Application of Supremum Property .... Garling, Remarks on Theorem 3.1.1

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the supremum property as presented in D. J. H. Garling's book, specifically focusing on the remarks following the proof of Theorem 3.1.1 related to convergent sequences. Participants seek clarification on the rigorous justification of several statements made by Garling regarding the existence of certain integers in relation to the Archimedean property.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter asks for rigorous explanations of Garling's remarks regarding the existence of a least positive integer ##q_0## such that ##1/q_0 < y - x##.
  • Peter also inquires about the justification for the existence of a least integer ##p_0## such that ##x < p_0 / q_0##.
  • Additionally, Peter seeks clarification on why ##r_0 = p_0 / q_0## is uniquely determined under the conditions stated by Garling.
  • One participant suggests confirming whether the Archimedean property has been established, implying its relevance to the discussion.
  • Another participant asserts that the Archimedean property is indeed proved as part of Theorem 3.1.1, suggesting that it can be assumed for the context of the remarks.
  • A participant provides a proof outline for the existence of the integer ##n##, arguing that assuming no such integer exists leads to a contradiction with the Archimedean principle.
  • This participant expresses that similar reasoning could be applied to the other questions posed by Peter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the relevance of the Archimedean property to the discussion, but there are differing levels of understanding regarding the rigorous justification of Garling's remarks. The discussion remains unresolved as participants continue to seek clarification on specific points.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the Archimedean property and its implications are not fully articulated, and the discussion does not resolve the nuances of the proofs or the conditions under which the integers are defined.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
TL;DR
Concerns properties of the positive real numbers including an explicit procedure for determining a rational r with ##x \lt r \lt y## where ##x \gt 0## ...
I am reading D. J. H. Garling's book: "A Course in Mathematical Analysis: Volume I: Foundations and Elementary Real Analysis ... ...

I am focused on Chapter 3: Convergent Sequences

I need some help to fully understand some remarks by Garling made after the proof of Theorem 3.1.1 ...Garling's statement and proof of Theorem 3.1.1 (together with the interesting remarks) reads as follows:
Garling - 1 - Theorem 3.1.1 ...  ... PART 1 ... .png

Garling - 2 - Theorem 3.1.1 ...  ... PART 2 ... .png
My questions on the remarks after the proof are as follows:
Question 1

In the remarks after the proof of Theorem 3.1.1 we read the following:

" ... ... There exists a least positive integer, ##q_0##, say, such that ##1/q_0 \lt y - x## ... ... "Can someone please explain exactly (rigorously) why this is true ... ..

Question 2

In the remarks after the proof of Theorem 3.1.1 we read the following:

" ... ... and there then exists a least integer,##p_0##, say, such that ##x \lt p_0 / q_0## ... ..."Can someone please explain exactly (rigorously) why this is true ... ..
Question 3

In the remarks after the proof of Theorem 3.1.1 we read the following:

" ... ... Then ##x \lt p_0 / q_0 \lt y## and ##r_0 = p_o / q_0## is uniquely determined ... ... "Can someone please explain exactly (rigorously) why this is true ... ..Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you established the archimedian property at this point?
 
The Archimedian Property is proved as Part (ii) of the proof of Theorem 3.1.1 ... so I think that as far as the remarks after the theorem are concerned we can take the Archimedian Property as proved ... ...

Peter
 
Q1: We prove there is an positive integer ##n## such that ##1/n < y-x##. Suppose not, then for all positive integers we have ##1/n \geq y-x## and thus ##n \leq 1/(y-x)## for all positive integers ##n##, contradicting archimedian principle.

Now that we know that there is such an integer, we can take it minimal and we call it ##p_0.##

I guess the other questions are proven similarly. Let me know if this helps. I find these questions always difficult to answer because I use these properties all the times.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Math_QED said:
Q1: We prove there is an positive integer ##n## such that ##1/n < y-x##. Suppose not, then for all positive integers we have ##1/n \geq y-x## and thus ##n \leq 1/(y-x)## for all positive integers ##n##, contradicting archimedian principle.

Now that we know that there is such an integer, we can take it minimal and we call it ##p_0.##

I guess the other questions are proven similarly. Let me know if this helps. I find these questions always difficult to answer because I use these properties all the times.
Thanks Math_QED ...

Yes ... get the idea ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K