Arithmetic with Expressions
Learning goals
- Name a term's coefficient and variable part, and tell like terms from unlike
- Combine like terms by adding coefficients, the distributive law reversed
- Add and subtract expressions by dropping parentheses and flipping signs
- Scale an expression by distributing across every term, including nested grouping
- Check a simplification by substitution, and say what agreement and disagreement each show
The parts of an expression
An expression is any meaningful combination of numbers, variables, and operations that names a value, such as . Its building blocks have names worth fixing now, because the rest of the lesson is about moving these blocks around without breaking anything.
A term is a piece of the expression that is added to the others. The expression has three terms: , , and . Because subtraction is adding the opposite, the sign in front of a term belongs to it, so the middle term is , not . Keeping the sign attached to its term is what makes the arithmetic below reliable.
The coefficient of a term is its numerical factor, and the variable part is what is left. In the coefficient is and the variable part is ; in the coefficient is and the variable part is . A term like or that shows no number has an invisible coefficient of , since . A constant term is a term with no variable at all, just a number, like the above.
Finally, like terms are terms with the same variable part, meaning the same variables raised to the same powers. So and are like terms, and so are and , because makes their variable parts identical. But and are unlike, because and are different variable parts, and and are unlike because they use different letters. Two constant terms, such as and , are like terms too, since neither one has a variable part to differ on. Telling like from unlike is the whole game, so read the variable part carefully every time.
Check your understanding
What are the coefficient and variable part of the term ?
The coefficient is the term's numerical factor, sign included, and the variable part is everything left over.
In the numerical factor is , so the coefficient is , and what remains is , so that is the variable part. Dropping the sign gives instead of ; reading only the base without its exponent gives instead of ; and splitting off the with the coefficient gives and , which does not separate a number from a variable at all.
Combining like terms
To simplify an expression is to rewrite it as an equivalent expression that has no more like terms left to combine, and the main tool is combining like terms. The rule is short: like terms combine into one term by adding their coefficients; terms with different variable parts cannot combine that way.
It helps to picture terms as tiles. Let a long tile stand for one and a small square for a . Then combining like terms is nothing more than sorting the tiles into piles of the same shape and counting each pile.
The sorting in the picture is exactly what the distributive law says in reverse. Here is that same idea written with algebra, so you can see why the tile trick always works.
Why like terms combine, and unlike terms do not#
The distributive law says . Read it from right to left and it becomes a rule for pulling out a shared factor: . That reverse reading is the entire engine behind combining like terms.
Two like terms share the same variable part. Write that shared part as , so the two terms are and for some numbers and . For and the shared part is with and ; for and it is . Because multiplication is commutative, and , so
The two terms collapse into a single term whose coefficient is the sum and whose variable part is unchanged. This is why , and why , since a bare carries the invisible coefficient .
Unlike terms do not share a complete variable part, so there is no single whose coefficient the two terms could combine around, and the step above never starts. In one term has variable part and the other is a constant; in the parts are and . In the variable parts are and , even though both terms do carry a factor of . None of these pairs shares a complete variable part, so none of them can be merged into one term by adding coefficients. A pair like can still be factored a different way later on, but that is a different move from combining like terms.
Worked example 1 Name the parts, then combine
First read off the terms with their signs: , , , , and .
| Term | Coefficient | Variable part |
|---|---|---|
| none (constant) | ||
Two like-term families show up: the terms and , and the terms and . The is the constant term, with nothing to pair with.
Combine each family by adding coefficients. For the terms,
and for the terms, remembering that has coefficient ,
The constant has nothing to pair with, so the simplified expression is
Its three terms are pairwise unlike, so no further combining is possible.
Check your understanding
Combine like terms: .
Combine the terms and the constants separately.
The terms and are like terms, while and are constants; nothing else combines.
