Is this a valid proof?

  • Thread starter kaos
  • Start date
  • #1
kaos
63
0
Is this a valid proof? Also is this way of doing it valid?

Statement : There are infinitely many natural numbers n where the square root of n is rational.

Proof:
sqrt of n = x (where x is natural)
n= x squared

And n can be any natural number(x) squared ,and there are infinitely many natural numbers (x)
therefore there are infinitely many n which has a natural square root. Since natural numbers are rational , there are infinitely many natural numbers n where the square root of n is rational.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Ray Vickson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Dearly Missed
10,706
1,722
Is this a valid proof? Also is this way of doing it valid?

Statement : There are infinitely many natural numbers n where the square root of n is rational.

Proof:
sqrt of n = x (where x is natural)
n= x squared

And n can be any natural number(x) squared ,and there are infinitely many natural numbers (x)
therefore there are infinitely many n which has a natural square root. Since natural numbers are rational , there are infinitely many natural numbers n where the square root of n is rational.

Your argument seems fine. There is one small point, though, that you should consider: how do you know that different integers x yield different integers x^2? (You need to argue that in order to know that squaring does not cause everything to collapse into a small, finite set of values.)
 
  • #3
Abhilash H N
39
5
Try going like this...
There are two possibilities:
1.There are infinitely many natural numbers n where the square root of n is rational.
2.There are finite natural number whose roots are rational.
If things were go as 1. then the proof is complete. If things were to go as 2. then we have to prove it wrong..
If second condition is satisfied then we will come up with a maximum number nmax (say) whose root is rational. Prove that there exist another number greater than nmax whose root is rational.
So the 2. possibility is ruled out, hence we are left with only one possibility which is 1.
Regards
 
  • #4
kaos
63
0
Your argument seems fine. There is one small point, though, that you should consider: how do you know that different integers x yield different integers x^2? (You need to argue that in order to know that squaring does not cause everything to collapse into a small, finite set of values.)

Thanks for responding.

Isn't the square of an integer always different?(except 1 or 0 i guess)?

And I dont understand the "(You need to argue that in order to know that squaring does not cause everything to collapse into a small, finite set of values.)" part (specifically what are you referring to that is collapsing?).
 
  • #5
kaos
63
0
Try going like this...
There are two possibilities:
1.There are infinitely many natural numbers n where the square root of n is rational.
2.There are finite natural number whose roots are rational.
If things were go as 1. then the proof is complete. If things were to go as 2. then we have to prove it wrong..
If second condition is satisfied then we will come up with a maximum number nmax (say) whose root is rational. Prove that there exist another number greater than nmax whose root is rational.
So the 2. possibility is ruled out, hence we are left with only one possibility which is 1.
Regards


Yes i know of proof by contradiction, but i used a more straightforward method. Though im not entirely sure my proof works.
 
  • #6
Dick
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
26,263
619
Yes i know of proof by contradiction, but i used a more straightforward method. Though im not entirely sure my proof works.

It's perfectly valid. The set of all n^2 for n any natural number i.e. {1^2,2^2,3^2,...} has an infinite number (since there are no duplicates, that's what Ray was saying about 'collapsing') of elements all of which are all natural numbers. Their square roots are all natural numbers, i.e. {1,2,3....} hence rational. That's what you are saying, right? In fact, those are the ONLY natural numbers that have rational square roots, but you don't need to show that.
 
  • #7
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,010
969
Thanks for responding.

Isn't the square of an integer always different?(except 1 or 0 i guess)?
No, that is not true. (2)^2= (-2)^2. However, YOU are working with natural numbers, not integers (do you understand the difference?) so it is true. But the point is that, unless you are "given" that, you need to prove it. Suppose m and n are different natural numbers. Then [itex]n- m\ne 0[/itex] because they are different. Further [itex]m+n\ne 0[/itex] (why?). Therefore [itex]m^2- n^2= (m- n)(m+ n)[/itex] is not 0 so [itex]m^2[/itex] is not equal to [itex]n^2[/itex].

And I dont understand the "(You need to argue that in order to know that squaring does not cause everything to collapse into a small, finite set of values.)" part (specifically what are you referring to that is collapsing?).
For example, when squaring, the set {-3, -2, 2, 3} "collapses" to the smaller set {4, 9}. The proof above shows that cannot happen for the natural numbers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
kaos
63
0
No, that is not true. (2)^2= (-2)^2. However, YOU are working with natural numbers, not integers (do you understand the difference?) so it is true. But the point is that, unless you are "given" that, you need to prove it. Suppose m and n are different natural numbers. Then [itex]n- m\ne 0[/itex] because they are different. Further [itex]m+n\ne 0[/tex] (why?). Therefore [itex]m^2- n^2= (m- n)(m+ n)[/tex] is not 0 so [itex]m^2[/itex] is not equal to [itex]n^2[/itex].


For example, when squaring, the set {-3, -2, 2, 3} "collapses" to the smaller set {4, 9}. The proof above shows that cannot happen for the natural numbers.

Ah right i confused naturals(whole numbers larger than zero) with integers (integers include less than zero whole number right). Thanks for the explanation.
 

Suggested for: Is this a valid proof?

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
889
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Top