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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the set D = {x: x ∈ Q and (x ≤ 0 or x² < 2)} is a Dedekind cut. Participants explore the necessary conditions for D to qualify as a Dedekind set, addressing specific cases and proofs related to its properties.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that D is not empty and not equal to all rational numbers, citing examples such as negative numbers and the number 2.
  • There is a discussion about proving the second condition of a Dedekind cut, with suggestions on using specific values and inequalities to demonstrate that for any r in D, there exists an s in D such that r < s.
  • One participant proposes that if r < 0, then s can be taken as 0, while if r > 0 and r² < 2, they suggest taking d = 2 - s² to explore the implications for s.
  • Another participant raises a question about whether to assume s is equal to or greater than r to reach a contradiction, while others clarify that the proof should focus on the conditions given without assuming s's relationship to r.
  • There is a correction regarding a misprint in the mathematical expression, changing the inequality from > 2 to < 2, which affects the subsequent reasoning about the maximum of the set.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the non-emptiness of D and its exclusion of certain rational numbers. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the proofs for the conditions of a Dedekind cut, with differing approaches and interpretations of the definitions involved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definition of D and its implications for the proof. There are also unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions that may affect the validity of the arguments presented.

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
Define a Dedekind cut and show the given set is(n't) a Dedekind cut
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Construction of reals through Dedekind cuts in Baby Rudin
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
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 Show ##sup\{a \in \mathbb{Q}: a^2 \leq 3\} = \sqrt{3}##
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Proving Completeness property of ##\mathbb{R}## using Dedekind cuts
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
Show that a set has no "unique nearest point" property
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad In Euclidian space, closed ball is equal to closure of open ball
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
High School How Do Dedekind Cuts Affect Addition and Negative Numbers?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K