Rational numbers, supremum (Is my proof correct?)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the set of rational numbers whose squares are less than 2 has no least upper bound in the rational numbers. The original poster attempts to construct a proof using properties of upper bounds and the relationship between rational numbers and their squares.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the proof structure, particularly the choice of a new upper bound and the algebraic manipulation involved in squaring that bound. Questions arise about the validity of the steps taken and the clarity of the reasoning.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback on the proof and clarifying steps. Some participants express confidence in the proof's validity after additional steps are included, while others seek further clarification on specific algebraic transformations.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the assumption that the real numbers have not been fully constructed, which influences the nature of the proof and the definitions being used.

Incand
Messages
334
Reaction score
47

Homework Statement


Show that the set ##\{x \in \mathbf Q; x^2< 2 \}## has no least upper bound in ##\mathbf Q##; using that if ##r## were one then ##r^2=2##. Do this assuming that the real field haven't been constructed.

Homework Equations


N/A

The Attempt at a Solution


Attempt at proof:
##r\in Q## is an upper bound of the set if and only if ##r^2 \ge 2##.
Choose any ##r_1 \in \mathbf Q## that satisfies ##r_1^2 >2##. Then ##r_1## is an upper bound of the set.
Set ##r_2 = r_1-\frac{r_1^2-2}{r_1+2}<r_1 \Longrightarrow r_2^2=2+\frac{2(r_1^2-2)}{(r_1+2)^2}>2##.
Note that ##r_2 \in \mathbf Q## and ##r_2 < r_1##. ##r_2## is also an upper bound since ##r_2^2>2##.

This shows that for every upper bound ##r_1## with ##r_1^2 > 2## there's always possible to find an upper bound ##r_2## where ##r_2<r_1##. Hence the only possible least upper bound satisfy ##r^2=2## but there is no ##r\in \mathbf Q## that satisfy that. Hence the set have no least upper bound in ##\mathbf Q##.

Is the above correct? Anything I can do to improve it? I'm also wondering about the choice of ##r_2##. I remembered that from an earlier example in our book but I'm not sure I could've come up with a choice like that by myself without a lot of trial and error. How would I go about finding a choice like that in the first place?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How did you get the following?
Incand said:
##r_2 = r_1-\frac{r_1^2-2}{r_1+2}<r_1 \Longrightarrow r_2^2=2+\frac{2(r_1^2-2)}{(r_1+2)^2}##
When I square ##r_2## I get 2 plus a fraction with the same denominator as yours but a messy quartic in ##r_1## in the numerator.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Incand
Given an upper bound ##r## such that ##r{}^2=2+h## for ##h>0##, you can write an equation for a lower upper bound ##s=r-k## such that ##s^2## is 2 plus some positive fraction of ##h##. Then, using the relationships you've established, solve for ##k##.
 
andrewkirk said:
How did you get the following?
When I square ##r_2## I get 2 plus a fraction with the same denominator as yours but a messy quartic in ##r_1## in the numerator.
Sorry, I should have clarified that step
##r_2 = r_1-\frac{r_1^2-2}{r_1+2} = \frac{r_1^2+2r_1-r_1^2+2}{r_1+2}=\frac{2r_1+2}{r_1+2}##
square
##r_2^2 = \frac{4(r_1^2+2r_1+1)}{(r_1+2)^2} = \frac{2(r_1^2+4r_1+4)+2(r_1^2-2)}{(r_1+2)^2}= 2+\frac{2(r_1^2-2)}{(r_1+2)^2}##.
 
andrewkirk said:
Given an upper bound ##r## such that ##r{}^2=2+h## for ##h>0##, you can write an equation for a lower upper bound ##s=r-k## such that ##s^2## is 2 plus some positive fraction of ##h##. Then, using the relationships you've established, solve for ##k##.
Thanks for responding! Is there something missing in my proof where I need this to complete it? When you say the relationship do you mean my value of ##r_2## or something else? I'm not entirely sure I understand.
 
Incand said:
Is there something missing in my proof where I need this to complete it?
No. I think with the extra steps you've put in, your proof now looks good.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Incand
andrewkirk said:
No. I think with the extra steps you've put in, your proof now looks good.
Thanks for taking the time looking it over!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K