Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum


Math Forum
 Ask Dr. Math
 Discussions
 Internet Newsletter
 MathTools
 Problems of the Week
 Teacher2Teacher
 Teacher Exchange
 Workshops

Search All of the Math Forum:
Browse our Internet Mathematics Library

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: -1 x -1 ?
Replies: 29   Last Post: May 13, 2009 9:01 AM

Advanced Search
Reply to this Topic Reply to this Topic

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Peter Percival

Posts: 339
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: -1 x -1 ?
Posted: Sep 18, 1999 8:45 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply





Dale Henderson wrote:

> In article <937516347.13527.0.nnrp-14.c2debf68@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "Guillermo Phillips" <Guillermo.Phillips@marsman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Here's something I've always wondered (perhaps in my naivety). Why
> > should -1 x -1 = 1?
> > I appreciate that lots of nice things come from this, but what's the
> > fundamental reason for it?
> >
> > Guillermo.
> >
> >
>
> I've seen a few proofs on this thread that make unfounded assumtions.
> One assumes the uniqness of inverses and another assumes 0x=0.

<cut>

Well, we won't get far without "unfounded assumptions" will we? I assumed
we were working in a ring in which my "unfounded assumptions" do hold.

<cut>I've tried to assume only the axioms of a Ring...

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.