What if one of Dedekind cut's properties were omitted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ronn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Properties
Ronn
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello.

I have a question about Dedekind' cut.
Problem #20 of Baby rudin's p23 asks: prove why axiom (A5) on page 5 fails if cuts had maximum elements.

(A5): To every x in F( a field) corresponds an element -x in F such that x + (-x) = 0.

I guess Archimedean property is a starting point to prove A5 fails. To do that I need to understand the relation between the existence of largest element and Archimedean Property. In what sense are they related? I am puzzled. Please help me out.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You should go through the proof and observe where the maximum element property is used. The first place is in the proof of (A4). This can easily be fixed by letting 0^* be all non-positive rational numbers instead of all negative (it can easily be shown that it must be defined in this way, because for cuts with a maximum 0 must be included, but no positive number can be included). The proof of (A5) never use the fact that cuts don't have maximum elements, but it uses the old definition of 0^*. It starts to break down when the Archimedean property is used, since it's not necessarily true when w=0, but with the new definition of 0^* we can have w=0. However we already proved earlier that r+s < 0 if r\in \alpha, s \in \beta so it certainly can't work with this definition of the negative. We still need to prove that it can't work with any definition of the negative.

We can easily show that we can define a negative such that there exist a negative for all rational numbers. Simply let b = \{p | \forall x\in a \,.\, p &lt; -x \}. So to arrive at a contradiction let's consider the cut of an irrational number. Let,
a = \{x | x^2 &lt; 2 \textrm{ or x is negative}\}
We can easily verify that this is indeed a cut. Assume that there exist a set b such that a+b = 0^*. We know that a doesn't contain a maximum element. Since 0^* \subseteq a +b, we have x+y = 0, for some x in a and y in b. There exist an element z>x in a, but then 0 &lt; z+y \in a+b which is a contradiction since no positive number can be in a+b. The same proof works for all irrational numbers.
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top