1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min 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!

Dedekind Cuts

  1. May 26, 2005 #1
    The question:

    Show D= {x: x [tex]\in[/tex] Q and (x [tex]\leq[/tex] or x^2 < 2)} is a dedekind cut.


    A set D c Q is a Dedekind set if

    1)D is not {}, D is not Q
    2) if r[tex]\in[/tex] D then there exists a s [tex]\in[/tex] D s.t r<s
    3) if r [tex]\in[/tex] D and if s [tex]\leq[/tex] r, then s [tex]\in[/tex] D.

    For the first case, D is not an empty set because x is equal to 0 or the sqrt of 2. But, how do I prove case 2,3. Do I have to use addition/multiplication to prove them?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 26, 2005 #2
    I'm not sure I understand your definition of D

    is it equivilant to [tex] D=\{x\in Q | x\le 2\}\cup \{x\in Q | x^2 < 2\}[/tex]
    Which means [tex]D= \{x\in Q | x\le 2\}[/tex] which seems to contradict 2).

    Steven
     
  4. May 26, 2005 #3
    Sorry, D is actually
    D= {x: x [tex]\in[/tex] Q and (x [tex]\leq[/tex] 0 or x^2 < 2)}
     
  5. May 26, 2005 #4

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    1. Obviously, D is not empty- any negative number is in D. Obviously D is not all rational numbers, 2> 0, 22= 4> 2 so 2 is not in D.

    3. if r is in D and s< r then either:
    a) r< 0 in which case r is in D or
    b) 0< r< s so 0< r2< s2< 2 so r is in D.

    2. is the hard one. Obviously if r< 0, we can take s= 0. Ir r> 0, then r2< 2. Take d= 2- s2. Can you show that 0< (r+ d/4)2> 2?
     
  6. May 27, 2005 #5
    0< (r+ d/4)2> 2?
    if d= 2- s2
    0< r + (2- s2)/4 > 2
    Do I let r = sqrt(2) both plus and minus
    to show that
    0< r > 2, so this will confirm the fact that r<s?
     
  7. May 28, 2005 #6

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Sorry, there was a misprint! I mean 0< (r+d/4)2< 2. (not > 2)

    Suppose r is the largest number in the set.

    It is obvious that (3/2)2= 2.25> 2 so 3/2 is not in this set. It is obvious that 1.42= 1.96 so 1.4 is in this set. Any possible maximum for the set must be greater than or equal to 1.4 and less than 1.5= 3/2: 1.4<= r< 3/2 and so d= 2- r2 must be less than or equal to 2- 1.96= 0.04. (r+ d/4)2= r2+ rd/2+ d2/16 so 2- (r+d/4)2= (2- r2)- rd/2- d2/16. 2- r2= d and since r< 3/2, rd/2< (3/4)d. d/16= d(d/16) and since d< 0.04, d/16< (.04/16)= (.01/4)= 0.0025. That is: 2- (r+d/4)2> d- (3/4)d- 0.0025d= d- (0.7525)d> 0 which means (r+ d/4)2.
    r+ d/4 is larger than r but (r+ d/4)2< 2 so r+ d/4 is still in the set contradicting the hypothesis that r is the maximum for the set. Therefore, the set has no maximum.
     
  8. May 28, 2005 #7
    For the third proof, do I go onto assume that s is equal or greater than r to prove that it's a contradiction?
     
  9. May 29, 2005 #8

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    No, just prove exactly what's given: if s less than or equal to r, then it must be in the set. That's exactly what I did in my first response:

    Suppose r is in this set. There are two possibilities: r< 0 or r2< 2.
    (a) If r< 0 and s<= r, then s< 0 so s is in the set.

    (b) If 0<= r, r2< 2, and s< r then either
    (i) s< 0 so s is in the set
    (ii) s>= 0 so 0<= s2< r< 2 and s is in the set.
    In any case, if r is in this set and s< r, then s is in the set.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Dedekind Cuts
  1. Dedekind-Cantor Axiom (Replies: 5)

  2. Dedekind cuts (Replies: 2)

Loading...