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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ronn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Properties
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of omitting the maximum element property from Dedekind cuts, specifically in relation to Axiom (A5) from "Baby Rudin". The participants conclude that the Archimedean property is crucial for proving the failure of A5 when maximum elements are included in cuts. They demonstrate that redefining 0^* to include all non-positive rational numbers allows for the existence of a negative for all rational numbers, yet leads to contradictions when applied to irrational numbers. The proof illustrates that the absence of maximum elements is essential for maintaining the integrity of the definitions involved.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Dedekind cuts in real analysis
  • Familiarity with Axioms (A4) and (A5) from "Baby Rudin"
  • Knowledge of the Archimedean property in mathematics
  • Basic concepts of rational and irrational numbers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of maximum elements in Dedekind cuts
  • Explore the Archimedean property and its applications in real analysis
  • Investigate alternative definitions of 0^* in the context of Dedekind cuts
  • Examine proofs involving irrational numbers and their properties in real analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, educators teaching foundational concepts in analysis, and anyone interested in the properties of Dedekind cuts and their implications in mathematical proofs.

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.
 
Physics 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 [tex]0^*[/tex] 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 [tex]0^*[/tex]. 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 [tex]0^*[/tex] we can have w=0. However we already proved earlier that r+s < 0 if [tex]r\in \alpha, s \in \beta[/tex] 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 [tex]b = \{p | \forall x\in a \,.\, p < -x \}[/tex]. So to arrive at a contradiction let's consider the cut of an irrational number. Let,
[tex]a = \{x | x^2 < 2 \textrm{ or x is negative}\}[/tex]
We can easily verify that this is indeed a cut. Assume that there exist a set b such that [tex]a+b = 0^*[/tex]. We know that a doesn't contain a maximum element. Since [tex]0^* \subseteq a +b[/tex], we have x+y = 0, for some x in a and y in b. There exist an element z>x in a, but then [tex]0 < z+y \in a+b[/tex] which is a contradiction since no positive number can be in a+b. The same proof works for all irrational numbers.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
525
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
13K