Theorem 1.21 Rudin. Obviously wrong stated, right?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter saim_
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Theorem 1.21 from Rudin's text, specifically addressing the correctness of its statement regarding the existence and uniqueness of a real number y such that y^n = x for given positive real x and integer n. Participants are examining whether the theorem should specify that y is a positive real number.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the theorem's wording, suggesting it should state "only one positive real" instead of just "one and only one real."
  • Another participant agrees, providing a counterexample involving n=2 to illustrate that if y were not restricted to positive values, the statement would be false.
  • A third participant notes that in the Third Edition of Rudin, the theorem correctly states "one and only one positive real."
  • A later reply indicates that the original poster's edition may have a printing error, as they also reference the same wording as the first post.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the theorem should specify that y is positive, but there is a disagreement regarding the wording in different editions of the text, with some editions stating it correctly and others not.

Contextual Notes

There is an implication that the discussion may hinge on the specific edition of Rudin being referenced, which could affect the interpretation of the theorem.

saim_
Messages
135
Reaction score
1
Theorem 1.21 Rudin. Obviously wrongly stated, right?

Theorem 1.21 in Rudin states:

For every real x > 0, and every integer n > 0, there is one and only one real y such that y^{n} = x.

The bold part should be "only one positive real", shouldn't it, or am I missing something? The proof also start with with an implicit assumption that y is positive.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah I agree it should be positive.

The obvious counter example if it wasn't is n=2 then both -1^2=1 and 1^2=1 making the statement false.
 
I'm looking at the Third Edition and it says "one and only one positive real."
 
Thanks guys.

@GenePeer: I got third edition as well and it says exactly what I wrote. The error must be only in some prints then.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K