Prove $|xy| = |x|\cdot|y|$
There have been many answers, (1,2,3,4,)
But, I would like to ask about Spivak's answer, as it most likely gives an insight that would be helpful.
$(|xy|)^{2} = (xy)^{2} = x^{2}y^{2} = |x|^{2}|y|^{2} = (|x|\cdot|y|)^{2}$ Sińce $|xy|$ and $|x|\cdot|y|$ arę both $>0$, this proves that $|xy|=|x|\cdot|y|$
Just about all the answers referenced make use of individual cases as a proof. Spivak, in this proof, seems to rely heavily on the fact that $(-a)^{2} = (a)^{2}$ unless I am missing something. So, it is understandable that the first part of his proof is correct as any value $x,y <0$ is positive after squaring. What I am not understanding is how the last statement
Sińce $|xy|$ and $|x|\cdot|y|$ arę both $>0$, this proves that
$|xy|=|x|\cdot|y|$
follows the first, and justifies the proof he states.
EDIT
In response to one of the comments, here is what I would like clarified.
(a) Spivak has shown If $a < 0$ and $b < 0$ then $ab>0$, which allows me to conclude that $(xy)^2 > 0$. and thus, $(|xy|)^2 >0$ as Spivak shows in the first part of the proof. But, why is this even necessary, as surely any absolute value, for example, $|xy|$ is by definition $>0$. I would really like to understand his rationale for this.
(b) Why does the last part of his proof ( the second block quote above) even need to be justified by part a? It is almost as if it could stand alone.
I hope this helps clarify the question.
Best Answer
It seems that you want to understand what Spivak motivated to give the above proof and which ingredients are possibly dispensable. In fact he uses exactly two ingredients:
$u^2 = \lvert u \rvert^2$. It is applied for $u = xy$ and $u = x, y$.
If $u, v \ge 0$, then $u^2 = v^2$ implies $u = v$. It is applied for $u = \lvert xy \rvert$, $v = \lvert x \rvert \cdot \lvert y \rvert$.
None of these "lemmas" can be dropped in Spivak's approach. However, both have to be proved formally (which is very easy), but I couldn't find an explicit proof in Spivak's book.
Therefore I agree to you that it would be more transparent to prove directly that $|xy|=|x|\cdot|y|$. To do so, you have to consider the four cases $x \ge 0, y \ge 0$ / $x \ge 0, y \le 0$ etc. But 1. requires two cases and 2. requires 6.(d) which is by no means easier or more elegant than the direct proof.