I am wondering if there is a particular named rule or principle in mathematics/formal logic (that can be listed as justification in a formal proof) that allows one to conclude the truth of an equation if we know that this equation is simply a modification of another equation (assumed to be true) where that modification was an operation applied to both sides of that other equation. For example, the principle that we can use to infer that x + 1 = y + 1 if we already know that x = y.
2026-03-25 17:44:33.1774460673
What is the name of the rule that allows us to infer the truth of an equation from the truth of another equation?
61 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in DISCRETE-MATHEMATICS
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What's $P(A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3\cap A_4) $?
- The function $f(x)=$ ${b^mx^m}\over(1-bx)^{m+1}$ is a generating function of the sequence $\{a_n\}$. Find the coefficient of $x^n$
- Given is $2$ dimensional random variable $(X,Y)$ with table. Determine the correlation between $X$ and $Y$
- Given a function, prove that it's injective
- Surjective function proof
- How to find image of a function
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Solving discrete recursion equations with min in the equation
- Determine the marginal distributions of $(T_1, T_2)$
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in FORMAL-PROOFS
- What is a gross-looking formal axiomatic proof for a relatively simple proposition?
- Limit of $f(x) = x \bmod k$
- Need help with formalising proofs in Calculus. Convergent and Divergent series:
- Proving either or statements (in group theory)
- Prove a floor function is onto/surjective
- Countability of Fibonacci series
- Can the natural deduction system prove $P \iff ¬P$ to show that it's a contradiction?
- How would I show that X is equivalent to ((¬X ↔ X ) ∨ X )?
- Variations in the Statement of Strong Induction: Equivalent or Different?
- Is this proof correct? (natural deduction)
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
It depends on the logical framework within which you are working. While there are many "laws of reasoning", what's actually allowed is specified by a given proof system of which there are many – even for the same logic and then there are many logics.
Nevertheless, one of the simplest and most common ways of doing this within first-order logic is via the following rule (or some variant presentation of it): $$\dfrac{x=y\qquad P(x)}{P(y)}$$
The old-timey "law of reason" name for this (or rather the derivable statement that $x=y\to P(x)\leftrightarrow P(y)$ for all $P$) is the "indiscernibility of identicals".1 A more modern name might be "substitutivity".2 From the perspective of natural deduction, this can be viewed as an elimination rule for $=$ and thus may be called "$=$ elimination". Combined with reflexivity, this allows you to prove all the properties you'd expect of equality. For example, you can show that it is an equivalence relation. For your particular case, we can choose $P(z)$ to be $x+1=z+1$, then $P(x)$ holds via reflexivity and thus, given $x=y$, we can derive $P(y)$ which is $x+1=y+1$.
It is extremely uncommon for mathematicians to actually explicitly state this as a proof step.
1 That page also talks about the identity of indiscernibles also known as Leibniz's law. This is the converse.
2 The analogue to this in constructive type theory has the super clear name of $J$.