Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can someone check my proof?

  1. Feb 2, 2010 #1
    [tex]\forall q \in \textbf{Q}, \exists r \in\textbf{Q}[/tex] so that [tex]q + r\in \textbf{Z}[/tex] (Q is set of all rational numbers, and Z is set of all Integers)


    let q be an arbitrary rational number
    thus, [itex]q=\frac{a}{b}[/itex] for some integers a and b, and b is not 0
    let [itex]r = \frac{b-a}{b}[/itex] where [itex]b-a,b\in\textbf{Z}[/itex], b is still not 0
    q + r = \frac{a}{b} + \frac{b-a}{b}[/tex]

    [tex] = \frac{a+b-a}{b}[/tex]

    [tex] = \frac{b}{b}[/tex]

    [tex]=1[/tex] and 1 is an integer

    End of proof

    I'm not sure if I was redundant with anything, or if I forgot to say anything. I think I only need to find one example since the second quantifier says there exists, which I think means I only need to show one algebraically for an arbitrary rational number. Also, I can take advantage of the fact that an integer is an integer, so I don't have to define it I guess...

    I'm in a first year discreet mathematics course. If there's anything wrong with my proof, please let me know.

    Thanks, appreciate it!
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 2, 2010 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Are Q and Z restricted to > 0? If not r = -q will always work.
  4. Feb 2, 2010 #3
    Yeah, -r would work, but I was wondering if my proof works as well. I realized that -r would work afterwards, but I already wrote down my version which I think works out algebraically, but yeah I wanted to confirm before I submit this.
  5. Feb 3, 2010 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Your proof is correct, but as a mathematician I can tell you it is awful. Simple proofs are always preferred over complicated ones.

    A more interesting case is restricting Q and Z to be positive. Then something like your proof might be needed.
    (Hint: replace b-a by nb-a, where n is sufficiently large).
  6. Feb 3, 2010 #5
    Your proof is fine. I agree with mathman in spirit, but can you honestly say q+(1-q)=1 is "complicated"?
  7. Feb 4, 2010 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Your version is several lines shorter than the original.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook