Is this correct? (sum of two rational numbers is rational)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ephedyn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers Rational
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the sum of two rational numbers is also a rational number, focusing on the definitions and properties involved in the proof writing process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the structure of the proof, questioning the definitions of rational numbers and the sum of two rationals. There are inquiries about the closure properties of integers and the implications of definitions used in proofs.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided constructive feedback on the proof attempts, highlighting areas for improvement and clarification. There is an ongoing exploration of definitions and the correctness of the proof structure, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of definitions, such as the requirement for the denominator to be a non-zero integer, and the relevance of the greatest common divisor in the context of rational numbers.

ephedyn
Messages
169
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement

"Prove that the sum of two rational numbers is a rational number."

I just started on proof writing, so I'll just like to verify if I'm not missing anything here, and get some comments about the style.

The attempt at a solution

Theorem. If a,b \in \mathbb{Q} then a+b \in \mathbb{Q}

Proof. Given a,b \in \mathbb{Q}
we have some p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2 \in \mathbb{Z} satisfying

a=\dfrac{p_1}{q_1} \, b=\dfrac{p_2}{q_2}

which implies that

a+b<br /> =\dfrac{p_1}{q_1}+\dfrac{p_2}{q_2}<br /> =\dfrac{p_{1}q_{2}+p_{2}q_{1}}{q_{1}q_{2}}

By closure of \mathbb{Z} under addition and multiplication, it follows from the assumption that p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2 \in \mathbb{Z} that

p_{1}q_{2}+p_{2}q_{1} and q_{1}q_{2} are also integers.

Hence, a+b can be expressed as the ratio of 2 integers. By definition, a+b is rational. \square
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks good.
 
^Ah, great! Thanks.

One question though... is it immediately obvious that \mathbb{Z} is closed under addition/multiplication? Is there a proof for this? I mean, this one's still rather easy, but I find it hard to verify that some given finite group has closure... say... {1, 9, 16, 22, 29, 53, 74, 79, 81} under multiplication modulo 91?
 
ephedyn said:
a=\dfrac{p_1}{q_1} \, b=\dfrac{p_2}{q_2}

which implies that

a+b<br /> =\dfrac{p_1}{q_1}+\dfrac{p_2}{q_2}<br /> =\dfrac{p_{1}q_{2}+p_{2}q_{1}}{q_{1}q_{2}}

How does the first imply the second? It doesn't. Yes, I'm being picky here, but you are doing proofs, ephedyn. Pickiness is essential in proofs.

To prove that the sum of two rationals is rational, you need
  1. A definition of what exactly constitutes a rational number.
    Hint: 0 and 1 are integers. 0/1 is a rational, but 1/0 is not. Why not?
  2. A definition of the sum of two rationals.
    This is why I asked the question at the start of this post. How is the sum of two rationals defined?
  3. Proof that this definition always yields a rational.
    You need to use the correct definition of what constitutes a rational (item 1 above) here.
 
D H has brought up good points you need to address. I should have thought about it much more carefully before saying your proof was okay.
 
D H said:
How does the first imply the second? It doesn't. Yes, I'm being picky here, but you are doing proofs, ephedyn. Pickiness is essential in proofs.

To prove that the sum of two rationals is rational, you need
  1. A definition of what exactly constitutes a rational number.
    Hint: 0 and 1 are integers. 0/1 is a rational, but 1/0 is not. Why not?
  2. A definition of the sum of two rationals.
    This is why I asked the question at the start of this post. How is the sum of two rationals defined?
  3. Proof that this definition always yields a rational.
    You need to use the correct definition of what constitutes a rational (item 1 above) here.

Okay, thanks. I gave it some serious thought and rewrote it. But it doesn't look very different from my previous one, and looks much more long-winded so maybe I'm still wrong >_<. How would you change it:

Theorem The sum of any two rational numbers is rational.

Let \mathbb{Q} denote the set of all rational numbers

Definition Any number n \in \mathbb{Q} \iff n = \dfrac{p}{q}, where p,q \in \mathbb{Z} : q&gt;0

Consider the sum of any two numbers a, b,

a+b

Assuming a, b \in \mathbb{Q}
then by definition,

a+b=\dfrac{p_1}{q_1}+\dfrac{p_2}{q_2}=\dfrac{p_{1}q_{2}+p_{2}q_{1}}{q_{1}q_{2}}

for some p_{1},p_{2},q_{1},q_{2} \in \mathbb{Z}: q_{1},q{2}&gt;0,

By closure of \mathbb{Z} under addition and multiplication, it follows that p_{1}q_{2}+p_{2}q_{1} and q_{1}q_{2} are also integers. Also, since we have q_{1},q{2}&gt;0, q_{1}q{2}&gt;0. Hence, \left( a+b \right) \in \mathbb{Q}
 
^Also, I have a question... am I missing gcd(p,q)=1 from the definition? Does it affect the proof?
 
Much improved. There is one minor issue: is 2/-1 a rational? It is not per your definition. The constraint on the denominator is that it is a non-zero integer rather than a positive integer.

My main objections to your original proof were
  • Your use of the word "implies." p1/q1 + p2/q2 = (p1q2+p2q1)/(q1q2) by definition. The word "implies" has a special meaning in proofs.
  • That the numerator and denominator are integers does not suffice. The denominator cannot be zero.
You have addressed those objections.

Here is a proof that is a bit shorter than your proof. Note well: This proof, like yours, is an informal proof.

Given p1/q1, p2/q2 ∈ ℚ, then p1, q1, p2, q2 ∈ ℤ and q1, q2 ≠ 0. By definition, p1/q1+p2/q2= (p1q2+p2q1)/(q1q2). The numerator p1q2+p2q1 and denominator q1q2 are integers by closure of multiplication and addition of the integers. Moreover, q1q2 ≠ 0 since neither q1 nor q2 is zero. Thus p1/q1+p2/q2 is a rational.
 
Your use of the word "implies." p1/q1 + p2/q2 = (p1q2+p2q1)/(q1q2) by definition. The word "implies" has a special meaning in proofs.

Much improved. There is one minor issue: is 2/-1 a rational? It is not per your definition. The constraint on the denominator is that it is a non-zero integer rather than a positive integer.

Noted!

OK, thanks a lot for your advice. That's much more concise indeed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K