MHB Every Number is between Two Consecutuve Integers

  • Thread starter Thread starter OhMyMarkov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers
Click For Summary
Every real number can be shown to lie between two consecutive integers by applying the well-ordering principle. For a positive number x, one can identify the smallest integer K such that K is greater than x, leading to the conclusion that K-1 is the integer that satisfies J ≤ x < J+1. The discussion highlights the need to clarify the original statement, emphasizing that the correct formulation involves finding an integer J for any real number x. Additionally, cases for x being zero or negative are acknowledged as necessary for a complete proof. The conversation underscores the importance of precise language in mathematical statements.
OhMyMarkov
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone, I want to prove that every number is between two consecutive integers.

$x\in R$. The archimedean property furnishes a positive integer $m_1$ s.t. $m_1.1>x$.
Apply the property again to get another positive integer $-m_2$ s.t. $-m_2.1>-x$.
Now, we have $-m_2<x<m_1$.

I stopped here, I know there exists an $m\leq m_1$ s.t. $m-1<x<m$, but I don't know how to continue.

Any help is appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OhMyMarkov said:
Hello everyone, I want to prove that every number is between two consecutive integers.

$x\in R$. The archimedean property furnishes a positive integer $m_1$ s.t. $m_1.1>x$.
Apply the property again to get another positive integer $-m_2$ s.t. $-m_2.1>-x$.
Now, we have $-m_2<x<m_1$.

I stopped here, I know there exists an $m\leq m_1$ s.t. $m-1<x<m$, but I don't know how to continue.

Any help is appreciated!

Hi OhMyMarkov, :)

Every number does not lie between two consecutive integers. You can easily verify this by taking any integer. :)

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.
 
OhMyMarkov said:
Hello everyone, I want to prove that every number is between two consecutive integers.
As pointed out in reply #2, the way you worded this is problematic.
This is the correct problem: Given x\in\mathbb{R} there is an integer J such that J\le x&lt;J+1~.
To prove this first suppose that x&gt;0. Then use well ordering of the natural numbers to find the least positive integer, K, having the property that x&lt;K.
Because K has that minimal property we see that K-1\le x&lt;K.
So let J=K-1. Now you have two more cases: x=0\text{ or }x&lt;0~.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
17K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
891
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K