MHB Sum of a rational number and an irrational number ....

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the sum of a rational number and an irrational number is irrational. A participant initially seeks a rigorous proof using Dedekind Cuts but later realizes that the proof can be simpler. By assuming the sum of a rational number and an irrational number is rational, a contradiction arises when showing that this would imply the irrational number is rational. The key point is that the rational numbers are closed under subtraction, which leads to the conclusion that the sum must indeed be irrational. This proof effectively demonstrates the relationship between rational and irrational numbers without the need for complex constructs.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am trying without success to provide a rigorous proof for the following exercise:

Show that the sum of a rational number and an irrational number is irrational.Can someone please help me with a rigorous solution ...I am working from the following books:

Ethan D. Bloch: The Real Numbers and Real Analysis

and

Derek Goldrei: Classic Set TheoryBoth use a Dedekind Cut approach to the construction of the real numbers (but Goldrei also uses Cauchy Sequences ... )
I am taking the definition of an irrational number as equivalent to an irrational cut as defined by Bloch as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7014To assist those members reading this post I am providing Bloch's definition of a Dedekind Cut plus a Lemma indicating the that there are at least as many of them as there are rational numbers ...https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7015Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am trying without success to provide a rigorous proof for the following exercise:

Show that the sum of a rational number and an irrational number is irrational.Can someone please help me with a rigorous solution ...I am working from the following books:

Ethan D. Bloch: The Real Numbers and Real Analysis

and

Derek Goldrei: Classic Set TheoryBoth use a Dedekind Cut approach to the construction of the real numbers (but Goldrei also uses Cauchy Sequences ... )
I am taking the definition of an irrational number as equivalent to an irrational cut as defined by Bloch as follows:To assist those members reading this post I am providing Bloch's definition of a Dedekind Cut plus a Lemma indicating the that there are at least as many of them as there are rational numbers ...Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter

After reflecting on this problem ... I now think that the answer to the exercise above may be disappointingly trivial ...

Consider the following:

Let $$a \in \mathbb{Q}$$ and let $$b \in \mathbb{R}$$ \ $$\mathbb{Q}$$

Then suppose a + b = r

Now ... assume r is rational

Then b = r - a ...

But since r and a are rational ... we have r - a is rational ..

Then ... we have that an irrational number b is equal to a rational number ...

Contradiction!

So ... r is irrational ..
Is that correct?

Peter
 
Last edited:
No need for "Dedekind cuts". All that is needed is that the rational numbers are closed under subtraction: if x= \frac{a}{b} and y= \frac{c}{d} are rational numbers, then x- y= \frac{a}{b}- \frac{c}{d}= \frac{ad- bc}{bd} is rational number.

Now, in contradiction, suppose a is rational and b is irrational and that there sum, c, is rational. From a+ b= c, we have a= c- b, contradicting the fact that the difference of two rational numbers is rational.
 
HallsofIvy said:
No need for "Dedekind cuts". All that is needed is that the rational numbers are closed under subtraction: if x= \frac{a}{b} and y= \frac{c}{d} are rational numbers, then x- y= \frac{a}{b}- \frac{c}{d}= \frac{ad- bc}{bd} is rational number.

Now, in contradiction, suppose a is rational and b is irrational and that there sum, c, is rational. From a+ b= c, we have a= c- b, contradicting the fact that the difference of two rational numbers is rational.
Thanks HallsofIvy ... appreciate the help ...

Peter
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K