Understanding the Formula for q in Rudin's Proof Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Diffy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the formula for q in Rudin's proof regarding the sets A and B of positive rationals. The formula q = p - ((p² - 2) / (p + 2)) is derived to ensure that q is rational and positioned correctly relative to p and √2. When p is in set A (p² < 2), q is shown to be greater than p, while for set B (p² > 2), q is less than p. The reasoning hinges on whether the term being subtracted from p is negative or positive. Visualizing the number line can clarify the relationships between p, q, and √2.
Diffy
Messages
441
Reaction score
0
I am reading this paragraph in little Rudin, right at the beginning.

Let A be the set of all positive rationals, p such that p2 < 2 and let B consist of all rationals p such that p2 > 2. We shall now show that A contains no largest number, and B...

To do this we associate with each rational p > 0 the number

q = p - ((p2 - 2) / (p + 2))


Now, I can't see where this is going. We want to pick a q that is rational, and always bigger than p but less than root(2) or always smaller than p but greater than root(2) depending on whether we are considering the set A or B.

Because we want q to be rational we can't pick the number directly in between p and root(2), that is (p + root(2) /2).

I guess my question is, how would one come up with that calculation for q? I can't for the life of me wrap my head around where that formula for q would come from if I was trying to pick q on my own..
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Diffy said:
I am reading this paragraph in little Rudin, right at the beginning.

Let A be the set of all positive rationals, p such that p2 < 2 and let B consist of all rationals p such that p2 > 2. We shall now show that A contains no largest number, and B...

To do this we associate with each rational p > 0 the number

q = p - ((p2 - 2) / (p + 2))


Now, I can't see where this is going. We want to pick a q that is rational, and always bigger than p but less than root(2) or always smaller than p but greater than root(2) depending on whether we are considering the set A or B.

Because we want q to be rational we can't pick the number directly in between p and root(2), that is (p + root(2) /2).

I guess my question is, how would one come up with that calculation for q? I can't for the life of me wrap my head around where that formula for q would come from if I was trying to pick q on my own..
From above, and given that p > 0, $$q = p - \frac{p^2 - 2}{p + 2} = \frac{p^2 + 2p - p^2 + 2}{p + 2} = 2\frac{p+1}{p+2} < 2$$
Look at the two cases separately, in one of which p ##\in## A, and the other in which p ##\in## B.

If p < ##\sqrt{2}## (p ##\in## A), then the formulation of q that you gave shows that q > p. Can you see why? Similarly, if p > ##\sqrt{2}## , (p ##\in## B), q < p. Both of these hinge on whether we're subtracting a negative quantity from p or subtracting a positive quantity.

I'm not sure what led to the formulation of q, but it might be helpful to draw and label a part of the number line for each of the two cases, showing the relative positions of p, q, and ##\sqrt{2}##.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top