Intervals with Natural Number Endpoints

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    intervals Natural
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves demonstrating that the intersection of two open intervals, specifically ##(n,n+1)## and ##(k,k+1)##, is empty under the condition that ##n \neq k##. The subject area pertains to real analysis and properties of intervals.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of assuming one endpoint is less than the other and explore the resulting inequalities. There is a focus on the contradiction arising from the assumption that both intervals can contain a common element.

Discussion Status

Some participants have raised questions about the validity of the assumptions made in the initial attempt. There is an acknowledgment of potential errors in reasoning, and suggestions for a more direct proof have been introduced, indicating a shift in focus.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through the implications of the natural number constraints and the relationships between the endpoints of the intervals. There is a noted confusion regarding the ordering of ##n## and ##k##, which may affect the approach taken.

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Show that ##(n,n+1) \cap (k,k+1)## is empty, provided that ##n \neq k##.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
WLOG, take ##k < n##. Then ##k -n \ge 1## is some natural number. If ##x \in (n,n+1) \cap (k,k+1)##, then ##-(n+1) < -x < -n## and ##k < x < k+1##. Adding the two inequalities together, we obtain ##k-n-1 < 0 < k-n + 1## or ##0 < k-n < 1 < k-n + 2##, which contradicts the fact that ##k-n## is some natural number.

How does this sound? Any better alternatives?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bashyboy said:
WLOG, take ##k < n##. Then ##k -n \ge 1## is some natural number.
That is wrong. k-n < 0
 
FactChecker said:
That is wrong. k-n < 0

Whoops! I meant to say ##n < k##. That should fix everything.
 
I think you can prove it more directly. I don't follow the last part, but it might be right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K