Are there any infinitesimals in R?

  • Thread starter Thread starter avec_holl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    infinitesimals
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether infinitesimals can be considered a subset of the real numbers (R). Participants are exploring various proofs and reasoning related to the properties of infinitesimals and their relationship to the real number system.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants present multiple proofs attempting to show that infinitesimals cannot exist within R, including proof by contradiction and limit arguments. Some express uncertainty about their approaches and the completeness of their reasoning.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exchange of ideas, with participants providing feedback on each other's proofs. Some participants suggest modifications to existing proofs and highlight aspects that need further consideration, such as the inclusion of negative infinitesimals.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the relevance of the Archimedean property of R in their arguments, and there is acknowledgment of the need to clarify certain definitions and assumptions regarding infinitesimals.

avec_holl
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that infinitesimals are not a subset of R.

Homework Equations



N/A

The Attempt at a Solution



Well, I had two ideas about how to prove this but I'm really not sure about either. Proof 1 was the first idea I had but I think it's probably wrong since it has to do with the limit of a sequence. Proof 2 was my other idea but I think it seems fishy so it's probably wrong. Anyway, here goes nothing . . .

Proof 1: Suppose that (∃ε)(εR) defined by 0 < ε < 1/nnN. Clearly ε satisfies the definition of an infinitesimal.

Since ε < 1/n this defines a sequence {xn} = 1/n. We can prove that this sequence converges to zero as n becomes arbitrarily large by using the definition of convergence. Therefore,

(∀ϵ)(ϵ > 0)(∃N)(NN)(∀n)(if n > N then 0 < |{xn} - 0| < ϵ).

Clearly, if (ϵ > 0), then the must be some (NN) such that, 1/N < ϵ. The fact that n > N implies that 0 < {xn} = 1/n < 1/N < ϵ. Since this condition is true, we have that, if n > N then 0 < |{xn} - 0| < ϵ.

To complete the proof, we need only note that since 0 < ε < {xn}, if n > N then 0 < |ε| <|{xn}| < ϵ. This implies that ε = 0 and consequently, infinitesimals are not a subset of R. Q.E.D.


Proof 2: Suppose that (∃ε)(εR) defined by 0 < ε < 1/nnN. Clearly ε satisfies the definition of an infinitesimal. Since ε ≠ 0, ε-1R. Because 0 < ε < 1/nnN, this implies that ε-1 > nnN. However, this contradicts the Archimedean property of R and consequently infinitesimal numbers cannot be a subset of R. Q.E.D.


I hope this is the right forum for this. Please pardon any poor wording, I'm not used to formatting things for the computer. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I think that can be done more simply as a "proof by contradiction". If an infinitesmal, [itex]\epsilon[/itex] were a member of R, it would have to be 0, positive or negative. It cannot be 0 by definition. If [itex]\epsilon> 0[/itex] then [itex]1/\epsilon[/itex] would be a positive real number. By the Archimedean property (which essentially is what says infinitesmals cannot be real numbers) there exist a positive integer N such that [itex]N> 1/\epsilon[/itex] from which [itex]1/N< \epsilon[/itex], a contradiction. I'll leave the last case, that [itex]\epsilon[/itex] is a negative real number, to you.
 


I thought proof 1 was fine (other than neglecting the possibility of negative infinitessimals). It's the same argument -- the Archmedean principle is essentially the statement that "1/n --> 0 as n --> infinity", and his invokation of the squeeze theorem works out to essentially the same thing as your argument by contradiction.

Oh wait, nevermind -- I just noticed he didn't actually invoke the squeeze theorem, he just duplicated its proof in his argument.

Isn't his proof 2 the same thing as your argument, HoI?
 
Last edited:


Pretty much, yeah. But mine was prettier!

(There were a number of special symbols my reader could not interpret so I was not clear what he was saying.)
 


Thanks for the replies guys! I'm really glad that each approach I used will work with some modifications.

Hurkyl: Thanks for pointing out that I needed to consider negative infinitesimals. I always seem to forget some important part of a proof.

HallofIvy: Your proof by contradiction was certainly prettier than mine! Thanks for the input!
 


avec_holl: have you worked out how to redo proof #1 in terms of the squeeze theorem? I think it's a good idea -- you were clearly thinking along those lines, and it would be a good exercise to figure out how to work efficiently with those thoughts.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K