Is this well-defined in the rational numbers

  • Thread starter iNCREDiBLE
  • Start date
  • #1
iNCREDiBLE
128
0
Need help with proving:

Show that (a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c, b+d) is not well-defined in the rational numbers.
[Note: (a,b) + (c,d) = (ad+bc, bd) is well-defined because (a,b) is related to (c,d) when ad = bc.)]
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
Have you tried at all? Do you know what it means to fail to be well-defined?
 
  • #3
iNCREDiBLE
128
0
Hurkyl said:
Have you tried at all? Do you know what it means to fail to be well-defined?

I know what it means. But is it enough with just stating an example?
 
  • #4
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,021
970
When proving a general statement is not true, yes, it is sufficient to give a "counter-example": one case showing for which the statement is not true, thus proving it is not always true.

What you need to do is find an example of rational numbers (a,b),(a',b'),(c,d),(c',d') such that (a,b) and (a', b') are equivalent, (c,d) and (c',d') are equivalent, but (a+c,b+d) is not equivalent to (a'+c', b'+d').

(For those who are not clear on this, this is using a method of defining rational number from the integers by saying that two ordered pairs of integers, (a,b) and (a',b') (with second integer non-zero) are equivalent if and only if ab'= a'b. That is an equivalence relation and so partitions the set of all such pairs into equivalence classes. A rational number is such an equivalence class.)
 
  • #5
iNCREDiBLE
128
0
HallsofIvy said:
When proving a general statement is not true, yes, it is sufficient to give a "counter-example": one case showing for which the statement is not true, thus proving it is not always true.

What you need to do is find an example of rational numbers (a,b),(a',b'),(c,d),(c',d') such that (a,b) and (a', b') are equivalent, (c,d) and (c',d') are equivalent, but (a+c,b+d) is not equivalent to (a'+c', b'+d').

(For those who are not clear on this, this is using a method of defining rational number from the integers by saying that two ordered pairs of integers, (a,b) and (a',b') (with second integer non-zero) are equivalent if and only if ab'= a'b. That is an equivalence relation and so partitions the set of all such pairs into equivalence classes. A rational number is such an equivalence class.)

That's just what I did, I wasn't just sure if that was enough.. :bugeye:
 
  • #6
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,021
970
Out of curiosity then, what was your counter-example?
 
  • #7
iNCREDiBLE
128
0
HallsofIvy said:
Out of curiosity then, what was your counter-example?
(1,2) ~ (1,2) and (1,3) ~ (2,6).
 

Suggested for: Is this well-defined in the rational numbers

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
511
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
67
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
8
Replies
15
Views
372
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
589
Replies
2
Views
294
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
657
Replies
1
Views
336
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
217
Top