Proving there is no smallest positive number

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uranian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Positive
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether there exists a smallest positive number, exploring the implications of this statement within the realm of mathematical proofs and real numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various approaches to proving the statement, including attempts at contradiction and the use of examples like z=x/2. There are questions about the logical structure of the arguments presented and the phrasing of mathematical statements.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback on each other's reasoning and suggesting alternative approaches. There is a recognition of misunderstandings in the proof techniques, and some participants express a clearer understanding of the problem as the discussion progresses.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention concerns about communication in mathematical proofs and the challenges of constructing logical arguments, particularly in the context of a first course in proofs.

Uranian
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


"True or false: there is a smallest positive number. Explain."

Homework Equations


N/A, but for practice I'll try my hand at phrasing it mathematically:
[itex]\forall[/itex]x[itex]\in[/itex](0,∞)[itex]\exists[/itex]z[itex]\in[/itex](0,∞):(z<x)

The Attempt at a Solution


My issue with the question is mathematically proving it - I'm a bit paranoid because I've been losing a lot of marks on communication and I don't think it'll be enough for me in this particular class to simply say that the statement is false because there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. So, I was thinking it could be proven in a way similar to how we prove there is no largest real number...
Let z be the smallest positive real number such that 0<z<x where x[itex]\in[/itex](0,∞):
let x=z-1
then:
z<z-1
0<-1 which is not true. Therefore, the statement is false and there is no smallest positive number.
Is this a logical argument? This is my first course in proofs, and I'm a freshman, so I don't feel very confident in constructing my arguments. Mainly I would just like some feedback, and if I'm doing something wrong, could someone hint towards the correct argument...? Any response is much appreciated : )
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If z<x, why does x=z-1 ? I would try a contradiction. Let x= the smallest positive number. Then there is no number z such that x>z>0. Let z=x/2... its a little course in the phrasing but you see what I'm trying to do?
 
Right, that is a much better argument...I suppose I just misunderstood the proof that there is no largest real number which I came across in my calculus text. : \
 
I do that all the time. Flip a sign here, switch all for exists there, and before you know it, you're proving the wrong thing. It got me once on a test >_<
 
I see that you apparently understand the problem now.

One way to approach it would be to ask yourself, if given a positive number, x, what number is between x and zero?
 

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K