Rational sequence converging to irrational

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the lemma stating that for any irrational number, there exists a sequence of rational numbers that converges to it. Participants explore the implications of the density of rational numbers in the real numbers and seek a rigorous proof for this lemma, discussing various approaches and definitions related to sequences and convergence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference a textbook lemma about the existence of rational sequences converging to irrational numbers, noting the lack of a proof.
  • One participant suggests using the decimal representation of an irrational number to construct a sequence of rational numbers, but expresses uncertainty about the rigor of this approach.
  • Another participant explains the concept of density, stating that for any two real numbers, there exists a rational number between them.
  • There is a proposal to define a sequence of rational numbers converging to a fixed real number using open neighborhoods and the density of rationals.
  • Some participants discuss the challenge of defining a specific sequence and the implications of having infinitely many sequences that could converge to the same limit.
  • One participant mentions the Cauchy construction of real numbers and its relation to the convergence of sequences of rational numbers, suggesting that density plays a role in proving convergence.
  • Another participant argues that the completion of the rationals by Cauchy sequences is sufficient to establish the result without needing to invoke density explicitly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on how to rigorously prove the lemma, with no consensus reached on a single approach. Some agree on the importance of density in the context of convergence, while others suggest that the completion of the rationals may suffice.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of definitions, such as the requirement for open intervals in the density argument, and the potential for ambiguity in defining sequences. There is also mention of the need for rigor in mathematical proofs, particularly in relation to convergence.

Delta2
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
6,002
Reaction score
2,628
In the textbook I have (its a textbook for calculus from my undergrad studies, written by Greek authors) some times it uses the lemma that

"for any irrational number there exists a sequence of rational numbers that converges to it",

and it doesn't have a proof for it, just saying that it is a consequence of the fact that ##\mathbb{Q}## is dense in ##\mathbb R##.

Any ideas how to proceed for a rigorous proof?

My idea is that if ##x=x_0.x_1x_2...x_n,...## is the representation of the irrational x in the decimal system with ##x_i \in {0...9}## then the sequence

##\sigma_n=\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n}\frac{x_k}{10^k}## is rational and converges to the number but something tells me this is not a rigorous proof.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Delta² said:
In the textbook I have (its a textbook for calculus from my undergrad studies, written by Greek authors) some times it uses the lemma that

"for any irrational number there exists a sequence of rational numbers that converges to it",

and it doesn't have a proof for it, just saying that it is a consequence of the fact that ##\mathbb{Q}## is dense in ##\mathbb R##.

Any ideas how to proceed for a rigorous proof?
What does it mean, that ##\mathbb{Q}## is dense in ##\mathbb{R}##?
 
That for any ##a,b## reals there exists ##c\in \mathbb Q## such that ##a<c<b##.
 
Can you use this to find a sequence of rational numbers that converge to ##a##, if you keep ##a## fixed here?

Side remark: you should require a<b in the definition, otherwise a=2, b=1 is a counterexample.
 
Delta² said:
That for any ##a,b## reals there exists ##c\in \mathbb Q## such that ##a<c<b##.
It might be easier to use the topological approach: given ##a \in \mathbb{R}## then every open neighborhood of ##a## contains a number ##c \in \mathbb{Q}##. Now all is left, is to define the sequence ##(c_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}##.
 
That's where all my problem is to define the sequence, you got to give me as hint something more than the definition of dense. It seems there are infinitely many such sequences, got to find a way to choose one...
 
You certainly have a lot of choice. Just pick an element, then think about how to find another element that is closer.
 
Delta² said:
That's where all my problem is to define the sequence, you got to give me as hint something more than the definition of dense. It seems there are infinitely many such sequences, got to find a way to choose one...
Take open balls as neighborhoods and narrow down the diameter. The difficulty here is, that a hint and a solution is the same thing.
 
sorry can't come up with any ideas (regarding the topological approach i was really bad at Topology) other than the one based in the decimal(or any other base) representation .

##x_0=[x]##

##x_n=\frac{[10^nx]}{10^n}## where [x] denotes the integer part of x.
 
  • #10
I think we can prove kind of easily that ##\lim x_n=x## (because ##[10^nx]=10^nx-\epsilon_n(x)## with ##0<\epsilon_n(x)<1## so that ##\frac{\epsilon_n(x)}{10^n}## converges to zero easily...

BUT the million dollar question,

"where do I need that ##\mathbb Q## is dense in ##\mathbb R##""?

(ok probably we need it for the rigorous definition of function [x]=the unique integer z such that z<x<z+1)
 
Last edited:
  • #11
O.k. let's take your definition. We have two real numbers ##a## and ##b=a+\dfrac{1}{n}## for ##n \in \mathbb{N}##.
Now you said, there is a rational number ##c_n## with ##a < c_n < a+\dfrac{1}{n}##.

So does the sequence ##(c_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}## converge, and if, what is the limit?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
  • #12
I wonder why I didn't think of that, I was trying to uniquely determine ##c_n## maybe that's why.
 
  • #13
If you want to learn more about it, you can read about the cauchy construction of ##\mathbb{R}##. Let me give you a brief sketch. Let's assume ##\mathbb{Q}## is given. I.e., we know such an ordered field exists.

Define the set ##F := \{(u_n)_n \in \mathbb{Q}^{\mathbb{N}} \mid \forall d \in \mathbb{Q^{+}: \exists n_0: \forall p,q > n_0: |u_p - u_q| < d}\}##

and the set ##N := \{(u_n)_n \in F \mid \forall d \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}: \exists n_0: \forall n > n_0: |a_n| < d\}##

While this may seem abstract, you can think about ##F## as the cauchy sequences and ##N## as the sequences converging to ##0##.

Now, you can define the equivalence relation ##\approx## on ##F##

such that ##(u_n) \approx (v_n) : \iff (u_n-v_n)_n \in N##

We then define ##\mathbb{R} := F/\approx##.

This means, we define the real numbers as the equivalence classes of sequences whose difference 'converges' to 0.

So in this context, real numbers are sets! One can prove (using denseness), that if we take any element out of this set (and such a set is never empty because equivalence classes are never empty, by reflexivity), that this sequence of rationals will converge to the real number it represents, as desired.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
  • #14
Math_QED said:
So in this context, real numbers are sets! One can prove (using denseness), that if we take any element out of this set (and such a set is never empty because equivalence classes are never empty, by reflexivity), that this sequence of rationals will converge to the real number it represents, as desired.
I would rather call it using ##\mathbb{R}## is the completion of ##\mathbb{Q}## by definition, and thus the result follows immediately from the convergence of Cauchy sequences. That was my first thought, too, but density is an unnecessary step here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K