- #1

- 1,462

- 44

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter Mr Davis 97
- Start date

- #1

- 1,462

- 44

- #2

- 3,987

- 1,538

\
**well-ordered**, meaning that every subset has a least element. That guarantees that there exists a unique representation of the fraction in lowest terms, because the set S of all numerators of representations of the fraction is a subset of the positive integers and so must have a least element m. We choose the subset of S that have numerators equal to m. Then we observe that if m/a and m/b are both representations of the fraction, we have m/a=m/b and neither of a nor b is zero, so that a=b, so there is only one representation with numerator m.

BTW, we don't need to assume p and q are on lowest terms. All we need to assume to get the proof to work is that 2 is not a common factor of both, ie that ##2\not| \ \gcd(p,q)##.

If we don't assume that, as would be the case if ##\gcd(p,q)=2##, we can't get our contradiction. We could probably recover it by then entering into a long induction, but there's no need to do that since we can just assume lowest terms, which implies ##2\not| \ \gcd(p,q)##.

We are using (without citing it) the fact that ##p,q## are positive integers and that the set of positive integers iswhy are we allowed to assume that ##\frac{p}{q}## is in lowest terms?

BTW, we don't need to assume p and q are on lowest terms. All we need to assume to get the proof to work is that 2 is not a common factor of both, ie that ##2\not| \ \gcd(p,q)##.

If we don't assume that, as would be the case if ##\gcd(p,q)=2##, we can't get our contradiction. We could probably recover it by then entering into a long induction, but there's no need to do that since we can just assume lowest terms, which implies ##2\not| \ \gcd(p,q)##.

Last edited:

- #3

jedishrfu

Mentor

- 13,581

- 7,568

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52612.html

Basically, we start by assuming that ##\sqrt{2}## is rational then we can conclude that there exists a fully reduced ratio of integers p/q that represent it. From there the proof goes on to show that p/q isn't fully reduced.

It's a key part of the proof. You could start with that notion and then state that there is a common factor to the top and bottom that can be factored out to get a reduced ratio but it is just a side show and it just detracts from the elegance of the proof.

But wait until other mentors reply to get their opinion.

- #4

- 16,468

- 15,553

You only need the fact that every integer can be written as a product of primes in a unique way (##\,##up to ##\pm1\,##). This way you get ##\sqrt{2}=\frac{n}{m} \Longrightarrow 2m^2=n^2## and you end up with one factor ##2## more on the left than on the right. Strictly speaking one also uses that ##\mathbb{Z}## has no zero divisors, because it allows to cancel out all primes, which are on the left and on the right.

Last edited:

- #5

member 587159

It would follow that ##gcd(p,q) = 2##, meaning both numerator and denumerator have a factor ##2##. You can cancel it. Repeat the process until no more common factors 2 are there (why is this possible?). Conclude that ##\sqrt{2}## is irrational.

Share: