Why Must Cuts in the Rationals Have No Largest Element?

[Demon117]

I'm having some trouble understanding why cuts are defined with property 3 below:

"A cut in Q is a pair of subsets A, and B of Q such that

(a) A\cup B =Q, A\ne ∅, B \ne ∅, A\cap B = ∅

(b) If a \in A and b \in B, then a < b

(c) A contains no largest element." (Pugh, 2001)

I'm not quite sure why property three must be in place. Why does A have "no largest element" or I guess, what does it mean by "no largest element" in this context?

 

[R136a1]

It means that there must not be an $a\in A$ such that $a\geq x$ for all $x\in A$. Equivalent to this is demanding that for each $a\in A$, there is a $b\in A$ such that $a<b$.

Why do we demand this? Well, the intuition is the following. With any cut $(A,B)$ we will define a real number. Intuitively, the number associated with the cut $(A,B)$ will be $\textrm{sup}(A)$. For example, if you take

A = \{x\in \mathbb{Q}~\vert~x^2&lt;2\}~\text{and}~B=\mathbb{Q}\setminus A

then this will correspond to the real number $\sqrt{2}$.

But this leaves us with some technical problem if (3) were not there. Indeed, if we only demand (1) and (2) then both

A = \{x\in \mathbb{Q}~\vert~x&lt;0\}~\text{and}~B=\mathbb{Q}\setminus A
and
A^\prime = \{x\in \mathbb{q}~\vert~x\leq 0\}~\text{and}~B^\prime=\mathbb{Q}\setminus A

are valid cuts. But both of these correspond to $\textrm{sup}(A) = \textrm{sup}(A^\prime) =0$. So both cuts would define the same number. This is an unwanted situation. The goal of (3) is to eliminate $A^\prime$ from being a valid cut.