Proving the Archimedian Property for Real Numbers

  • Thread starter Thread starter pzzldstudent
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Property
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the Archimedean Property for real numbers, specifically demonstrating that for any positive real number x, there exists a natural number n such that 1/(2^n) < x. Participants are exploring the relationship between powers of 2 and natural numbers as part of their proof strategy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to leverage the Archimedean Property by relating it to the inequality involving powers of 2. They express uncertainty about how to manipulate the inequality to include the factor of 2. Other participants suggest proving the inequality 2^n > n for n > 1, which may aid in the proof.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some suggesting the use of mathematical induction to establish the inequality 2^n > n. The original poster appears to be synthesizing these ideas into a coherent proof structure, indicating progress in their understanding without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Contextual Notes

There is an underlying assumption that the Archimedean Property applies, and participants are navigating the implications of this property in their proof attempts. The discussion also reflects a reliance on previously established results, such as the inequality 2^n > n.

pzzldstudent
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Statement to prove:
If x > 0, show there exists n in N (the set of all natural numbers) such that 1/(2^n) < x.

My work on the proof so far:
Let x > 0. By the Archimedian Property, we know if ε > 0, there exists an n in N such that 1/n < ε.
Take x = ε . So there exists an n in N such that 1/n < x.

That is as far as I've gotten. I am stuck as to how I can algebraically manipulate the inequality to get the 2 in there somehow and to get the final form of 1/(2^n) < x.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you show 2^n>n for n>1?
 
That statement 2^n > n sounds familiar. I think we proved something like that using math induction before. So if I can state that, then it would be helpful in finishing the proof, right?

Thanks for looking!
 
pzzldstudent said:
That statement 2^n > n sounds familiar. I think we proved something like that using math induction before. So if I can state that, then it would be helpful in finishing the proof, right?

Thanks for looking!

Since that would mean 1/2^n<1/n, I think it would be extremely helpful. You're welcome.
 
Dick said:
Since that would mean 1/2^n<1/n, I think it would be extremely helpful. You're welcome.

Thanks again for the help!

I think I got it [I have a proof within a proof]:

My proof: Let x > 0. By induction 2^n > n
(Proof: Base case: for n = 1, 2^1 > 1. Check. Inductive step: Assume true for n = k, k a natural number. That is 2^k > k is true. To show this true for k + 1, we need to show 2^(k+1) > k +1 which implies 2*2^k > k +1. By assumption that 2^k > k, then 2*2^k > 2k. But for all k ≥ 1, 2k ≥ k + 1, so
2^(k+1) > 2k ≥ k+1. Therefore 2^(k+1) > k + 1, and 2^n > n. QED)
So since 2^n > n, then 1/2^n < 1/n. By the Archimedian Property, 1/n < x. Therefore
1/2^n < 1/n < x which implies 1/2^n < x. QED.
 
You nailed it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K