The set of squares of rational numbers is inductive

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the inductiveness of the set of squares of rational numbers. Participants confirm that to establish this property, it is essential to demonstrate that 0 is included in the set and that if a square of a rational number exists, the square of the next rational number also exists. The argument is made that while 0 is a square of a rational number, the expression for x+1 does not always yield a square of a rational number, particularly when considering specific examples like x = 1/4. Ultimately, it is concluded that the set of squares of rational numbers is not inductive.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of inductive sets in mathematics
  • Familiarity with rational numbers and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of algebraic manipulation of fractions
  • Concept of squares and their representation in rational form
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definition and properties of inductive sets in set theory
  • Explore the properties of rational numbers and their squares
  • Learn about algebraic manipulation involving fractions and rational expressions
  • Investigate counterexamples in mathematical proofs, particularly in number theory
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying analysis or number theory, as well as educators seeking to understand the properties of rational numbers and inductive sets.

mrchris
Messages
31
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The set of squares of rational numbers is inductive

Homework Equations


definition of an inductive set

The Attempt at a Solution


sorry i know this is probably very easy to most but I am just learning analysis. Okay, so we can see that 1 is in the set because it is rational and 12 exists. Am I correct in thinking that it doesn't matter whether or not 12 is rational? I mean obviously it is, but aren't we really just checking to make sure that S(1) is defined? Then for the second part, we can take S(x) to be x2 whenever x=m/n, where m,n are integers and either m or n is odd. Again, aren't we basically proving that if S(x) exists, or (m2/n2) exists, then S(x+1), or [(m+n)2/n2] also exists. But then don't I also need to show that if x is rational, then so is x+1? Maybe i am reading way too much into this, but again I am new to these and I'm trying to understand exactly what I need to show.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, you're pretty much correct. Let S be the set of the squares of rationals. To show it's inductive you need to show that 0 is in S (it is because 0 is [itex]0^{2}[/itex] and 0 is rational). Then you need to show that if x is in S, then x+1 is in S.

Then for two integers m,n [itex]x=\frac{m^{2}}{n^{2}}[/itex] so [itex]x+1=\frac{m^{2} + n^{2}}{n^{2}}[/itex]. The question then boils down to showing that this can be written in the form [itex]\frac{p^{2}}{q^{2}}[/itex], which isn't the same as [itex]\frac{(m+n)^{2}}{n^2}[/itex]. They're rational by your definition of x, but the latter can't be assumed to be rational squared, unless you show it.
 
I'm fairly sure it's not inductive by the way.

Take [itex]x=\frac{1}{4}[/itex]. Then [itex]x+1=\frac{5}{2^{2}}[/itex]. This cannot be written in the form [itex]\frac{p^2}{q^2}[/itex].

Every time you multiply the fraction by some multiple [itex]\frac{5}{5}[/itex] you get that the index of 5 increases to an even number on the top but then an odd number on the bottom. So you can never have an even index of 5 on the top and bottom. So the fraction is not part of the rationals squared.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K