Prove if a < b, there is an irrational inbetween them

  • Thread starter Thread starter STEMucator
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Irrational
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that if \( a < b \), there exists an irrational number between them. The subject area includes real analysis and properties of irrational numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to demonstrate the existence of an irrational number between two given real numbers using properties of rational numbers and their density. Some participants question the characterization of the set of irrationals and seek clarification on specific expressions used in the discussion.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback on the original proof and engaging in clarifications about the nature of irrational numbers. There is an exploration of different ways to express irrational numbers, and some participants express confusion about specific mathematical notations.

Contextual Notes

Participants are discussing the definitions and properties of irrational numbers, including the limitations of expressing them in certain forms. There is an emphasis on the vastness of the set of irrationals and the challenges in describing its elements.

STEMucator
Homework Helper
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
140

Homework Statement



No giving up :biggrin:!

The question : http://gyazo.com/08a3726f30e4fb34901dece9755216f3

Homework Equations



A lemma and a theorem :

http://gyazo.com/f3b61a9368cca5a7ed78a928a162427f
http://gyazo.com/ca912b6fa01ea6c163c951e03571cecf

The fact ##\sqrt{2}## and ##2^{-1/2}## are irrational.

The Attempt at a Solution



Suppose 0 < b - a. We must show that ##\exists x \in ℝ - \mathbb{Q} \space | \space a < x < b##

Since 0 < b - a, we know we can apply theorem 1.3 to find ##r \in \mathbb{Q} \space | \frac{a}{\sqrt{2}} < r < \frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}## because of the denseness of ##\mathbb{Q}##.

We know : ##ℝ \setminus \mathbb{Q}## is the set of irrationals.

Also, since ##r \in \mathbb{Q}##, we can take ##r = \frac{p}{q}## for some ##p, q \in \mathbb{Z}##

This yields ##a < \frac{p \sqrt{2}}{q} < b##.

Therefore, because ## \frac{p \sqrt{2}}{q} \in ℝ - \mathbb{Q}## the claim is proven true.

EDIT : Fixed a small error.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The proofs is ok.

But, I really don't get this line:

Zondrina said:
##ℝ - \mathbb{Q} = \{ c \sqrt{d} \space | \space c, d \in ℝ\}##
 
micromass said:
The proofs is ok.

But, I really don't get this line:

I was just trying to highlight that it was the set of irrationals.

Do you know how to write backslashes in latex? I was trying to write R\Q, but it treats '\' like an escape character.
 
Zondrina said:
I was just trying to highlight that it was the set of irrationals.

OK, but the right-hand side you wrote down really isn't equal to the set of irrationals...

Do you know how to write backslashes in latex? I was trying to write R\Q, but it treats '\' like an escape character.

\setminus
 
Don't forget that numbers like \pi and e are also irrational (among many others).
 
micromass said:
OK, but the right-hand side you wrote down really isn't equal to the set of irrationals...



\setminus

##ℝ \setminus \mathbb{Q}## Yay :)!

Hmm would general elements look like ##c + d \sqrt{e}## instead then? Trying to get a grasp on what the set elements look like.
 
Zondrina said:
##ℝ \setminus \mathbb{Q}## Yay :)!

Hmm would general elements look like ##c + d \sqrt{e}## instead then? Trying to get a grasp on what the set elements look like.

There is no real good description of general elements of the irrational numbers. Elements like ##c+d\sqrt{e}## are still very special.

The reality is that the set of irrationals is huge. Most elements of the irrational numbers can't be explicitely described.
 
Zondrina said:
Hmm would general elements look like ##c + d \sqrt{e}## instead then? Trying to get a grasp on what the set elements look like.

There is no general way of writing the elements of the irrationals in the way you are trying to do. The transcendental numbers are a subset of the irrationals and they cannot, by definition, be expressed as the roots of polynomials with rational coefficients. We only know the general form of a few families of transcendental numbers. However, we know that almost all real (and complex) numbers are transcendental, so you've only captured a very tiny subset with your definition.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K