About Walter Rudin's “Principles of Mathematical Analysis Third Edition” pp.18-19 STEP4 (A5)
I am reading "Principles of Mathematical Analysis Third Edition" by Walter Rudin.
At p.19 in this book, there is the following statement:
Let $w$ be a positive rational number, and $alpha$ be a cut. Then, there is an integer $n$ such that $n w in alpha$ but $(n + 1) w notin alpha$. (Note that this depends on the fact that $mathbb{Q}$ has the archimedean property!)
The definition of cuts is the following:
The members of $mathbb{R}$ will be certain subsets of $mathbb{Q}$, called cuts. A cut is, by definition, any set $alpha subset mathbb{Q}$ with the following properties.
$alpha$ is not empty, $alpha neq mathbb{Q}$.
- If $p in alpha$, $q in mathbb{Q}$, and $q < p$, then $q in alpha$.
- If $p in alpha$, then $p < r$ for some $r in alpha$.
I proved the above statement, but I'm not sure my proof is OK or not.
Is the following proof OK or not?
By definition of a cut, there exist $p$, $q$ such that $p in alpha$, $q notin alpha$, $q in mathbb{Q}$.
By archimedean property of $mathbb{Q}$, there exists $m in mathbb{Z}^{+}$ such that $-p < m w$. So $p > (-m) w$. By the property 2 of cuts, $(-m) w in alpha$.
By archimedean property of $mathbb{Q}$, there exists $n in mathbb{Z}^{+}$ such that $q < n w$. By the property 2 of cuts, $n w notin alpha$.
So, $S:={m in mathbb{Z} | m w in alpha}$ is not empty.
So, $T:={m in mathbb{Z} | m w notin alpha}$ is not empty.
If $m_1 in S$ and $m_2 in T$, then $m_1 w < m_2 w$ by the property 2 of cuts.
$therefore m_1 < m_2$.
$therefore m_1$ is a lower bound of $T$.
$therefore$ There exists $min T$.
Let $n := min T - 1$.
Then, $(n + 1) w notin alpha$, and $n w in alpha$.
calculus proof-verification real-numbers
asked Dec 2 '18 at 23:05
tchappy ha
405210
add a comment |
I am reading "Principles of Mathematical Analysis Third Edition" by Walter Rudin.
At p.19 in this book, there is the following statement:
Let $w$ be a positive rational number, and $alpha$ be a cut. Then, there is an integer $n$ such that $n w in alpha$ but $(n + 1) w notin alpha$. (Note that this depends on the fact that $mathbb{Q}$ has the archimedean property!)
The definition of cuts is the following:
The members of $mathbb{R}$ will be certain subsets of $mathbb{Q}$, called cuts. A cut is, by definition, any set $alpha subset mathbb{Q}$ with the following properties.
$alpha$ is not empty, $alpha neq mathbb{Q}$.
- If $p in alpha$, $q in mathbb{Q}$, and $q < p$, then $q in alpha$.
- If $p in alpha$, then $p < r$ for some $r in alpha$.
I proved the above statement, but I'm not sure my proof is OK or not.
Is the following proof OK or not?
By definition of a cut, there exist $p$, $q$ such that $p in alpha$, $q notin alpha$, $q in mathbb{Q}$.
By archimedean property of $mathbb{Q}$, there exists $m in mathbb{Z}^{+}$ such that $-p < m w$. So $p > (-m) w$. By the property 2 of cuts, $(-m) w in alpha$.
By archimedean property of $mathbb{Q}$, there exists $n in mathbb{Z}^{+}$ such that $q < n w$. By the property 2 of cuts, $n w notin alpha$.
So, $S:={m in mathbb{Z} | m w in alpha}$ is not empty.
So, $T:={m in mathbb{Z} | m w notin alpha}$ is not empty.
If $m_1 in S$ and $m_2 in T$, then $m_1 w < m_2 w$ by the property 2 of cuts.
$therefore m_1 < m_2$.
$therefore m_1$ is a lower bound of $T$.
$therefore$ There exists $min T$.
Let $n := min T - 1$.
Then, $(n + 1) w notin alpha$, and $n w in alpha$.
calculus proof-verification real-numbers
asked Dec 2 '18 at 23:05
tchappy ha
405210
I'm going to be really fussy. Why do you know a set of integers which is bounded below has a minimum? (It could be that I am being much too fussy then is justified.)
