The Rational Plane and Dedekind's Axiom

It is irrational for any irrational \epsilon. It is irrational for \epsilon= q- \sqrt{2} where q is irrational. So it is irrational for all \epsilon except q- \sqrt{2} where q is a rational number. But for each q that is rational, q- \sqrt{2} is a different number.
  • #1
Bashyboy
1,421
5

Homework Statement


Here the formulation of Dedekind's axioms that I am using:Suppose that line ℓ is partitioned by the two nonempty sets ##M_0## and ##M_1## (i.e., ##\ell = M_0 \cup M_1##) such that every point between two points of ##M_i## is is also in ##M_i##, for ##i = 0,1##. Then there exists a point ##X \in \ell## such that one of the partitions is equal a ray of ##\ell## with origin point ##X## and the other partition is equal to the complement.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



By way of contradiction, suppose that the rational plane satisfies Dedekind's axiom (DA). Consider the ##x##-axis ##\ell = \{(a,0)~|~ a \in \mathbb{Q}\}## in the rational plane ##\mathbb{Q}^2##, and the sets ##M_0 = \{(a,0)~|~ a \in \mathbb{Q}^+, a^2 > 2 \}## and ##M_1 = \ell / M_0##. Clearly these two sets partition the line ##\ell##. Therefore, by DA we can conclude that ##\exists! X \in \ell## such that ##X## is the origin point of ##M_0## (or ##M_1##, as both cases should be equivalent), meaning that ##X \in M_0 \implies X = (x,0)##, where ##x > 0## and ##x^2 > 2##.

Here is where I am struck; I cannot find explicitly find the contradiction. It seems that I could show one of two things, although I may be wrong: (1) ##x## is forced to be ##\sqrt{2}##, which would be contradiction, or (2) ##M_0## is not a ray after all.

To show that ##M_0## is not a ray after all, it seems as though I would have to get an inequality of the form ## \sqrt{2} < y < x~~ \forall y \in \mathbb{Q}##, because none of the ##y##'s would be contained in ##M_0## nor in ##M_1##; however, I am being a bonehead and cannot see clearly.

Would someone mind giving me a hint?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Why are you working with the rationals? The problem statement doesn't mention the rationals. Yet using the rationals rather than the reals seems to be what's causing you problems.
Also, you haven't posted what version of Dedekind's Axiom you are using. It looks like you tried but it didn't stick.
 
  • #3
There really isn't a problem statement; I just made the problem up, although I am sure it has been done before. I'm sorry for not being clear enough, but I did include Dedekind's axiom the problem statement section. What I am trying to do is show that the rational plane does not satisfy Dedekind's axiom, so I should run into a problem---in fact, a contradiction. However, I am having trouble identifying the contradiction.
 
  • #4
Bashyboy said:
I did include Dedekind's axiom the problem statement section
You mean that your Dedekind axiom is the main para in the section entitled 'Problem Statement'? No wonder confusion reigned. :biggrin:

It's quite easy to get around your block. You know that M0 is all rationals greater than ##\sqrt{2}## and M1 is all rationals less than that.

Assume that the dividing point is ##X=\sqrt{2}+\epsilon##.
If ##\epsilon>0## use the denseness of the rationals in the reals to show there's a rational between ##\sqrt{2}## and X and it must be in M0 because its square is more than 2 but it must be in M1 because it's between X and 0 (which is in M1). Contradiction.

Then do similar for ##\epsilon<0## and get another contradiction.

So we must have ##X=\sqrt{2}##. But ##\sqrt{2}## can't be the dividing point X because it's not a rational. So there's your final contradiction.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Does it matter at all that ##M_0## isn't exactly a set of rational numbers, but is the set of ordered pairs ##(a,0)##, where ##a^2 > 2##?
 
  • #6
No. It just means that, if one wants to be strictly accurate at each step, one needs to talk about ordered pairs rather than numbers. But it won't affect the validity of the argument.
But I recommend you go through the exercise of formally writing out the argument. What's above is just a sketch. Formally writing it out should help convince you, will be good practice and, if you get stuck, help is available here at PF.
 
