Understanding the Formula for q in Rudin's Proof Question

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Diffy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the formula for calculating q in the context of Rudin's proof regarding the sets A and B of rational numbers. The formula is defined as q = p - ((p² - 2) / (p + 2)), which ensures that q is rational and appropriately positioned relative to p and √2. The analysis confirms that if p is in set A (p < √2), then q is greater than p, while if p is in set B (p > √2), q is less than p. This understanding is crucial for demonstrating that neither set has a largest element.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of rational numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with basic algebraic manipulation
  • Knowledge of limits and the concept of supremum
  • Concept of the square root and its implications in number theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of rational numbers and their density in real numbers
  • Learn about the concept of limits in calculus, particularly in relation to sequences
  • Explore the implications of the Archimedean property in real analysis
  • Investigate the completeness of the real numbers and its relation to rational approximations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone studying real analysis, particularly those interested in understanding the properties of rational numbers and their limits in proofs.

Diffy
Messages
441
Reaction score
0
I am reading this paragraph in little Rudin, right at the beginning.

Let A be the set of all positive rationals, p such that p2 < 2 and let B consist of all rationals p such that p2 > 2. We shall now show that A contains no largest number, and B...

To do this we associate with each rational p > 0 the number

q = p - ((p2 - 2) / (p + 2))


Now, I can't see where this is going. We want to pick a q that is rational, and always bigger than p but less than root(2) or always smaller than p but greater than root(2) depending on whether we are considering the set A or B.

Because we want q to be rational we can't pick the number directly in between p and root(2), that is (p + root(2) /2).

I guess my question is, how would one come up with that calculation for q? I can't for the life of me wrap my head around where that formula for q would come from if I was trying to pick q on my own..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Diffy said:
I am reading this paragraph in little Rudin, right at the beginning.

Let A be the set of all positive rationals, p such that p2 < 2 and let B consist of all rationals p such that p2 > 2. We shall now show that A contains no largest number, and B...

To do this we associate with each rational p > 0 the number

q = p - ((p2 - 2) / (p + 2))


Now, I can't see where this is going. We want to pick a q that is rational, and always bigger than p but less than root(2) or always smaller than p but greater than root(2) depending on whether we are considering the set A or B.

Because we want q to be rational we can't pick the number directly in between p and root(2), that is (p + root(2) /2).

I guess my question is, how would one come up with that calculation for q? I can't for the life of me wrap my head around where that formula for q would come from if I was trying to pick q on my own..
From above, and given that p > 0, $$q = p - \frac{p^2 - 2}{p + 2} = \frac{p^2 + 2p - p^2 + 2}{p + 2} = 2\frac{p+1}{p+2} < 2$$
Look at the two cases separately, in one of which p ##\in## A, and the other in which p ##\in## B.

If p < ##\sqrt{2}## (p ##\in## A), then the formulation of q that you gave shows that q > p. Can you see why? Similarly, if p > ##\sqrt{2}## , (p ##\in## B), q < p. Both of these hinge on whether we're subtracting a negative quantity from p or subtracting a positive quantity.

I'm not sure what led to the formulation of q, but it might be helpful to draw and label a part of the number line for each of the two cases, showing the relative positions of p, q, and ##\sqrt{2}##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K