Thread Closed

Rationals

 
Share Thread Thread Tools
Jul31-05, 05:15 AM   #1
 

Rationals


Need help with proving:

Show that (a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c, b+d) is not well-defined in the rational numbers.
[Note: (a,b) + (c,d) = (ad+bc, bd) is well-defined because (a,b) is related to (c,d) when ad = bc.)]
PhysOrg.com
PhysOrg
science news on PhysOrg.com

>> Bird's playlist could signal mental strengths and weaknesses
>> Minus environment, patterns still emerge: Computational study tracks E. coli cells' regulatory mechanisms
>> Bacterium uses natural 'thermometer' to trigger diarrheal disease, scientists find
Jul31-05, 05:29 AM   #2
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
Have you tried at all? Do you know what it means to fail to be well-defined?
Jul31-05, 06:02 AM   #3
 
Quote by Hurkyl
Have you tried at all? Do you know what it means to fail to be well-defined?
I know what it means. But is it enough with just stating an example?
Jul31-05, 06:25 AM   #4
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus

Rationals


When proving a general statement is not true, yes, it is sufficient to give a "counter-example": one case showing for which the statement is not true, thus proving it is not always true.

What you need to do is find an example of rational numbers (a,b),(a',b'),(c,d),(c',d') such that (a,b) and (a', b') are equivalent, (c,d) and (c',d') are equivalent, but (a+c,b+d) is not equivalent to (a'+c', b'+d').

(For those who are not clear on this, this is using a method of defining rational number from the integers by saying that two ordered pairs of integers, (a,b) and (a',b') (with second integer non-zero) are equivalent if and only if ab'= a'b. That is an equivalence relation and so partitions the set of all such pairs into equivalence classes. A rational number is such an equivalence class.)
Jul31-05, 06:43 AM   #5
 
Quote by HallsofIvy
When proving a general statement is not true, yes, it is sufficient to give a "counter-example": one case showing for which the statement is not true, thus proving it is not always true.

What you need to do is find an example of rational numbers (a,b),(a',b'),(c,d),(c',d') such that (a,b) and (a', b') are equivalent, (c,d) and (c',d') are equivalent, but (a+c,b+d) is not equivalent to (a'+c', b'+d').

(For those who are not clear on this, this is using a method of defining rational number from the integers by saying that two ordered pairs of integers, (a,b) and (a',b') (with second integer non-zero) are equivalent if and only if ab'= a'b. That is an equivalence relation and so partitions the set of all such pairs into equivalence classes. A rational number is such an equivalence class.)
That's just what I did, I wasn't just sure if that was enough..
Jul31-05, 07:08 AM   #6
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
Out of curiosity then, what was your counter-example?
Jul31-05, 07:43 AM   #7
 
Quote by HallsofIvy
Out of curiosity then, what was your counter-example?
(1,2) ~ (1,2) and (1,3) ~ (2,6).
Thread Closed
Thread Tools


Similar Threads for: Rationals
Thread Forum Replies
Vector space over the rationals Linear & Abstract Algebra 33
set of sequences of rationals. Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 3
between two rationals there are at least one irrational. General Math 24
Cos/Sin as roots of rationals Linear & Abstract Algebra 1
Limits & Rationals help please Calculus & Beyond Homework 5