Adding and subtracting whole expressions
Often you need to add or subtract entire expressions, each wrapped in parentheses, such as . Adding is the easy case. The associative and commutative laws of addition, which hold for every number, let you erase the parentheses and reorder the terms however you like. So when you are adding, you simply drop the parentheses and combine like terms:
Subtraction takes one extra moment of care, because subtracting an expression is not the same as subtracting only its first term. Subtracting a whole expression means adding its opposite, and the opposite of a sum flips the sign of every term inside.
Why a minus sign in front reverses every term#
To subtract an expression is to add its opposite, and the opposite of any quantity is . So a minus sign written in front of a parenthesis is really the factor waiting to be distributed.
Take . Rewrite the subtraction inside as an addition, , then distribute the across both terms:
Every term inside came out with its sign reversed: became , and became . Nothing here depends on the particular numbers, so the same reasoning gives the general rule . Distributing a leading minus sign changes the sign of each term it reaches. Forgetting to flip the second term is the single most common error in this whole lesson.
Worked example 2 Subtract from
Subtraction adds the opposite of the second expression, so distribute the minus sign across both of its terms:
The inside became ; missing that flip is the classic slip. Now reorder and combine like terms:
To check, substitute a value into both the original and the result and confirm they agree. At the original is , and the simplified form is . They match, which is a good sign the simplification is correct.
Check your understanding
Simplify .
Subtracting the second group flips the sign of each of its terms.
The becomes , which is the step most often missed; the answer is , not .
Scaling an expression by a number or a term
You already know the distributive law, . It lets you scale an entire expression by a single factor: multiply every term inside the parentheses by the factor outside. Scaling by gives
The factor can carry a sign, and the sign travels to every term it reaches. Scaling by instead gives
The factor outside can even be a single term rather than a bare number. Distributing across still reaches every term, multiplying powers as it goes:
since . Multiplying two multi-term expressions together, where both factors have more than one term, is a bigger job saved for the next lesson.
When a simplification nests grouping symbols inside one another, distribute one layer at a time and clear them from the inside out: finish everything inside the innermost parentheses before touching the symbol around it. Most simplifications from here combine scaling with the earlier skills, so distribute every product first and only then collect like terms.
Worked example 3 Distribute, then combine
Use the distributive law on each product first, keeping every sign:
Now the expression is a plain sum, so gather like terms:
The two steps never blur together: distribute every product before you start collecting like terms.
Worked example 4 Simplify the nested expression
Nested grouping symbols are cleared from the inside out. Start with the innermost parentheses, where a minus sign flips both terms:
Multiply by the outside the brackets:
Finally subtract that whole quantity from , flipping its signs:
Reaching outward before an inner layer is finished is what produces sign mistakes, so resolve one bracket completely before moving out to the next.
Check your understanding
Simplify the nested expression .
Clear the innermost parentheses first.
Multiply that result by the outside the brackets, then subtract the whole quantity from , flipping both of its signs.
Forgetting to flip the sign inside the innermost parentheses gives instead; only partly distributing the outer gives ; and adding the bracket to without flipping its signs gives .
Check your understanding
Simplify .
Distribute the , then subtract every term of .
The turns into , giving the constant .
Checking a simplification by substitution
Simplifying is supposed to produce an equivalent expression, one that gives the same value for every input. So a quick substitution is the natural way to catch an error. Pick a convenient value, evaluate both the original and your simplified form, and compare. Agreement at one chosen value is evidence the two are equivalent, not proof of it. But a disagreement at any value instantly reveals a slip, almost always a dropped sign. Values like or tend to expose mistakes that or quietly hide.
Worked example 5 Simplify and check
Distribute the , then subtract every term of the second group:
Combine the terms and the terms:
Now verify with a substitution, which a correct simplification will survive. At the original is , and gives . The agreement is good evidence that the simplified form is equivalent; a mismatch, not a match, is what would have settled the question for certain.
Check your understanding
A classmate simplifies and gets . At , both the original and equal . What does that agreement show?
A match at one value cannot prove two expressions agree at every value, since only one number out of infinitely many was tested. It is still useful: a mismatch would have proven a mistake outright, so a match is real evidence, just not a proof.