It seems like she takes an unnecessary step when proving the uniqueness of the inverse element of groups. She could have gone directly to adding the a inverse on the left. I can't see the point of adding b on the left and then multiplying by (a . b)^(-1).
It seems like she takes an unnecessary step when proving the uniqueness of the inverse element of groups. She could have gone directly to adding the a inverse on the left. I can't see the point of adding b on the left and then multiplying by (a . b)^(-1).
juludd 2 years ago