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 1:26
In Rudin's book, we can use the familiar properties of $mathbb{N}, mathbb{Z}, mathbb{Q}$ freely without proofs. I guess we can show the property of $mathbb{Z}$ that I used above without the theory of $mathbb{R}$.
– tchappy ha
Dec 3 '18 at 2:11
But is that a familiar enough property? Still your proof seems good. I think I'd use the archemedian principal to prove there is an $n$ so that $nw > q - p > 0$ and as $0*w = 0$ then $n > w$ and ... yeah... you're right. That's pretty clear that there most be a smallest such $n$...
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 2:22
add a comment |
I am reading "Principles of Mathematical Analysis Third Edition" by Walter Rudin.
At p.19 in this book, there is the following statement:
Let $w$ be a positive rational number, and $alpha$ be a cut. Then, there is an integer $n$ such that $n w in alpha$ but $(n + 1) w notin alpha$. (Note that this depends on the fact that $mathbb{Q}$ has the archimedean property!)
The definition of cuts is the following:
The members of $mathbb{R}$ will be certain subsets of $mathbb{Q}$, called cuts. A cut is, by definition, any set $alpha subset mathbb{Q}$ with the following properties.
$alpha$ is not empty, $alpha neq mathbb{Q}$.
- If $p in alpha$, $q in mathbb{Q}$, and $q < p$, then $q in alpha$.
- If $p in alpha$, then $p < r$ for some $r in alpha$.
I proved the above statement, but I'm not sure my proof is OK or not.
Is the following proof OK or not?
By definition of a cut, there exist $p$, $q$ such that $p in alpha$, $q notin alpha$, $q in mathbb{Q}$.
By archimedean property of $mathbb{Q}$, there exists $m in mathbb{Z}^{+}$ such that $-p < m w$. So $p > (-m) w$. By the property 2 of cuts, $(-m) w in alpha$.
By archimedean property of $mathbb{Q}$, there exists $n in mathbb{Z}^{+}$ such that $q < n w$. By the property 2 of cuts, $n w notin alpha$.
So, $S:={m in mathbb{Z} | m w in alpha}$ is not empty.
So, $T:={m in mathbb{Z} | m w notin alpha}$ is not empty.
If $m_1 in S$ and $m_2 in T$, then $m_1 w < m_2 w$ by the property 2 of cuts.
$therefore m_1 < m_2$.
$therefore m_1$ is a lower bound of $T$.
$therefore$ There exists $min T$.
Let $n := min T - 1$.
Then, $(n + 1) w notin alpha$, and $n w in alpha$.
calculus proof-verification real-numbers
asked Dec 2 '18 at 23:05
tchappy ha
405210
I am reading "Principles of Mathematical Analysis Third Edition" by Walter Rudin.
At p.19 in this book, there is the following statement:
Let $w$ be a positive rational number, and $alpha$ be a cut. Then, there is an integer $n$ such that $n w in alpha$ but $(n + 1) w notin alpha$. (Note that this depends on the fact that $mathbb{Q}$ has the archimedean property!)
The definition of cuts is the following:
The members of $mathbb{R}$ will be certain subsets of $mathbb{Q}$, called cuts. A cut is, by definition, any set $alpha subset mathbb{Q}$ with the following properties.
$alpha$ is not empty, $alpha neq mathbb{Q}$.
- If $p in alpha$, $q in mathbb{Q}$, and $q < p$, then $q in alpha$.
- If $p in alpha$, then $p < r$ for some $r in alpha$.
I proved the above statement, but I'm not sure my proof is OK or not.
Is the following proof OK or not?
By definition of a cut, there exist $p$, $q$ such that $p in alpha$, $q notin alpha$, $q in mathbb{Q}$.
By archimedean property of $mathbb{Q}$, there exists $m in mathbb{Z}^{+}$ such that $-p < m w$. So $p > (-m) w$. By the property 2 of cuts, $(-m) w in alpha$.
By archimedean property of $mathbb{Q}$, there exists $n in mathbb{Z}^{+}$ such that $q < n w$. By the property 2 of cuts, $n w notin alpha$.
So, $S:={m in mathbb{Z} | m w in alpha}$ is not empty.
So, $T:={m in mathbb{Z} | m w notin alpha}$ is not empty.
If $m_1 in S$ and $m_2 in T$, then $m_1 w < m_2 w$ by the property 2 of cuts.
$therefore m_1 < m_2$.
$therefore m_1$ is a lower bound of $T$.
