MHB Ordering on the Set of Real Numbers .... Sohrab, Exercise 2.1.10 (c) ....

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on Exercise 2.1.10 (c) from Houshang H. Sohrab's "Basic Real Analysis," where participants seek clarification on assumptions regarding the natural numbers, integers, and rationals as defined in the context of real numbers. There is uncertainty about how to approach the exercise, particularly concerning the properties of real numbers as an ordered field. One participant outlines an attempt to prove that every natural number is greater than zero using induction, referencing previous exercises for support. The consensus is that the approach is correct, indicating a collaborative effort to understand the exercise's requirements.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Houshang H. Sohrab's book: "Basic Real Analysis" (Second Edition).

I am focused on Chapter 2: Sequences and Series of Real Numbers ... ...

I need help with Exercise 2.1.10 Part (c) ... ...

Exercise 2.1.10 Part (c) reads as follows:View attachment 7216I am unable to make a meaningful start on Exercise 2.1.10 (c) ... can someone please help ...

PeterNOTE 1: I am not sure what assumptions Sohrab wants us to make about $$\mathbb{N}, \mathbb{N_0}, \mathbb{Z}$$ and $$\mathbb{Q}$$ for these exercises ... he has not developed/constructed the natural numbers, the integers or the rationals ... but simply named them as sets and done little more than indicate notation for them ... as follows:View attachment 7217
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7218So I am trying to prove the exercise using the real numbers as defined by an ordered field (which, I think, can be shown to contain a copy of each of the sets $$\mathbb{N}, \mathbb{N_0}, \mathbb{Z}$$ and $$\mathbb{Q}$$ ... )

Mind you ... after reading the start of Sohrab's Appendix A I am again a little uncertain as to what to assume when I read the following ... (mind you, this is stated well after the section where Exercise 2.1.10 (b) appears ... )View attachment 7219I would, however like, as I have previously indicated, to prove the exercise using the real numbers as defined by an ordered field ...

NOTE 2: Sohrab defines $$ \mathbb{R} $$ as a field with binary operations of addition and multiplication ... he then goes on to define subtraction, division and exponentiation as follows:View attachment 7220Sohrab's definition of the usual ordering on $$\mathbb{R}$$ plus some of the properties following are as follows ...View attachment 7221
View attachment 7222Hope someone can help ...

Peter*** EDIT *** I am concerned that Exercises 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 contain properties of addition, multiplication and inverses that flow directly form the properties of $$\mathbb{R}$$ as a field, ... ... and these properties could possibly be useful in the exercise ... so I am providing Sohrab's description of the field of real numbers and the exercises that follow it, namely Exercises 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 ... View attachment 7223
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7224
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hint: Proof by induction and part (b) of the exercise.
 
Euge said:
Hint: Proof by induction and part (b) of the exercise.
Thanks for the help, Euge ...

An attempt to follow your advice follows ...To show that $$n \in \mathbb{N} \Longrightarrow n \gt 0$$ ... ... ... ... (1)Now ... the above statement (1) is true for $$n = 1$$ by Exercise 2.1.10 (b)

Suppose now that it is true for some $$k \in \mathbb{N}$$...

Then $$k \in P$$ ...

... but we have $$1 \in P$$

Therefore $$k + 1 \in P$$ ... ... ... by Order Axiom $$O_1$$

Therefore (1) is true for all $$n \in \mathbb{N}$$...Is that correct?

Peter
 
Peter said:
Thanks for the help, Euge ...

An attempt to follow your advice follows ...To show that $$n \in \mathbb{N} \Longrightarrow n \gt 0$$ ... ... ... ... (1)Now ... the above statement (1) is true for $$n = 1$$ by Exercise 2.1.10 (b)

Suppose now that it is true for some $$k \in \mathbb{N}$$...

Then $$k \in P$$ ...

... but we have $$1 \in P$$

Therefore $$k + 1 \in P$$ ... ... ... by Order Axiom $$O_1$$

Therefore (1) is true for all $$n \in \mathbb{N}$$...Is that correct?

Peter

Yes it is
 
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
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K