Properties of "less Than" & "Less Than or Equals" - Bloch Theorem 1.2.9 - Peter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Theorem 1.2.9 from Ethan D. Bloch's book, specifically focusing on the properties of "less than" and "less than or equal to." Participants seek clarification on how certain parts of the theorem relate to each other, particularly concerning the implications of the statements involving inequalities and equalities.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter questions how Part (3) of Theorem 1.2.9 leads to the conclusion that if $$a < b$$ and $$a = b$$, then $$a < a$$.
  • Peter suggests that substituting $$b$$ with $$a$$ in the inequality $$a < b$$ leads to a contradiction with Part (1) of the theorem.
  • One participant agrees with Peter, stating that Part (3) is not relevant to the situation and that the substitution approach is sufficient.
  • Another participant argues that Part (3) can be applied because $$a = b$$ implies $$b \le a$$, which, combined with $$a < b$$, leads to $$a < a$$ by Part (3).
  • There is a reiteration that while Part (3) can be used, substituting $$b$$ with $$a$$ is a simpler approach to reach the same conclusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance of Part (3) of Theorem 1.2.9, with some supporting its application while others argue it is unnecessary. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to the theorem's implications.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the application of the theorem's parts, particularly the definitions and implications of the inequalities involved. Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct interpretation.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Ethan D. Bloch's book: The Real Numbers and Real Analysis ...

I am currently focused on Chapter 1: Construction of the Real Numbers ...

I need help/clarification with an aspect of Theorem 1.2.9 (6) ...

Theorem 1.2.9 reads as follows:
View attachment 6978
View attachment 6979
In the above proof of (6) we read the following:

" ... ... Suppose that $$a \lt b$$ and $$a = b$$. It then follows from Part (3) of this theorem that $$a \lt a$$ ... ... "Can someone please explain how Part (3) of Theorem 1.2.9 leads to the statement that $$a \lt b$$ and $$a = b \Longrightarrow a \lt a$$ ... ...

... ... ... ...Further ... why can't we argue this way ...

... because $$a = b$$ we can replace $$b$$ by $$a$$ in $$a \lt b$$ giving $$a \lt a $$ ... which contradicts Part (1) of the theorem ...
Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: Properties of 'less than" and "less than or equals" - Bloch Theorem 1.2.9 ... ...

Peter said:
In the above proof of (6) we read the following:
" ... ... Suppose that $$a \lt b$$ and $$a = b$$. It then follows from Part (3) of this theorem that $$a \lt a$$ ... ... "Can someone please explain how Part (3) of Theorem 1.2.9 leads to the statement that $$a \lt b$$ and $$a = b \Longrightarrow a \lt a$$ ... ...

Further ... why can't we argue this way ...
... because $$a = b$$ we can replace $$b$$ by $$a$$ in $$a \lt b$$ giving $$a \lt a $$ ... which contradicts Part (1) of the theorem ...

Hi Peter,

You are quite correct.
Part (3) about transitivity is not involved whatsoever on $a<b$ and $a=b$.
Instead we can simply substitute as you surmised.
In other words, we can leave out the reference to part (3) and it will be correct.

It looks as if Bloch accidentally gave a reference to part (3) when that only applies to the part that comes after: about $a<b$ and $b < a$.
 
Re: Properties of 'less than" and "less than or equals" - Bloch Theorem 1.2.9 ... ...

Part (3) can be used because $a=b$ (rather, $b=a$) implies $b\le a$ by definition, and then $a<b$ and $b\le a$ imply $a<a$ by part (3). But yes, it is easier to replace $b$ with $a$ in $a<b$ to get $a<a$.
 
Re: Properties of 'less than" and "less than or equals" - Bloch Theorem 1.2.9 ... ...

Evgeny.Makarov said:
Part (3) can be used because $a=b$ (rather, $b=a$) implies $b\le a$ by definition, and then $a<b$ and $b\le a$ imply $a<a$ by part (3). But yes, it is easier to replace $b$ with $a$ in $a<b$ to get $a<a$.
Thanks I Like Serena and Evgeny ...

Appreciate your help ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K