], t[p[1, x1], x2]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[n[x1_], p[x1_, x2_]]->x2

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, t[x2_, x1_]]->t[p[1, x2], x1]

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 13 and Critical Pair Lemma 3 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 15

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[x1, x2]==p[n[x1], t[x1, p[1, x2]]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[n[x1_], p[x1_, x2_]]->x2

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, t[x1_, x2_]]->t[x1, p[1, x2]]

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 13 and Critical Pair Lemma 4 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 16

The following expressions are equivalent:

p[1, t[x1, 0]]==p[n[x1], p[x1, 1]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[n[x1_], p[x1_, x2_]]->x2

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, p[1, t[x1_, 0]]]->p[x1, 1]

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 13 and Substitution Lemma 4 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 10

It can be shown that:

p[1, t[x1, 0]]==1

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 16, and apply the substitution:

p[n[x1_], p[x1_, x2_]]->x2

which follows from Critical Pair Lemma 13.

Critical Pair Lemma 17

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[t[x1, 0], 0]==t[1, 0]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

t[p[1, x1_], 0]->t[x1, 0]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[1, x1_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[1, t[x1_, 0]]->1

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 5 and Substitution Lemma 10 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 11

It can be shown that:

t[x1, t[0, 0]]==t[1, 0]

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 17, and apply the substitution:

t[t[x1_, x2_], x3_]->t[x1, t[x2, x3]]

which follows from Axiom 9.

Substitution Lemma 12

It can be shown that:

t[x1, 0]==t[1, 0]

Proof

We start by taking Substitution Lemma 11, and apply the substitution:

t[0, 0]->0

which follows from Substitution Lemma 1.

Substitution Lemma 13

It can be shown that:

t[x1, 0]==0

Proof

We start by taking Substitution Lemma 12, and apply the substitution:

t[1, x1_]->x1

which follows from Axiom 3.

Critical Pair Lemma 18

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[x1, t[0, x2]]==t[0, x2]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

t[t[x1_, x2_], x3_]->t[x1, t[x2, x3]]

contains a subpattern of the form:

t[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

t[x1_, 0]->0

where these rules follow from Axiom 9 and Substitution Lemma 13 respectively.

Critical Pair Lemma 19

The following expressions are equivalent:

p[1, t[0, x1]]==p[n[x1], p[x1, 1]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[n[x1_], p[x1_, x2_]]->x2

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, p[1, t[0, x1_]]]->p[x1, 1]

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 13 and Substitution Lemma 7 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 14

It can be shown that:

p[1, t[0, x1]]==1

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 19, and apply the substitution:

p[n[x1_], p[x1_, x2_]]->x2

which follows from Critical Pair Lemma 13.

Critical Pair Lemma 20

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[0, t[0, x1]]==t[0, 1]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

t[0, p[1, x1_]]->t[0, x1]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[1, x1_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[1, t[0, x1_]]->1

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 8 and Substitution Lemma 14 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 15

It can be shown that:

t[0, x1]==t[0, 1]

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 20, and apply the substitution:

t[x1_, t[0, x2_]]->t[0, x2]

which follows from Critical Pair Lemma 18.

Substitution Lemma 16

It can be shown that:

t[0, x1]==0

Proof

We start by taking Substitution Lemma 15, and apply the substitution:

t[x1_, 1]->x1

which follows from Axiom 2.

Critical Pair Lemma 21

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[n[1], x1]==p[n[x1], t[0, x1]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[n[x1_], t[p[1, x2_], x1_]]->t[x2, x1]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[1, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, n[x1_]]->0

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 14 and Axiom 6 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 17

It can be shown that:

t[n[1], x1]==p[n[x1], 0]

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 21, and apply the substitution:

t[0, x1_]->0

which follows from Substitution Lemma 16.

Substitution Lemma 18

It can be shown that:

t[n[1], x1]==n[x1]

Proof

We start by taking Substitution Lemma 17, and apply the substitution:

p[x1_, 0]->x1

which follows from Axiom 1.

Critical Pair Lemma 22

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[n[1], t[x1, x2]]==t[n[x1], x2]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

t[t[x1_, x2_], x3_]->t[x1, t[x2, x3]]

contains a subpattern of the form:

t[x1_, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

t[n[1], x1_]->n[x1]

where these rules follow from Axiom 9 and Substitution Lemma 18 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 19

It can be shown that:

n[t[x1, x2]]==t[n[x1], x2]

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 22, and apply the substitution:

t[n[1], x1_]->n[x1]

which follows from Substitution Lemma 18.

Critical Pair Lemma 23

The following expressions are equivalent:

t[x1, n[1]]==p[n[x1], t[x1, 0]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

p[n[x1_], t[x1_, p[1, x2_]]]->t[x1, x2]

contains a subpattern of the form:

p[1, x2_]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

p[x1_, n[x1_]]->0

where these rules follow from Critical Pair Lemma 15 and Axiom 6 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 20

It can be shown that:

t[x1, n[1]]==p[n[x1], 0]

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 23, and apply the substitution:

t[x1_, 0]->0

which follows from Substitution Lemma 13.

Substitution Lemma 21

It can be shown that:

t[x1, n[1]]==n[x1]

Proof

We start by taking Substitution Lemma 20, and apply the substitution:

p[x1_, 0]->x1

which follows from Axiom 1.

Critical Pair Lemma 24

The following expressions are equivalent:

n[t[x1, x2]]==t[x1, t[x2, n[1]]]

Proof

Note that the input for the rule:

t[x1_, n[1]]->n[x1]

contains a subpattern of the form:

t[x1_, n[1]]

which can be unified with the input for the rule:

t[t[x1_, x2_], x3_]->t[x1, t[x2, x3]]

where these rules follow from Substitution Lemma 21 and Axiom 9 respectively.

Substitution Lemma 22

It can be shown that:

t[n[x1], x2]==t[x1, t[x2, n[1]]]

Proof

We start by taking Critical Pair Lemma 24, and apply the substitution:

n[t[x1_, x2_]]->t[n[x1], x2]

which follows from Substitution Lemma 19.

Substitution Lemma 23

It can be shown that:

t[n[x1], x2]==t[x1, n[x2]]

Proof

We start by taking Substitution Lemma 22, and apply the substitution:

t[x1_, n[1]]->n[x1]

which follows from Substitution Lemma 21.

Substitution Lemma 24

It can be shown that:

t[a, n[n[a]]]==t[a, a]

Proof

We start by taking Hypothesis 1, and apply the substitution:

t[n[x1_], x2_]->t[x1, n[x2]]

which follows from Substitution Lemma 23.

Conclusion 1

We obtain the conclusion:

True

Proof

Take Substitution Lemma 24, and apply the substitution:

n[n[x1_]]->x1

which follows from Substitution Lemma 9.
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.
Licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required.