Does a Smallest Real Number Exist for a Given Real Number?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion establishes that there is no smallest positive real number, as demonstrated by the contradiction arising from defining a smallest number and subsequently finding a smaller one. The same reasoning applies to positive rational numbers, confirming that they too lack a smallest element. Furthermore, for any given real number x, there is no smallest real number y that is greater than x, as shown by constructing a number z that lies between x and y. This analysis confirms the non-existence of smallest elements in both the real and rational number sets.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of real numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with rational numbers and their relationship to real numbers
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical proofs and contradiction
  • Concept of intervals and limits in real analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of real numbers in more depth, focusing on completeness and density
  • Explore the concept of limits in calculus to understand how they relate to real numbers
  • Investigate the implications of Cantor's theorem on the cardinality of sets
  • Learn about the axioms of the real number system and their significance in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in foundational concepts of real analysis and number theory.

Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44

Homework Statement


(1) Prove that there exists no smallest positive real number. (2) Does there exist a
smallest positive rational number? (3) Given a real number x, does there exist a
smallest real number y > x?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


(1) Suppose that ##a## is the smallest real number. Define ##b = \frac{a}{2}##. Then ##0<b<a##, which is a contradiction. Hence, there exists no smallest positive real number.
(2) Since the rationals are a subfield of the reals, the argument above applies here as well.
(3) Let ##x## be an arbitrary positive real number. Suppose that ##y## is the smallest real number such that ##y>x##. Define ##z = x + \frac{y-x}{2}##. Then we have the chain that ##x < z < y##. ##x < z## because ##x < x + \frac{y-x}{2} \rightarrow y > x##, which was assumed to be true, and likewise ##z< y \rightarrow y > x##, which was assumed to be true. In the case that y < x < 0, then just define ##z = -x - \frac{y-x}{2}## and the same result follows. Hence, there does not exist a smallest real number in relation to another real number.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks good.

(3) could be made shorter by using the result from (1). Just show that if y is the smallest real number > x then (y-x) is the smallest positive real number.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mr Davis 97

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
976
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K