Dedekind cut problem in rudin; Problem 20, Chapter 1, Rudin

  • Thread starter saim_
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Cut
In summary, the conversation discusses the problem of showing that property (III) is necessary for the existence of an additive inverse in an ordered set constructed using Dedekind cuts. The conversation provides a proof for why property (III) is necessary by showing that without it, the set of negative rationals does not have an additive inverse. This serves as an example of how axiom A5 fails without the inclusion of property (III).
  • #1
saim_
135
1
I need help with the last part of Problem 20, Chapter 1 of Rudin. Here's the problem:

"With reference to the Appendix, suppose that property (III) were omitted from the definition of a cut. Keep the same definitions of order and addition. Show that the resulting ordered set has the least-upper-bound property, that addition satisfies axioms (A1) to (A4) (with a slightly different zero-element!) but that (A5) fails."

I'm just having trouble proving why A5 would fail without property (III).

Note: The appendix, referred to here, contains construction of reals using Dedekind cuts; property (III) is the requirement that a cut have no largest number; properties A1 to A4 are field axioms of closure, associativity, commutativity and existence of identify for addition. A5 is the property of existence of an additive inverse.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi saim! :smile:

Let [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] be the set of all negative rationals (excluding zero). You've probably found out that [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-\cup\{0\}[/itex] is the identity for addition. Maybe you can show that [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] does not have an additive inverse...
 
  • #3
I thought micromass had gone off the rails until I realized he was talking about the situation in which axiom A5 fails!
 
  • #4
micromass said:
Hi saim! :smile:

Let [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] be the set of all negative rationals (excluding zero). You've probably found out that [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-\cup\{0\}[/itex] is the identity for addition. Maybe you can show that [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] does not have an additive inverse...

here is my attempt at a proof :-
let us assume that [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] has an additive inverse. Let us call it β.
Then [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] + β = [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-\cup\{0\}[/itex]

Then there is a p [itex]\in[/itex] [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] and a q [itex]\in[/itex] β such that
p + q = 0. (since 0 is an element of [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-\cup\{0\}[/itex]).

But p is negative , thus q has to be positive.
Now , there exists a rational q1 such that 0<q1<q .

Further , [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] contains the rational -q1.
By definition of addition ,the set [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] + β
must contain an element
s = (-q1) + q.
But s is positive. Thus the set [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] + β also has some positive rationals as it's elements, and is hence not the additive identity.

Thus there doesn't exist an additive inverse for [itex]\mathbb{Q}^-[/itex] .

*I wanted to know if this is a valid/proper way of proving what was asked in Rudin. I am new to analysis so wanted to better my proving skills. Sorry for posting in an old thread, but what I wanted to ask was being discussed here. Plus I was struck at precisely the point at which the hint is provided by the PF member - micromass.*
 

1. What is the Dedekind cut problem in Rudin?

The Dedekind cut problem in Rudin refers to Problem 20 in Chapter 1 of the textbook "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" by Walter Rudin. It involves proving the uniqueness of a set of real numbers known as a Dedekind cut, which is a partition of the set of rational numbers into two non-empty subsets.

2. Why is this problem significant in mathematics?

This problem is significant in mathematics because it helps to establish the foundations of real analysis and the construction of the real numbers. It also highlights the importance of understanding the properties of Dedekind cuts in order to develop a rigorous understanding of the real numbers.

3. What is the solution to Problem 20 in Chapter 1 of Rudin's textbook?

The solution to Problem 20 involves proving that if two Dedekind cuts have the same lower set and upper set, then they must be equal. This is done by showing that the existence of a number in one cut but not the other would lead to a contradiction. In other words, if two Dedekind cuts have the same elements, they must be equal.

4. How does this problem relate to the work of Richard Dedekind?

This problem is closely related to the work of Richard Dedekind, a German mathematician who introduced the concept of Dedekind cuts in his book "Continuity and Irrational Numbers." Dedekind cuts are a key element in constructing the real numbers and are named after him.

5. Are there any real-world applications of the Dedekind cut problem?

While the Dedekind cut problem may not have direct real-world applications, its solution is essential in the development of real analysis and other areas of mathematics. A thorough understanding of the properties of Dedekind cuts is necessary for advanced mathematical concepts like measure theory, topology, and functional analysis.

Similar threads

  • Calculus
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
766
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top