Theorem 1.21 Rudin. Obviously wrong stated, right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter saim_
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    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:
Mathematics 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.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top