  • #7
Isn't there a problem with choosing ##x = \sqrt{2} + \epsilon##, where ##\epsilon## is, presumably, some positive rational number, because ##\sqrt{2}## is an irrational number?
 
  • #8
Bashyboy said:
Isn't there a problem with choosing ##x = \sqrt{2} + \epsilon##, where ##\epsilon## is, presumably, some positive rational number, because ##\sqrt{2}## is an irrational number?
There's no problem. The requirement is for X to be rational, not ##\epsilon##. So ##\epsilon## will be irrational as it is the difference between a rational and an irrational.
 
  • #9
But that's my issue. How can ##x## be rational if it is equal to ##\sqrt{2} + \epsilon##, because ##\sqrt{2} + \epsilon## is rational if and only if ##\epsilon = - \sqrt{2}##.
 
  • #10
@Bashyboy Not at all. ##\epsilon=q-\sqrt{2}## is rational for any rational number ##q##.
 
  • #11
Suppose that ##\sqrt{2} + \epsilon## is rational. Then there exist ##p_1## and ##q_1## such that ##gcd(p_1,q_1) = 1## (this may be the wrong requirement) and ##\sqrt{2} + \epsilon = \frac{p_1}{q_1} \iff \epsilon = \frac{p_1 -q \sqrt{2}}{q}##. Furthermore, ##p_1 -q \sqrt{2}## must be some rational, implying that ##p_1 -q_1 \sqrt{2} = \frac{p_2}{q_2} \iff \sqrt{2} = \frac{p_1}{q_2} - \frac{p_2}{q_1q_2}##. However, this a contradiction, because ##\sqrt{2}## is known to be irrational, while the difference ##\frac{p_1}{q_2} - \frac{p_2}{q_1q_2}## is a rational number.

What is wrong with the argument?
 
  • #12
Bashyboy said:
Furthermore, ##p_1 -q \sqrt{2}## must be some rational
This is the bit that is wrong.
 
  • #13
So, what does the proof look like that ##q - \sqrt{2}## is rational for any rational number? Wouldn't ##q = 0## be a counterexample?
 
  • #14
Ah, let's backtrack a bit to posts 9 and 10. I wrote the wrong thing in post 10 as I was distracted by a few other things happening around me.

What I should have written is that ##X=\sqrt{2}+\epsilon## is rational where ##\epsilon=q-\sqrt{2}## and ##q## is rational. That is, there are an infinite number of different values of ##\epsilon## that can make ##\sqrt{2}+\epsilon## rational.
 
  • #15
Bashyboy said:
So, what does the proof look like that ##q - \sqrt{2}## is rational for any rational number? Wouldn't ##q = 0## be a counterexample?
No one has claimed that. What was said was that [itex]\sqrt{2}+ \epsilon[/itex] is rational for [itex]\epsilon= q- \sqrt{2}[/itex] for any rational q.
 

1. What is the rational plane?

The rational plane is a mathematical concept that represents the set of all points in a two-dimensional space that can be described using rational numbers. It is a subset of the real plane, which includes all points that can be described using real numbers.

2. What is Dedekind's Axiom?

Dedekind's Axiom, also known as the Dedekind Cut, is a mathematical concept proposed by German mathematician Richard Dedekind. It states that a set of numbers can be divided into two non-empty subsets, with all numbers in one subset being smaller than any number in the other subset.

3. How is Dedekind's Axiom related to the rational plane?

In the rational plane, Dedekind's Axiom can be used to construct a line that divides the plane into two halves, with all points in one half having a rational coordinate and all points in the other half having an irrational coordinate. This line is known as the Dedekind Cut Line.

4. What is the significance of Dedekind's Axiom in mathematics?

Dedekind's Axiom is considered an important concept in mathematics, particularly in the field of real analysis. It allows for a rigorous definition of irrational numbers and their properties, which was previously lacking in mathematics.

5. How is the concept of the rational plane and Dedekind's Axiom used in real-world applications?

The rational plane and Dedekind's Axiom have various applications in fields such as engineering, physics, and computer science. For example, they are used in signal processing and control systems to represent and analyze continuous signals and systems. They are also used in computer graphics to generate smooth curves and surfaces.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
555
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
953
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
524
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Back
Top