Proving Dedekind Cuts for D = {x: x \in Q and (x \leq or x^2 < 2)}

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter laminatedevildoll
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The set D = {x: x ∈ Q and (x ≤ 0 or x² < 2)} is established as a Dedekind cut. It satisfies the three necessary conditions: D is non-empty and not equal to Q, for any r in D, there exists an s in D such that r < s, and if r is in D and s ≤ r, then s is also in D. The proof demonstrates that any negative number is included in D, and for positive r where r² < 2, the construction of d = 2 - s² ensures that values can be found in D that are less than r, confirming the properties of a Dedekind cut.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Dedekind cuts in rational numbers
  • Familiarity with properties of inequalities
  • Basic knowledge of quadratic functions and their properties
  • Proficiency in mathematical proof techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Dedekind cuts in real analysis
  • Learn about the construction of the real numbers using Dedekind cuts
  • Explore the implications of irrational numbers in the context of rational sets
  • Investigate advanced proof techniques in mathematical logic
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying real analysis, educators teaching number theory, and anyone interested in the foundations of real numbers and rational sets.

laminatedevildoll
Messages
211
Reaction score
0
The question:

Show D= {x: x \in Q and (x \leq or x^2 < 2)} is a dedekind cut.


A set D c Q is a Dedekind set if

1)D is not {}, D is not Q
2) if r\in D then there exists a s \in D s.t r<s
3) if r \in D and if s \leq r, then s \in D.

For the first case, D is not an empty set because x is equal to 0 or the sqrt of 2. But, how do I prove case 2,3. Do I have to use addition/multiplication to prove them?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure I understand your definition of D

is it equivilant to D=\{x\in Q | x\le 2\}\cup \{x\in Q | x^2 &lt; 2\}
Which means D= \{x\in Q | x\le 2\} which seems to contradict 2).

Steven
 
snoble said:
I'm not sure I understand your definition of D

is it equivilant to D=\{x\in Q | x\le 2\}\cup \{x\in Q | x^2 &lt; 2\}
Which means D= \{x\in Q | x\le 2\} which seems to contradict 2).

Steven

Sorry, D is actually
D= {x: x \in Q and (x \leq 0 or x^2 < 2)}
 
1. Obviously, D is not empty- any negative number is in D. Obviously D is not all rational numbers, 2> 0, 22= 4> 2 so 2 is not in D.

3. if r is in D and s< r then either:
a) r< 0 in which case r is in D or
b) 0< r< s so 0< r2< s2< 2 so r is in D.

2. is the hard one. Obviously if r< 0, we can take s= 0. Ir r> 0, then r2< 2. Take d= 2- s2. Can you show that 0< (r+ d/4)2> 2?
 
HallsofIvy said:
1. Obviously, D is not empty- any negative number is in D. Obviously D is not all rational numbers, 2> 0, 22= 4> 2 so 2 is not in D.

3. if r is in D and s< r then either:
a) r< 0 in which case r is in D or
b) 0< r< s so 0< r2< s2< 2 so r is in D.

2. is the hard one. Obviously if r< 0, we can take s= 0. Ir r> 0, then r2< 2. Take d= 2- s2. Can you show that 0< (r+ d/4)2> 2?

0< (r+ d/4)2> 2?
if d= 2- s2
0< r + (2- s2)/4 > 2
Do I let r = sqrt(2) both plus and minus
to show that
0< r > 2, so this will confirm the fact that r<s?
 
Sorry, there was a misprint! I mean 0< (r+d/4)2< 2. (not > 2)

Suppose r is the largest number in the set.

It is obvious that (3/2)2= 2.25> 2 so 3/2 is not in this set. It is obvious that 1.42= 1.96 so 1.4 is in this set. Any possible maximum for the set must be greater than or equal to 1.4 and less than 1.5= 3/2: 1.4<= r< 3/2 and so d= 2- r2 must be less than or equal to 2- 1.96= 0.04. (r+ d/4)2= r2+ rd/2+ d2/16 so 2- (r+d/4)2= (2- r2)- rd/2- d2/16. 2- r2= d and since r< 3/2, rd/2< (3/4)d. d/16= d(d/16) and since d< 0.04, d/16< (.04/16)= (.01/4)= 0.0025. That is: 2- (r+d/4)2> d- (3/4)d- 0.0025d= d- (0.7525)d> 0 which means (r+ d/4)2.
r+ d/4 is larger than r but (r+ d/4)2< 2 so r+ d/4 is still in the set contradicting the hypothesis that r is the maximum for the set. Therefore, the set has no maximum.
 
For the third proof, do I go onto assume that s is equal or greater than r to prove that it's a contradiction?
 
laminatedevildoll said:
For the third proof, do I go onto assume that s is equal or greater than r to prove that it's a contradiction?

No, just prove exactly what's given: if s less than or equal to r, then it must be in the set. That's exactly what I did in my first response:

Suppose r is in this set. There are two possibilities: r< 0 or r2< 2.
(a) If r< 0 and s<= r, then s< 0 so s is in the set.

(b) If 0<= r, r2< 2, and s< r then either
(i) s< 0 so s is in the set
(ii) s>= 0 so 0<= s2< r< 2 and s is in the set.
In any case, if r is in this set and s< r, then s is in the set.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Thinking about equality of infinite sets
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Construction of reals through Dedekind cuts in Baby Rudin
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Define a Dedekind cut and show the given set is(n't) a Dedekind cut
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Prove that ## \sum_{n\leq x}\frac{\phi(n)}{\sqrt{n}}=Cx^{3/2}+.... ##.
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad No structure in ##(d,x)## in ##\textbf{Met*}(X)## is admissible
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Undergrad Prove that the tail of this distribution goes to zero
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Show ##sup\{a \in \mathbb{Q}: a^2 \leq 3\} = \sqrt{3}##
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad How to calculate expectation and variance of kernel density estimator?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Proving Completeness property of ##\mathbb{R}## using Dedekind cuts
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
MHB Describing Sets: A Comprehensive Guide
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K