• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products Here!

Rational numbers, supremum (Is my proof correct?)

  • Thread starter Incand
  • Start date
  • #1
332
46

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?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
andrewkirk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,792
1,390
How did you get the following?
##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.
 
  • #3
andrewkirk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,792
1,390
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##.
 
  • #4
332
46
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}##.
 
  • #5
332
46
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.
 
  • #6
andrewkirk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,792
1,390
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.
 
  • #7
332
46
No. I think with the extra steps you've put in, your proof now looks good.
Thanks for taking the time looking it over!
 

Related Threads on Rational numbers, supremum (Is my proof correct?)

Replies
3
Views
680
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
921
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
875
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
811
Top