Struggling with Exercise 2.1.40 in Sohrab's Basic Real Analysis?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Density Exercise
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Exercise 2.1.40 from Houshang H. Sohrab's "Basic Real Analysis" (Second Edition), specifically addressing the application of Theorem 2.1.38, which states that between any two real numbers, there exists a rational number. Participants clarify that to solve Exercise 2.1.40, one must demonstrate that the product of a non-zero rational number and an irrational number is irrational. The proof involves assuming the product is rational and leading to a contradiction, thereby confirming the irrationality of the product.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of real numbers and rational numbers
  • Familiarity with basic proofs in real analysis
  • Knowledge of Theorem 2.1.38 from Sohrab's "Basic Real Analysis"
  • Ability to manipulate inequalities and rational expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Theorem 2.1.38 in real analysis
  • Learn about the properties of rational and irrational numbers
  • Explore proof techniques in real analysis, particularly proof by contradiction
  • Review exercises related to sequences and series in Sohrab's "Basic Real Analysis"
USEFUL FOR

Students of real analysis, mathematics educators, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of the properties of rational and irrational numbers.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Houshang H. Sohrab's book: "Basic Real Analysis" (Second Edition).

I am focused on Chapter 2: Sequences and Series of Real Numbers ... ...

I need help with Corollary 2.1.39/Exercise 2.1.40 ...

Corollary 2.1.39/Exercise 2.1.40 reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7090I have not been able to make a meaningful start on Exercise 2.1.40 despite Sohrab's hint ...

Can someone please help with Exercise 2.1.40 ... ?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The main theorem, Theorem 2.1.38, to which this is a corollary, says that between any two real numbers, there is a rational number. Applying that to the two numbers \frac{x}{\sqrt{2}} and \frac{y}{\sqrt{2}}, there exist a rational number, s, such that \frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}< s< \frac{y}{\sqrt{2}}. Multiply each part by \sqrt{2}: x< s\sqrt{2}< y.

To finish, show that any (non-zero) rational number times an irrational number is irrational.
 
HallsofIvy said:
The main theorem, Theorem 2.1.38, to which this is a corollary, says that between any two real numbers, there is a rational number. Applying that to the two numbers \frac{x}{\sqrt{2}} and \frac{y}{\sqrt{2}}, there exist a rational number, s, such that \frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}< s< \frac{y}{\sqrt{2}}. Multiply each part by \sqrt{2}: x< s\sqrt{2}< y.

To finish, show that any (non-zero) rational number times an irrational number is irrational.
Thanks for the help, HallsofIvy ...

As you say, we need to show that any (non-zero) rational number times an irrational number results in an irrational number.

So let $$a \in \mathbb{Q}$$ and $$b \in \mathbb{R}$$ \ $$\mathbb{Q}$$ be any non-zero numbers ...

Consider $$a \cdot b = c$$ for some real number $$c $$ ...Now ... assume that $$c$$ is rational ... then we have ...

$$a \cdot b = c \Longrightarrow b = a^{ -1} \cdot c$$

But ... given that $$a$$ is rational, we have that $$a^{ -1 }$$ is rational ... ...

... and it follows, under the assumption that $$c$$ is rational, that $$a^{ -1} \cdot c$$ is rational ...

But then $$b$$ must be rational ... Contradiction! ...So $$c$$ must be irrational ... that is, the product of a rational number and an irrational number is an irrational number ...Is that correct?

Peter
 
Yes, assuming that you have already proved that the product of two rational numbers is rational, that is a valid proof.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, assuming that you have already proved that the product of two rational numbers is rational, that is a valid proof.
Thanks for your help, HallsofIvy ...

Definitely assumed that product f two rationals is rational ... thanks for pointing that out ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K