Some Properties of the Rationals .... Bloch Ex. 1.5.9 (3)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Properties
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around solving Exercise 1.5.9 (3) from Ethan D. Bloch's book, which requires proving that for positive rationals r and s, if r² < s, then there exists a natural number k such that (r + 1/k)² < s. Participants emphasize the need to avoid using real numbers in the proof, focusing instead on properties of rational numbers. The conversation highlights the importance of expanding the inequality and manipulating it to find suitable conditions for k. Ultimately, the goal is to establish that certain rational numbers are smaller than others, leveraging earlier exercises to support the proof. The discussion underscores the logical connections necessary to validate the existence of such a k in the context of rational numbers.
  • #31
Math Amateur said:
I note that the terms ##a^2dk^2## and ##cb^2k^2## from (4) also appear in (1)
Yes, this is key.
It might help clarify matters if you put those terms on the left and all else on the right in each inequality.
Be careful to keep track of which inequality is known to be true and which you are trying to deduce.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
haruspex said:
Yes, this is key.
It might help clarify matters if you put those terms on the left and all else on the right in each inequality.
Be careful to keep track of which inequality is known to be true and which you are trying to deduce.
Following your advice ... we have ...

##(1) \Longleftrightarrow a^2k^2d - cb^2k^2 \lt -2abdk - b^2d## ... ... ... ... (5)

and

##(4) \Longleftrightarrow a^2k^2d - cb^2k^2 \le -k^2 ## ... ... ... ... (6)(6) is true by assumption and we are trying to find a condition on ##k \in \mathbb(N)## from (5)BUT ... what step do I take now ... still perplexed as to how to proceed ...

Can you help ... ...?

Peter
 
  • #33
Math Amateur said:
we are trying to find a condition on ##k \in \mathbb(N)## from (5)
You need to come up with a choice for k such that if (6) is true then (5) must be true.
Do you think that will be a large value of k or a small one?
 
  • #34
haruspex said:
You need to come up with a choice for k such that if (6) is true then (5) must be true.
Do you think that will be a large value of k or a small one?
Well ... the size of k doesn't matter in (6) ... .. but in (5) it would be more likely true if k were large ,,, is that right?

Peter
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Math Amateur said:
the size of k doesn't matter in (6)
It does. It might help to focus by calling the terms on the left of the inequalities just "LHS", as an opaque package.
As k increases, what does (6) tell you is happening to the LHS? Compare that with what happens as k increases in (5).
 
  • #36
haruspex said:
It does. It might help to focus by calling the terms on the left of the inequalities just "LHS", as an opaque package.
As k increases, what does (6) tell you is happening to the LHS? Compare that with what happens as k increases in (5).
In (6) the LHS is decreasing as ##-k^2## ...

... but ... when k increases in (5) the LHS decreases (decreases because it's negative) at the lesser rate of k ... ( ! ignoring for the moment that the LHS contains ##k^2## terms )

EDIT I should be talking about the upper bound on the LHS ...

Peter
 
  • #37
Math Amateur said:
In (6) the LHS is decreasing as ##-k^2## ...

... but ... when k increases in (5) the LHS decreases (decreases because it's negative) at the lesser rate of k ... ( ! ignoring for the moment that the LHS contains ##k^2## terms )

EDIT I should be talking about the upper bound on the LHS ...

Peter
Right. So for sufficiently large k ...?
 
  • #38
Q
haruspex said:
Right. So for sufficiently large k ...?
Hi haruspex ... still thinking about this ... ? ...

PeterEDIT: Can you give any further guidance?
 
  • #39
You need inequality (6) to imply inequality (5). What relationship between the two right-hand sides would lead to that implication?
 
  • #40
Well ... we require ##(6) \Longrightarrow (5)## so ... I THINK ...

we require that ##-2abdk - bd^2 \gt k^2##

Is that correct?

Peter
 
  • #41
Math Amateur said:
Well ... we require ##(6) \Longrightarrow (5)## so ... I THINK ...

we require that ##-2abdk - bd^2 \gt k^2##

Is that correct?

Peter
Sign error.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
  • #42
haruspex said:
Sign error.
Oh yes ... silly typo ... sorry

Should be ##-2abdk - b^2d \gt -k^2##

or could write it as

##2abdk + b^2d \lt k^2##

Peter
 
  • #43
Math Amateur said:
Oh yes ... silly typo ... sorry

Should be ##-2abdk - b^2d \gt -k^2##

or could write it as

##2abdk + b^2d \lt k^2##

Peter
Good.
Essentially,you can solve this as a quadratic in k.
 
  • #44
We have ##2abdk + b^2d \lt k^2##

##\Longleftrightarrow k^2 - 2abdk - b^2d \gt 0##

Assume for a moment that all variables represent real numbers ... and solve k in

##k^2 - 2abdk - b^2d = 0## ... ... where we take solution for ##k \gt 0##

We get ##k = \frac{ 2abd \pm \sqrt{ 4a^2b^2d^2 - 4(-b^2d) } }{2}##

So take ##k = abd + \sqrt{a^2b^2d^2 + b^2d} = \delta## (real number}

Take ##k## as the natural number just greater than or equal to ##\delta## ... ... (surely this number exists! since ##\delta## exists )

... and then

... we have ##k^2 - 2abdk - b^2d \gt 0## and problem is about finished ...

Is that correct ...?
 
  • #45
Math Amateur said:
finished
Indeed.
 
  • #46
Thank you for all your help

It is much appreciated ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K