$therefore$ There exists $min T$.
Let $n := min T - 1$.
Then, $(n + 1) w notin alpha$, and $n w in alpha$.
calculus proof-verification real-numbers
calculus proof-verification real-numbers
asked Dec 2 '18 at 23:05
tchappy ha
405210
asked Dec 2 '18 at 23:05
tchappy ha
405210
asked Dec 2 '18 at 23:05
tchappy ha
405210
asked Dec 2 '18 at 23:05
tchappy ha
405210
asked Dec 2 '18 at 23:05
tchappy ha
405210
405210
I'm going to be really fussy. Why do you know a set of integers which is bounded below has a minimum? (It could be that I am being much too fussy then is justified.)
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 1:26
In Rudin's book, we can use the familiar properties of $mathbb{N}, mathbb{Z}, mathbb{Q}$ freely without proofs. I guess we can show the property of $mathbb{Z}$ that I used above without the theory of $mathbb{R}$.
– tchappy ha
Dec 3 '18 at 2:11
But is that a familiar enough property? Still your proof seems good. I think I'd use the archemedian principal to prove there is an $n$ so that $nw > q - p > 0$ and as $0*w = 0$ then $n > w$ and ... yeah... you're right. That's pretty clear that there most be a smallest such $n$...
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 2:22
add a comment |
I'm going to be really fussy. Why do you know a set of integers which is bounded below has a minimum? (It could be that I am being much too fussy then is justified.)
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 1:26
In Rudin's book, we can use the familiar properties of $mathbb{N}, mathbb{Z}, mathbb{Q}$ freely without proofs. I guess we can show the property of $mathbb{Z}$ that I used above without the theory of $mathbb{R}$.
– tchappy ha
Dec 3 '18 at 2:11
But is that a familiar enough property? Still your proof seems good. I think I'd use the archemedian principal to prove there is an $n$ so that $nw > q - p > 0$ and as $0*w = 0$ then $n > w$ and ... yeah... you're right. That's pretty clear that there most be a smallest such $n$...
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 2:22
I'm going to be really fussy. Why do you know a set of integers which is bounded below has a minimum? (It could be that I am being much too fussy then is justified.)
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 1:26
I'm going to be really fussy. Why do you know a set of integers which is bounded below has a minimum? (It could be that I am being much too fussy then is justified.)
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 1:26
In Rudin's book, we can use the familiar properties of $mathbb{N}, mathbb{Z}, mathbb{Q}$ freely without proofs. I guess we can show the property of $mathbb{Z}$ that I used above without the theory of $mathbb{R}$.
– tchappy ha
Dec 3 '18 at 2:11
In Rudin's book, we can use the familiar properties of $mathbb{N}, mathbb{Z}, mathbb{Q}$ freely without proofs. I guess we can show the property of $mathbb{Z}$ that I used above without the theory of $mathbb{R}$.
– tchappy ha
Dec 3 '18 at 2:11
But is that a familiar enough property? Still your proof seems good. I think I'd use the archemedian principal to prove there is an $n$ so that $nw > q - p > 0$ and as $0*w = 0$ then $n > w$ and ... yeah... you're right. That's pretty clear that there most be a smallest such $n$...
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 2:22
But is that a familiar enough property? Still your proof seems good. I think I'd use the archemedian principal to prove there is an $n$ so that $nw > q - p > 0$ and as $0*w = 0$ then $n > w$ and ... yeah... you're right. That's pretty clear that there most be a smallest such $n$...
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 2:22
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023348%2fabout-walter-rudins-principles-of-mathematical-analysis-third-edition-pp-18-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023348%2fabout-walter-rudins-principles-of-mathematical-analysis-third-edition-pp-18-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I'm going to be really fussy. Why do you know a set of integers which is bounded below has a minimum? (It could be that I am being much too fussy then is justified.)
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 1:26
In Rudin's book, we can use the familiar properties of $mathbb{N}, mathbb{Z}, mathbb{Q}$ freely without proofs. I guess we can show the property of $mathbb{Z}$ that I used above without the theory of $mathbb{R}$.
– tchappy ha
Dec 3 '18 at 2:11
But is that a familiar enough property? Still your proof seems good. I think I'd use the archemedian principal to prove there is an $n$ so that $nw > q - p > 0$ and as $0*w = 0$ then $n > w$ and ... yeah... you're right. That's pretty clear that there most be a smallest such $n$...
– fleablood
Dec 3 '18 at 2:22