Proof involving dedekind's cuts

  • Thread starter DeadOriginal
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, the Property (P13') states that for any two non-empty sets A and B of rational numbers, if all elements of A are less than all elements of B, then there is a unique x\in R such that for any a\in A and any b\in B we have a\leq x\leq b. Using this property, we can show that for any non-empty sets A and B as described in (P13'), and for any n\in N, there exists a pair (a,b) with a\in A and b\in B such that |b-a|=b-a<\frac{1}{n}. This can be done by considering the distance between two elements,
  • #1
DeadOriginal
274
2

Homework Statement


Show that for any non-empty sets A and B as in (P13') and for any [itex]n \in N[/itex],
there is a pair (a,b) with [itex]a\in A[/itex] and [itex]b\in B[/itex] such that [itex]|b-a|=b-a<\frac{1}{n}[/itex].

Homework Equations


Property (P13'). For any two non-empty sets A and B of rational numbers such that
Q = [itex]A\cup B[/itex], if all elements of A are less than all elements of B, then there is a unique
[itex]x\in R[/itex] s.t. for any [itex]a\in A[/itex] and any [itex]b\in B[/itex] we have [itex]a\leq x\leq b[/itex].

This is called P13' because I am currently learning from Spivak and have finished chapter 1-5 where we get P1-P12. P13 is in a later chapter so I haven't seen it yet. P13' was given to me to help introduce me to Dedekind's cuts.

The Attempt at a Solution


I have considered the pairs like (a,b) where [itex]a=a[/itex], [itex]b=a+\frac{1}{n+1}[/itex] or [itex]a=b-\frac{1}{n+1}[/itex], [itex]b=b[/itex] but this isn't correct. My professor says there is a very easy proof but I have thought about this so much that my mind is clogged and I can no longer see clearly. Could someone please point me in the right direction?

Edit: Taking another look at the problem, I feel like maybe I could use epsilon delta to prove that the limit goes to 0 as a and b get arbitrarily close? Since |b-a|=b-a<1/n is talking about distance after all... hmm. Any comments on this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I have yet again taken another look and now I am thinking, since we have for any [itex]a\in A[/itex] and [itex]b\in B[/itex] that we have a unique [itex]x\in R[/itex] such that [itex]a\leq x\leq b[/itex] then would it be possible for my to take say a certain x from one pair and subtract in from an x of another pair to show that it'll be less than 1/n? I'm not sure how I would make a proof from that.
 

What is a Dedekind's cut?

A Dedekind's cut is a concept in mathematics that was introduced by German mathematician Richard Dedekind. It is a way of defining real numbers as the division of the rational numbers into two subsets, such that all the elements in one subset are smaller than all the elements in the other subset. This allows for the creation of a complete and ordered set of real numbers.

Why is Dedekind's cut important in proofs?

Dedekind's cut is important in proofs because it provides a rigorous and formal way of defining real numbers. It also allows for the construction of real numbers without relying on the concept of limits, which can be difficult to understand and prove. Dedekind's cut is commonly used in the construction of real numbers in analysis and other areas of mathematics.

How do you prove statements involving Dedekind's cuts?

To prove statements involving Dedekind's cuts, one must use the definition of a Dedekind's cut and properties of rational numbers. This typically involves showing that a Dedekind's cut satisfies certain properties, such as being closed under addition and multiplication, to prove that it represents a real number. It is also important to use the completeness property of Dedekind's cuts, which states that every non-empty Dedekind's cut has a least upper bound.

What are some common mistakes made when working with Dedekind's cuts?

One common mistake when working with Dedekind's cuts is confusing the two subsets that define a cut. It is important to remember that the elements in one subset are strictly less than the elements in the other subset. Another mistake is not considering the completeness property of Dedekind's cuts, which is crucial in proving that a cut represents a real number. Lastly, it is important to be careful when working with inequalities and making sure to preserve their direction when manipulating them.

Are there any real numbers that cannot be represented by Dedekind's cuts?

No, Dedekind's cuts can represent all real numbers. This is because Dedekind's cuts can be used to construct a complete and ordered set of real numbers, which includes all irrational numbers as well. Any real number can be approximated by rational numbers, and therefore can be represented by Dedekind's cuts.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
500
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
733
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
505
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
711
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
258
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
515
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
577
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
309
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
Back
Top