Results 1 to 4 of 4

Math Help - e as a Dedekind cut

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    72

    e as a Dedekind cut

    I'm just learning about Dedekind cuts and I've been shown how the \sqrt{2} is can be a cut and can infer how all algebraic numbers have cuts.

    A question popped into my mind that I can't seem to get is how do you get transcendential numbers like \pi and e as cuts. Could someone give me a hint as how to prove this?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    340
    I would think you could take

    e = \left\{x \in \mathbb Q: x < \sum_{i = 1} ^ n \frac{1}{i!}, \ \mbox{for some } n\right\}

    just as an example.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,993
    Thanks
    1656
    Have you proved that the union of two cuts is a cut? Is so, since any real number can be written as a decimal, Let U_1= \{x| x\in \mathbb Q, x< 3.1\}, U_2= \{x| x\in \mathbb Q, x< 3.14\}, U_3= \{x| x\in \mathbb Q, x< 3.141\}, etc. where U_n is the set of all rational numbers less than \pi written to n decimal places. The Dedekind cut corresponding to \pi is the union of all those sets.

    Since every terminating decimal is a rational number, given any real number, a, and any positive integer, n, "a to n decimal places" is a rational number and so has a "rational cut" corresponding to it. The cut representing that real number is the union of those rational cuts for all n.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    72
    I have not proved yet that the union of two cuts is a cut but I imagine it goes something like this.

    Using the order of cuts it is reasonable to assume that either one cut will encompass rationals that the other does not or the two cuts are exactly equal in which case the union is equal to each set. Since each dedekind cut will share some elements and their intersection will leave values from the cut of greater order.

    Since the union of two will encompass both the lower portion of the cut and include the members left in the difference the union must simply be the cut of higher order which is a cut as required.

    Now as long as I proved that right I can take the converging decimal expansions and say that they converge (is it ok to say that here?) to a cut which corresponds to the needed value.

    One question remains though. Since I can take infinite decimal expansions and let them converge on some set can I say that by this all transcendentals are cuts since they are all representable like this. Do I have to prove that all transcendentals are representable by decimal expansions or does this prove that?
    Last edited by magus; February 14th 2011 at 09:20 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 2nd 2011, 02:26 AM
  2. Dedekind Cut
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 22nd 2010, 07:03 AM
  3. dedekind sets
    Posted in the Advanced Math Topics Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 9th 2009, 12:07 PM
  4. sum of two Dedekind cuts
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 15th 2009, 02:13 AM
  5. Dedekind Cuts
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 7th 2009, 08:32 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum