Sloppy Proof in Spivak's Calculus?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SolsticeFire
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the irrationality of \(\sqrt{2}\) as presented in Spivak's Calculus. Participants analyze the completeness and rigor of the proof, exploring different cases regarding the parity of \(p\) and \(q\) in the context of rational numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the completeness of Spivak's proof, suggesting it does not consider the case where \(q\) is odd and \(p\) is even.
  • Another participant clarifies that Spivak did consider all cases, including when \(p\) is odd and \(q\) is even, \(p\) is even and \(q\) is odd, and both are odd, ultimately showing that both \(p\) and \(q\) must be even.
  • A participant acknowledges the initial misunderstanding and recognizes that Spivak's proof effectively handles all cases simultaneously, leading to the conclusion that both \(p\) and \(q\) cannot be even without a common factor.
  • Another participant notes that writing \(p\) as \(2k\) is a more efficient approach to the proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether Spivak's proof is complete. While some initially believe it is incomplete, others argue that it adequately addresses all necessary cases. The discussion indicates that there is no consensus on the perceived rigor of the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of assuming \(p\) and \(q\) have no common divisors and the necessity of examining different parity cases. There is a focus on the logical flow of the proof and the implications of each assumption made during the reasoning process.

SolsticeFire
Messages
64
Reaction score
1
So I was reading Spivak's Calculus for fun and I found on the bottom of page 25, 4th edition:
Suppose that [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] were rational; that is, suppose there were natural numbers p and q such that [itex]\frac{p^{2}}{q^{2}} = 2[/itex].
We can assume that p and q have no common divisor (since all common divisors could be divided out to begin with). Now we have
p[itex]^{2}[/itex] = 2q[itex]^{2}[/itex].
This shows that p[itex]^{2}[/itex] is even, and consequently p must be even; that is p = 2k for some natural number k. Then
p[itex]^{2}[/itex] = 4k[itex]^{2}[/itex]=2q[itex]^{2}[/itex],
so 2k[itex]^{2}[/itex] = q[itex]^{2}[/itex].
This shows that q[itex]^{2}[/itex] is even, and consequently q is even. Thus both p and q are even, contradicting the fact that p and q have no common divisor. This contradiction completes the proof.

Am I missing something or is this proof not complete and sloppy?! Spivak didn't even consider the possibility that q is odd and p is even; in which case, we can write p as 2k and q as 2m+1 and THEN check the equivalency. In this case we find that two sides won't be equivalent when we substitute 2k and 2m+1 in the given equation and that would complete the proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The line [itex]2k^2=q^2[/itex] implies that [itex]q^2[/itex] is even which in turn implies that [itex]q[/itex] is even. To recap the whole proof, assume [itex]\sqrt{2}=p/q[/itex], a reduced fraction. [itex]p^2/q^2=2[/itex] implies that p must be even which then implies that q must be even which implies that the fraction is not reduced which is a contradiction.
 
SolsticeFire said:
Spivak didn't even consider the possibility that q is odd and p is even;

He did consider that case. After he divides out any common factors, there are 3 possible cases left
p is odd and q is even
p is even and q is odd
p is odd and q is odd

He then proves that actually both p and q must be even, which means they still have a common factor.

You made a different (and correct) proof of one of the three cases, but Spivak's proof handles all three cases at once by showing they are all impossible
 
Ahh I see how that completes the proof! The line I was looking at was p[itex]^{2}[/itex]=2q[itex]^{2}[/itex]. This line suggests that p is even but q can be even or odd. If q is even we have contradiction as we assumed that common divisors were taken care of. So q must be odd and then we can move on to show LHS [itex]\neq[/itex] RHS after substitution of p as 2k and q as 2m+1 in the equation p[itex]^{2}[/itex]=2q[itex]^{2}[/itex]
But writing p as some number 2k is definitely more efficient.

Thanks a lot!
 
AlephZero said:
He did consider that case. After he divides out any common factors, there are 3 possible cases left
p is odd and q is even
p is even and q is odd
p is odd and q is odd

He then proves that actually both p and q must be even, which means they still have a common factor.

You made a different (and correct) proof of one of the three cases, but Spivak's proof handles all three cases at once by showing they are all impossible

Yes! I see it now. Thanks a lot :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
12K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K