Rudin Theorem 1.20 (b)

Dschumanji

I understand the proof except for the following:

Suppose that -m₂ < nx < m₁ for positive integers m₁, m₂, n, and real number x.

Then there is an integer m with -m₂ ≤ m ≤ m₁ such that m-1 ≤ nx < m.

It definitely sounds reasonable, but it seems like a big jump in logic.

jgens

Let m be the least integer that is strictly greater than nx. It is a triviality to verify that this integer has the desired properties.

mabello

Hi there,
I have attached a simple demonstration of the bit you are asking.
Let me know if it is clear now.
I hope it helps

Similar Threads for: Rudin Theorem 1.20 (b)
Thread	Forum	Replies
Rudin theorem 3.44	Topology and Analysis	2
Rudin Theorem 3.23	Topology and Analysis	1
Rudin Theorem 1.20 doubt	Calculus	4
Rudin 1.20 Theorem	Calculus	9
[SOLVED] Rudin Theorem 11.35	Calculus & Beyond Homework	2

Dschumanji	Rudin Theorem 1.20 (b) Tweet I understand the proof except for the following: Suppose that -m₂ < nx < m₁ for positive integers m₁, m₂, n, and real number x. Then there is an integer m with -m₂ ≤ m ≤ m₁ such that m-1 ≤ nx < m. It definitely sounds reasonable, but it seems like a big jump in logic.

jgens	Let m be the least integer that is strictly greater than nx. It is a triviality to verify that this integer has the desired properties.