Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Math Help - more proofs in analysis

  1. #16
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    73
    U guys are amazing, I dont see how you can just come up with these answers so quickly. I consider myself good at math, but I am not so good at proofs, and it seems as if you have no weaknesses.....do you teach anywere?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #17
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    The way I proved it for homework, is by contradiction. I assumed that there are only finitely many rational numbers. And I let the set S represent all the rationals, which is finite. Then I show that leads to a contradiction.
    Can you write out the proof please. Plato has a problem with mine, and he's a smart fellow, so maybe there is a problem. I don't think the general logic is wrong, but maybe the proof doesn't explain itself clearly.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #18
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhevon View Post
    Read the proof again, i showed there is at least one m that satisfies nx < m < ny. But there are infinitely many n's that can work. Thus, for infinitely many n's i can find at least one m for each of them, so i end up with infinitely many m/n numbers
    Well you may well think that! But it does not work.
    In your original proof there is a quantification error. You select n and then find m. That means that m depends on n. Each new n will possibly produce a different m and there is no way to be sure that they distinct.

    TPH, has a similar way as I gave. It will work.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #19
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyc1423 View Post
    U guys are amazing, I dont see how you can just come up with these answers so quickly. I consider myself good at math, but I am not so good at proofs, and it seems as if you have no weaknesses.....do you teach anywere?
    On the contrary, when it comes to proofs i am very weak. It's just that i am currently taking a proofs class and we did questions very similar to these. However, i believe the perfecthacker has no weaknesses. i'm pretty sure he can come up with proofs for these quickly
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #20
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    Well you may well think that! But it does not work.
    In your original proof there is a quantification error. You select n and then find m. That means that m depends on n. Each new n will possibly produce a different m and there is no way to be sure that they distinct.

    TPH, has a similar way as I gave. It will work.
    It doesn't really matter if they are not distinct. n/n is as much a rational number as m/n, provided n is not zero
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #21
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    I do not see how that is a problem. Since "sup S" is used, does it not mean the definition is "well-defined", i.e. it is unique. Hence there is nothing to prove.
    TPH, you can find this problem in many basic analysis textbooks. The idea of "well-defined" as in a formal logic is not used in such texts.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #22
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    Well you may well think that! But it does not work.
    In your original proof there is a quantification error. You select n and then find m. That means that m depends on n. Each new n will possibly produce a different m and there is no way to be sure that they distinct.

    TPH, has a similar way as I gave. It will work.
    Do you still have a problem with my proof Plato? Can you write out your way please. I am very interested in other ways to do it. TPH uses contradiction, your way seems to require induction.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #23
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    TPH, you can find this problem in many basic analysis textbooks. The idea of "well-defined" as in a formal logic is not used in such texts.
    One thing what bothered my is that my text defines the limit as follows....

    "The limit of a sequence a_n is L iff |a_n-L|<e for ..... "
    It bothered me because we never shown that if the limit exists it must be unique. And hence there is nothing wrong with the definition. But just saying the definition like that is wrong, you cannot introduce such a definition. Neither the author nor professor mentioned that there is something wrong with the definition. I believe is because they do not want to leave the realm of analysis and ented the world of logic.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #24
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    One thing what bothered my is that my text defines the limit as follows....

    "The limit of a sequence a_n is L iff |a_n-L|<e for ..... "
    It bothered me because we never shown that if the limit exists it must be unique. And hence there is nothing wrong with the definition. But just saying the definition like that is wrong, you cannot introduce such a definition. Neither the author nor professor mentioned that there is something wrong with the definition. I believe is because they do not want to leave the realm of analysis and ented the world of logic.
    As for the definition of limit you are talking about, what page is it on, i don't recall that definition. However, i do believe we addressed that if a convergent sequence has a limit, the limit is unique in class
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #25
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhevon View Post
    As for the definition of limit you are talking about, what page is it on, i don't recall that definition. However, i do believe we addressed that if a convergent sequence has a limit, the limit is unique in class
    That is true. But we need to first show that the limit is unique before we can make that definition. But we first made the definition and then we showed it is unique.

    A correct way is to say,
    "There exists a number L such that |a_n-L|<e for ...."

    Then we show that if L exists then it is unique.

    And then we can define what lim a_n means. Because otherwise it is not well-defined.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #26
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    I remember that you are using Ken Ross’s book. That definition is on page 25. And it does not have ‘iff’ in it. It just says that for each c>0 there exists a number N such that if n>N implies |s_n – s |<c.

    The implies is one way. On page 27 it is proved that the limit is unique if it exists. Next we can show that any convergent sequence is a Cauchy sequence.
    Then you show that if a sequence is a Cauchy sequence then it has a limit.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #27
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    I remember that you are using Ken Ross’s book. That definition is on page 25. And it does not have ‘iff’ in it. It just says that for each c>0 there exists a number N such that if n>N implies |s_n – s |<c.

    The implies is one way. On page 27 it is proved that the limit is unique if it exists. Next we can show that any convergent sequence is a Cauchy sequence.
    Then you show that if a sequence is a Cauchy sequence then it has a limit.

    Oh, you have our book Plato? We have a different edition though. The pages are 33 and 35 for us. My proof for the infinite rationals thingy was similar to the proof for the denseness of Q in the book. I see the problem you had with it. It really doesn't show infinite rationals between real numbers, it shows there is at least one. The proof of infinite rationals has to go a bit further, using your or TPH proof
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #28
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    And it does not have ‘iff’ in it.
    Let me tell you something that used to bother me for a long time.

    Definition: An integer n>1 is prime if it has no nontrivial proper divisors.

    Now, look at the logic.

    If it has no non-trivial proper divisors then it is prime.

    But what is an integer is prime, what can we say?

    I was finally satisfied when the first page of John Fraleigh's book on Algebra says "..each definition if an if and only if statement.." Meaning, it is automatically assumed that it goes both ways.
    Since, I do not like to write it the standard way because, it used to before me, I used "iff".

    Also, note when I define things I tried to remove the conditionals from the definition. Over here it is a little strange looking if you removed the conditionals, rather I used iff.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #29
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    Let’s clear that proof up. (You both realize that this was like a retest for the student. You did the work for him/her. You should get the extra points.) My copy of Ross is 1991 edition.

    Start with the fact that between any two numbers there is a rational number. There is a rational number, r_1, such that x<r_1<y, There is a rational number, r-2, x<r_2<r_1, there is a rational number, r_3, x<r_3<r_2<r_1<y. Then by induction we define a sequence {r_n} of distinct rationals between x & y. I use this approach because it foreshadows the proof that any real number is the limit of a sequence of rational numbers.

    For TPH’s proof. Suppose that the set of rationals in the open interval (x,y) is finite. Any finite set contains its first term; call it r. Now x<r, but there is a rational, s, x<s<r<y. That is a contradiction.


    P.S. Here is the definition of prime many of us use.
    A positive integer is prime if it has exactly two divisors.
    Using that why is 1 not prime.
    Last edited by Plato; February 25th 2007 at 03:29 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Proofs... and Complex Analysis
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 7th 2011, 07:58 AM
  2. Analysis Absolute Value Proofs
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 18th 2009, 08:05 AM
  3. Real Analysis - Sets and Proofs
    Posted in the Advanced Math Topics Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 10th 2008, 06:28 PM
  4. more Proofs (real analysis)
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 15th 2007, 03:27 PM
  5. Proofs Questions (Real Analysis)
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 15th 2007, 02:05 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum