Results 1 to 5 of 5

Math Help - Yet another thread.. please bear with me... Dedekind question

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2009
    Posts
    23

    Yet another thread.. please bear with me... Dedekind question

    Sorry i have no teacher so this is the only place i can get help. Btw i got another question about the Dedekind cut, i don't really understand what i need to do. It says : Using properties (A)-(H)
    (In my book this is the basic properties of real numbers like commutative, associative,distributive laws.... the inverse of a number and the tricotomy property and transitive property ) of the real numbers and taking Dedekind theorem ( As stated in the previous question i posted) as given, show that every nonempty set U of real numbers that is bounded above has a supremum.

    The hint is : Let T be the set of upper bounds of U and S be the set of real numbers that are not upper bounds of U.
    What do i do? I mean i guess i can't use the completeness axiom. So how to i arrive at this result using only the basic properties of the real numbers and the Dedekind cut ? Btw Siclar
    Quote Originally Posted by siclar View Post
    It's still in reference to the OP so its not really a new question.

    justchillin, I'm not sure what you are getting at with density. As far as the \beta being unique, the idea behind these cuts is to construct the real numbers partitions of the rational numbers. In other words for each real \beta the corresponding "cut" can be defined to be the rational numbers less than \beta. We can then define addition and multiplication and get something isomorphic to the real numbers as we know them. Then the uniqueness property now makes sense. We want each cut to uniquely represent each real number. I hope that clarifies things somewhat.
    I don't understand what you mean when you say " these cuts is to construct the real numbers partitions of the rational numbers". What do you mean by partitions of rational numbers ? From what i understand we cut an interval of real numbers into two and then show that they are both bounded ( at the cut location) either from above or below . Is that what you mean ?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by justchillin View Post
    Btw Siclar

    I don't understand what you mean when you say " these cuts is to construct the real numbers partitions of the rational numbers". What do you mean by partitions of rational numbers ? From what i understand we cut an interval of real numbers into two and then show that they are both bounded ( at the cut location) either from above or below . Is that what you mean ?
    Sorry, perhaps I was confusing the issue by being too informal about a nonsimple idea. I would recommend looking up this construction if you want to understand its details, since the minutia of it gets off topic here. The intuition though is that cuts correspond to real numbers.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2009
    Posts
    23
    Okay, can you help me out with the proof question then ?
    It says : Using properties (A)-(H) (In my book this is the basic properties of real numbers like commutative, associative,distributive laws.... the inverse of a number and the tricotomy property and transitive property ) of the real numbers and taking Dedekind theorem (As stated in the previous question i posted) as given, show that every nonempty set U of real numbers that is bounded above has a supremum.

    The hint is : Let T be the set of upper bounds of U and S be the set of real numbers that are not upper bounds of U.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,658
    Thanks
    1615
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by justchillin View Post
    I created a new thread so you can post in it. Sorry plato.
    To do density properly you need to properties: Archimedean property & the well ordering property.

    The well ordering property: any subset of the positive integers has a least element.
    Archimedean property: If a & b are positive numbers then there is a positive integer K such that b<Ka.

    Then there are three steps in proving density of the rational.
    If a is a real number then \left( {\exists n \in \mathbb{Z}} \right)\left[ {n \leqslant a < n + 1} \right].

    y - x > 1\; \Rightarrow \;\left( {\exists n \in \mathbb{Z}} \right)\left[ {x < n < y} \right]<br />

    Now if 0 < a < b\; \Rightarrow \;\left( {\exists n \in \mathbb{Z}} \right)\left[ {1 < nb - na} \right].

    Can you finish?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2009
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    To do density properly you need to properties: Archimedean property & the well ordering property.

    The well ordering property: any subset of the positive integers has a least element.
    Archimedean property: If a & b are positive numbers then there is a positive integer K such that b<Ka.

    Then there are three steps in proving density of the rational.
    If a is a real number then \left( {\exists n \in \mathbb{Z}} \right)\left&#91; {n \leqslant a < n + 1} \right&#93;.

    y - x > 1\; \Rightarrow \;\left( {\exists n \in \mathbb{Z}} \right)\left&#91; {x < n < y} \right&#93;<br />

    Now if 0 < a < b\; \Rightarrow \;\left( {\exists n \in \mathbb{Z}} \right)\left&#91; {1 < nb - na} \right&#93;.

    Can you finish?
    I wish i understood what you were trying to do.
    I understand know of the archimedean property as well as well as the well orded property.
    But i'm confused with your notations . Are your n's all the same ?
    Also what are x and y ? I'm assuming they are arbitrary real numbers.
    I saw the proof that the rationals are dense in the reals, it was sort of different from what you are doing.
    Anyway i can worry about that letter is it possible to help me with my other question in this thread?
    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. Bear Problem
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: July 11th 2008, 02:59 PM
  4. Quick question thread
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 22nd 2008, 03:27 PM
  5. physics tourist & bear problem
    Posted in the Math Topics Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 27th 2007, 10:37 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum