Proof involving the Archimedean Property

  • Thread starter Thread starter pissedoffdude
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Property
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around proving the existence and uniqueness of an integer m for any real number x, satisfying the condition m ≤ x < m + 1, as stated by the Archimedean Property. Participants clarify that for integer x, m equals x; for rational x, m can be chosen as x + 1/2; and for irrational x, m is defined within the interval (m, m + 1). The uniqueness of m is established through the properties of integers and the nature of real numbers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Archimedean Property in real analysis
  • Familiarity with rational and irrational numbers
  • Basic knowledge of integer properties and intervals
  • Concept of uniqueness in mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Archimedean Property in detail
  • Explore proofs involving rational and irrational numbers
  • Learn about integer intervals and their properties
  • Investigate uniqueness proofs in real analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying real analysis, educators teaching mathematical proofs, and anyone interested in the foundational properties of real numbers.

pissedoffdude
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If x is a real number, show that there is an integer m such that:
m≤x<m+1
Show that m is unique

Homework Equations


Archimedean Property: The set of natural numbers has no upper bound

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm having trouble with showing that m is unique. If x is a real number, I can find integers that are smaller and bigger than it. If m=x, then m≤x. By the Archimedean property, m+1>x and m+1>m, so m≤x<m+1
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, that's fine if x happens to be an integer (that's what you imply when you say "if m= x". What if it isn't?

Whatever x is, you are correct when you say that the Archimedean property says that there exist integers larger than or equal to x. What can you say about the set of integers larger than or equal to x?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, that's fine if x happens to be an integer (that's what you imply when you say "if m= x". What if it isn't?

Whatever x is, you are correct when you say that the Archimedean property says that there exist integers larger than or equal to x. What can you say about the set of integers larger than or equal to x?

Thanks for the advice.

So if I understand correctly, we have three cases:
1) x is an integer. Then, we can say m=x
2) x is rational. Then by the Archimedean property, we an find integers that are strictly greater and less than x, so we can let m be an integer such that m=x+1/2, then m<x<m+1 and x is halfway point here
3) x is irrational, then suppose we have the interval (m, m+1) where m is an integer, we let x be an irrational number somewhere in that interval
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
90
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K