Proof about irrationals between reals.

  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that for any two real numbers a and b where a < b, there exists an irrational number t such that a < t < b. The proof utilizes the theorem stating that there is a rational number between any two reals. By selecting p = a - √2 and q = b - √2, the proof shows that a < t + √2 < b, where t is a rational number, thus establishing that t + √2 is irrational. The importance of variable definition is emphasized, as confusion arose from using the same variable t to represent both rational and irrational numbers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of real numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with rational and irrational numbers
  • Knowledge of basic proof techniques in mathematics
  • Concept of variable definition and its significance in mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of irrational numbers and their implications in real analysis
  • Learn about the density of rational numbers in the real number line
  • Explore advanced proof techniques, particularly in set theory and real analysis
  • Review common pitfalls in mathematical proofs related to variable usage
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding proofs involving real and irrational numbers.

cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Given any 2 reals a<b there exists an irrational number t such that
a<t<b . It tells us to use a theorem that states there is a rational number between any 2 reals.

The Attempt at a Solution


so If we use this and pick reals of the form p=a-√2 and q=b-√2
so now we have a-√2<t<b-√2 , and t is a rational number. then we add √2
to everything so we get a<t+√2<b
so now t+√2 is irrational , so now we have an irrational between any 2 reals.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cragar said:

Homework Statement


Given any 2 reals a<b there exists an irrational number t such that
a<t<b . It tells us to use a theorem that states there is a rational number between any 2 reals.

The Attempt at a Solution


so If we use this and pick reals of the form p=a-√2 and q=b-√2
so now we have a-√2<t<b-√2 , and t is a rational number. then we add √2
to everything so we get a<t+√2<b
so now t+√2 is irrational , so now we have an irrational between any 2 reals.

Again, no arguments with your reasoning. Do you have any doubts?
 
no, I am just new to writing proofs, so I just wanted more experienced people to check my work.
 
cragar said:

Homework Statement


Given any 2 reals a<b there exists an &gt; &gt; &gt;irrational number t &lt; &lt; &lt;

such that
a<t<b . It tells us to use a theorem that states there is a rational number between any 2 reals.

The Attempt at a Solution


so If we use this and pick reals of the form p=a-√2 and q=b-√2

so now we have a-√2<t<b-√2 , and &gt; &gt; &gt;t is a rational number. &lt; &lt; &lt; <br />


then we add √2
to everything so we get a<t+√2<b
so now t+√2 is irrational , so now we have an irrational between any 2 reals.

From the highlighted above, you are stating that t is rational and that it is irrational.

These contradict each other, yes?
 
t is rational , t+√2 is irrational
 
Yes, checkitagain's point was that you state the problem as "Given any 2 reals a<b there exists an irrational number t such that a<t<b" then later use the same letter, t, to represent a rational number.
 
ok so I just need to be careful with how I define my variables.
 
checkitagain said:
From the highlighted above, you are stating that t is rational and that it is irrational.

These contradict each other, yes?

check it again, checkitagain
 
  • #10
cragar said:
ok so I just need to be careful with how I define my variables.

yes but honestly it looks fine to me
 
  • #11
just replace this

so now we have a-√2<t<b-√2 , and t is a rational number. then we add √2

with this

so now we have a-√2<s<b-√2 , and s is a rational number. then we add √2

and the other lines as necessary
 
  • #12
Shayes said:
check it again, checkitagain

There is no need to "check it again." That OP's post is as wrong now
because of the wrong variable as it was then.



Originally Posted by cragar:
------------------------------------------------------------
ok so I just need to be careful with how I define my variables.
------------------------------------------------------------

Shayes said:
yes but honestly it looks fine to me

Stating "yes," and then it looks "fine" are contradictory.
That's why my post and HallsofIvy's accurate posts
are all that was needed.


@ cragar, once you have altered your proof with what you admitted
to in post # 8, then it will be "fine."
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K