1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: A simple question from Rudin's principles of mathematical analysis

  1. Jul 25, 2011 #1
    It's NOT a homework. I'm self-studying Rudin's Analysis and I came to this part that I can't follow the argument after a certain point:

    statement: if x,y [itex]\in[/itex] R, and x<y, then there exists a p [itex]\in[/itex] Q such that x<p<y.

    Proof: since x<y, we have y-x>0, and the Archemedean property furnishes a positive integer n such that:
    Apply the Archemedes' property again to obtain positive integers m1 and m2 such that m1>nx, m2>-nx. Then:

    [Here is where I get confused].
    Hence there is an integer m (with -m2<=m<=m1) such that: *
    m-1 <= nx < m. *
    If we combine these inequalities, we obtain
    nx < m <= 1 + nx < ny. *

    Since n>0, it follows that
    x < m/n <y.

    I don't understand the places that I've marked with *. I fail to follow the argument after the place that I've mentioned it. Can anyone clarify up these statements for me please?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 25, 2011 #2
    Hi AdrianZ! :smile:



    Then m will satisfy [itex]m-1\leq nx<m[/itex] (try to prove this). There is only one question: does the minimum exist? That is, does the set [itex]\{k~\vert~nx<k\}[/itex] nonempty and does it has a lower bound.

    What exactly don't you understand here?
    [itex]nx<m[/itex] by the choice of m
    [itex]m\leq 1+nx[/itex] since [itex]m-1\leq nx[/itex]
    [itex]1+nx<ny[/itex] since [itex]n(y-x)>1[/itex].

  4. Jul 25, 2011 #3
    well, since x is a positive real number and n is a natural number then nx>0. k>nx by definition, therefore k is a positive integer. to prove that the set is nonempty I should show that no matter how large nx is, there is always a k such that nx<k. well, suppose that It wasn't true. therefore for any positive integer k we had k<=nx which leads to a false statement that the set of positive integers has an upper bound. so there exists a positive integer k such that nx<k which means the set is non-empty. Now we know that the set [tex]A = \{k~\vert~nx<k\}[/tex] is non-empty and its members are positive integers. the well-ordering principle now guarantees the existence of the smallest k in the set which is the m we want. so the existence part of the theorem is now completed.
    Now to prove that [itex]m-1\leq nx<m[/itex] one need to realize that if [itext]m-1\leq nx[/itext] wasn't true, then we had nx<m-1. but m-1<m and m was the smallest positive number s.t nx<k, which is a contradiction. that proves the inequality part.

    Now I understand it completely.

    Are we done or there are still holes in the argument that we need to fill?
  5. Jul 25, 2011 #4
    OK, a few remarks: we don't know if x is positive or not. Second, it was easier if you would just use m1 and m2 in your argument. The existence of m
    provides a lower bound, and the existence of m1 says that the set is nonempty.

    It's alright, I think.
  6. Jul 25, 2011 #5
    Ah, right! well, thanks for the proof.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook