the theorem goes likes this:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

For every x>0 and every integer n>0 there is one and only one real y>0 such that y^n=x

The book starts the proof by stating E as set consisting of all positive real numbers t such that t<x^n. Then it states that:

If t= x/(1+x) then 0<t<1. Hence t^n<t<x. Thus t exists in E and E is not empty

If t>1+x then t^n>t>x so that t does not exist in E. Thus 1+x is an upper bound of E.

My questions is this:

Why does it divide into two cases, t= x/(1+x) and t>1+x? And instead, why can't we divide into t> x/(1+x) and t=1+x? Don't they still have the same meaning as the previous one in the way that 0<t<1 and t>1?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Proof of a theorem (y^n=x)

Loading...

Similar Threads - Proof theorem y^n=x | Date |
---|---|

I Proofs of Stokes Theorem without Differential Forms | Jan 24, 2017 |

A Trying an alternate Proof of the Fundamental Theorem | Aug 17, 2016 |

Calculus theorem/proof my teacher posted -- Not sure what it is... | Nov 10, 2015 |

Divergence Theorem Question (Gauss' Law?) | May 4, 2015 |

Proof of equality of mixed partial derivatives | Apr 17, 2015 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**