Proof about irrationals between reals.

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof that for any two real numbers \( a < b \), there exists an irrational number \( t \) such that \( a < t < b \). The original poster attempts to use a theorem stating that there is a rational number between any two reals to support their argument.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of specific forms for \( t \) and the implications of defining \( t \) as both rational and irrational. There is a focus on variable definition and the logical consistency of the proof.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the proof, questioning the definitions of variables and the logical flow. Some guidance has been offered regarding the need for careful variable definition, and there is recognition of contradictions in the original statements.

Contextual Notes

There are concerns about the clarity of variable usage, particularly regarding the distinction between rational and irrational numbers in the proof. The original poster expresses a desire for feedback on their proof-writing skills.

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
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K