Completeness Axiom Homework: Sets A & B of Positive Rationals

  • Thread starter Thread starter annoymage
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axiom
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Completeness Axiom in relation to sets A and B of positive rational numbers, where set A includes all positive rationals \( p \) such that \( p^2 < 2 \) and set B includes those where \( p^2 > 2 \). The user initially believes that set A has a supremum in the rationals, but the book clarifies that while A is bounded above by elements in B, it lacks a least upper bound in the rationals, demonstrating that the rationals do not satisfy the least-upper-bound property. This leads to the conclusion that the completeness axiom applies to real numbers, not to the rationals, confirming that the rationals are not complete.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Completeness Axiom in real analysis
  • Familiarity with the concepts of upper bounds and supremum
  • Knowledge of rational and real number sets
  • Basic understanding of mathematical proofs and counterexamples
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of real numbers and their completeness
  • Learn about the least-upper-bound property in detail
  • Explore counterexamples in real analysis, particularly involving rational numbers
  • Investigate the implications of the Completeness Axiom in various mathematical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students of real analysis, mathematicians exploring properties of number sets, and anyone studying the implications of the Completeness Axiom in mathematical proofs.

annoymage
Messages
360
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



let A be a set of all positive rational number such that p^2&lt;2

B be a set of all positive rational number such that p^2&gt;2

Homework Equations



n/a

The Attempt at a Solution



Set A is clearly non empty, and is a subset of real number, anyway i can choose 3 is upperbound, therefore upperbound exist, so by completeness axiom, supremum exist.

But the book here said

"Set A is bounded above, in fact every element in B a the upperbound of A. Since B has no smallest element, A has no least upper bound/ supremum in Q."

i'm really sure I'm not wrong. But am i wrong?

p/s; i just realized that this book define least-upper-bound property(more general case from completeness axiom), and also above example are the counterexample that proves Q does not have least-upper-bound property(follows from what the book have shown, not mine).

But aren't this contradicting the completeness axiom?

since Q is a subset of R, and any non-empty subset of Q that bounded from above has supremum(from completeness axiom), therefore Q has the least-upper-bound property.

help, where i gone wrong T_T
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The completeness axiom applies to the reals, there is no contradiction. As you say, the set A demonstrates that Q does not have the least-upper-bound property, so Q is not complete. The completeness axiom guarantees that a subset of Q has a least-upper-bound in R. However that least-upper-bound is not in Q.
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA in R, not Q

Thank YOUUUUUUU, I'm so stupid
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
13K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
20
Views
4K