Prove Rational Numbers Have Midpoint: x,y ∈ Q

  • Thread starter Thread starter kaos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that between any two rational numbers, there exists a third rational number. The original poster presents a proof by contradiction and seeks validation of their approach.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts a proof by contradiction but is questioned on the validity of their approach due to a lack of specific properties of rational numbers. Other participants suggest constructing a rational number between two given rationals as a more straightforward method.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different methods to approach the proof. Some guidance has been offered regarding constructing a rational number between two given rationals, but there is no explicit consensus on the original proof's validity.

Contextual Notes

There is a concern about the generality of the proof presented by the original poster, as it may not adequately address all rational numbers. Participants also note the importance of using properties specific to rational numbers in the proof.

kaos
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Can someone check if my proof is correct.Please exscuse the bad notation, I've no idea how to type the symbols.
The question was prove that between any 2 rational number , there is a third rational.

x,y ,z are elements of Q
(for all x ) (for all y) (there exist z)[x>z>y] <->
(for all x ) (for all y) (there exist z)[(x>z) ^ (z>y)]

Proof by contradiction:
Suppose its false that for any x and y , there exists a z between x and y

~((for all x ) (for all y) (there exist z)[x>z>y])
(there exists x) (there exists y)( for all z)[ (x< or = z) V (z < or = y)]
There is no x that is smaller than or equals to any z.
There is no y that is larger than or equals to any z.
Both are false, the disjunction is false.
Therefore the statement (there exists x) (there exists y)( for all z)[ (x< or = z) V (z < or = y)]
is false and the statement (for all x ) (for all y) (there exist z)[x>z>y] is true.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since you have not used any facts about rational numbers, it seems vanishingly unlikely that your proof is valid.
How about doing something really simple and obvious: given two rationals p/q and r/s construct a rational that lies between them.
 
If i construct a rational in between p/q and r/s , i doesn't apply to any other rationals, so it doesn't really prove anything. Am i misinterpreting your statement ( I am really bad at math so please excuse my lack of ability)?
 
kaos said:
If i construct a rational in between p/q and r/s , i doesn't apply to any other rationals, so it doesn't really prove anything. Am i misinterpreting your statement ( I am really bad at math so please excuse my lack of ability)?
P, q, r and s can be any integers (q, s nonzero). If you construct a rational between p/q and r/s then you will have provided a general construction for any given pair of rationals.
 
p/q and r/s are arbitrary rational numbers. Haruspex is suggesting that you construct an expression in terms of p, q, r and s that is rational and guaranteed to lie between the the two.
 
Ah ok i see , thanks guys.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
11K