Proving the rationals are dense in R
I know this is a common proof. I'm following Rudin's proof and I'm following everything except for one step.
Suppose $x, y in Bbb R$ and $x < y$. Then there exists an $n in Bbb N$ such that $n(y-x) > 1$.
Again by the Archimedean property, there exist $m_{1}, m_{2} in Bbb N$ such that $m_{1} > nx$ and $m_{2} > -nx$, i.e.
$$
-m_{2} < nx < m_{1}
$$
From here, Rudin says there must be an $m in Bbb Z$ with $-m_{2} le m le m_{1}$ and that
$$
m-1 le nx < m
$$
I'm confused about these two steps. If $-m_{2} < nx < m_{1}$, then isn't $-m_{2} < m_{1}$?
edit: to be clear, I follow everything up until the introduction of $m$.
real-analysis rational-numbers
asked Sep 28 '13 at 15:03
asdfghjkl
4311518
|
show 1 more comment
I know this is a common proof. I'm following Rudin's proof and I'm following everything except for one step.
Suppose $x, y in Bbb R$ and $x < y$. Then there exists an $n in Bbb N$ such that $n(y-x) > 1$.
Again by the Archimedean property, there exist $m_{1}, m_{2} in Bbb N$ such that $m_{1} > nx$ and $m_{2} > -nx$, i.e.
$$
-m_{2} < nx < m_{1}
$$
From here, Rudin says there must be an $m in Bbb Z$ with $-m_{2} le m le m_{1}$ and that
$$
m-1 le nx < m
$$
I'm confused about these two steps. If $-m_{2} < nx < m_{1}$, then isn't $-m_{2} < m_{1}$?
edit: to be clear, I follow everything up until the introduction of $m$.
real-analysis rational-numbers
asked Sep 28 '13 at 15:03
asdfghjkl
4311518
1
He seems to be using the Well-Ordering principle
– Prahlad Vaidyanathan
Sep 28 '13 at 15:07
What if $x=0$ ...?
– Michael Hoppe
Sep 28 '13 at 15:57
@PrahladVaidyanathan I see, thanks. But to me, the well-ordering principle would suggest the following: by Archimedean property, the set $left{m_{1} in Bbb N: m_{1} > nxright}$ is not empty. And by the well-ordering property, there is an $m in Bbb N$ such that $m > nx$ and $nx > m-1$, so $m-1 < nx < m$. We know that $ny > 1 + nx$, so combining the inequalities gives $nx < m < ny$. Is this not enough?
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:54
I guess I'm just confused what the $m_{2}$ is for
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:57
not sure if you have this same issue (even after accepting an answer), but the whole proof Rudin presents seems rather random and as if it comes out of no where. I have no intuition on why he introduces $m_1, m_2$. Sure $m_1 > nx$, $m_2 > -nx$, it feels as if I have no conceptual idea of why one would do this. Why is he doing this beyond the "it works". I am nearly 100% this formal proof comes out from conveying some conceptual idea and just making it formal. If you understand where it comes from, please provide your own answer and clarify it! It still a mystery for me.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:35
|
show 1 more comment
I know this is a common proof. I'm following Rudin's proof and I'm following everything except for one step.
Suppose $x, y in Bbb R$ and $x < y$. Then there exists an $n in Bbb N$ such that $n(y-x) > 1$.
Again by the Archimedean property, there exist $m_{1}, m_{2} in Bbb N$ such that $m_{1} > nx$ and $m_{2} > -nx$, i.e.
$$
-m_{2} < nx < m_{1}
$$
From here, Rudin says there must be an $m in Bbb Z$ with $-m_{2} le m le m_{1}$ and that
$$
m-1 le nx < m
$$
I'm confused about these two steps. If $-m_{2} < nx < m_{1}$, then isn't $-m_{2} < m_{1}$?
edit: to be clear, I follow everything up until the introduction of $m$.
real-analysis rational-numbers
asked Sep 28 '13 at 15:03
asdfghjkl
4311518
I know this is a common proof. I'm following Rudin's proof and I'm following everything except for one step.
Suppose $x, y in Bbb R$ and $x < y$. Then there exists an $n in Bbb N$ such that $n(y-x) > 1$.
Again by the Archimedean property, there exist $m_{1}, m_{2} in Bbb N$ such that $m_{1} > nx$ and $m_{2} > -nx$, i.e.
$$
-m_{2} < nx < m_{1}
$$
From here, Rudin says there must be an $m in Bbb Z$ with $-m_{2} le m le m_{1}$ and that
$$
m-1 le nx < m
$$
I'm confused about these two steps. If $-m_{2} < nx < m_{1}$, then isn't $-m_{2} < m_{1}$?
edit: to be clear, I follow everything up until the introduction of $m$.
real-analysis rational-numbers
real-analysis rational-numbers
asked Sep 28 '13 at 15:03
asdfghjkl
4311518
asked Sep 28 '13 at 15:03
asdfghjkl
4311518
edited Sep 28 '13 at 15:07
asked Sep 28 '13 at 15:03
asdfghjkl
4311518
asked Sep 28 '13 at 15:03
asdfghjkl
4311518
asked Sep 28 '13 at 15:03
asdfghjkl
4311518
4311518
1
He seems to be using the Well-Ordering principle
– Prahlad Vaidyanathan
Sep 28 '13 at 15:07
What if $x=0$ ...?
– Michael Hoppe
Sep 28 '13 at 15:57
@PrahladVaidyanathan I see, thanks. But to me, the well-ordering principle would suggest the following: by Archimedean property, the set $left{m_{1} in Bbb N: m_{1} > nxright}$ is not empty. And by the well-ordering property, there is an $m in Bbb N$ such that $m > nx$ and $nx > m-1$, so $m-1 < nx < m$. We know that $ny > 1 + nx$, so combining the inequalities gives $nx < m < ny$. Is this not enough?
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:54
I guess I'm just confused what the $m_{2}$ is for
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:57
not sure if you have this same issue (even after accepting an answer), but the whole proof Rudin presents seems rather random and as if it comes out of no where. I have no intuition on why he introduces $m_1, m_2$. Sure $m_1 > nx$, $m_2 > -nx$, it feels as if I have no conceptual idea of why one would do this. Why is he doing this beyond the "it works". I am nearly 100% this formal proof comes out from conveying some conceptual idea and just making it formal. If you understand where it comes from, please provide your own answer and clarify it! It still a mystery for me.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:35
|
show 1 more comment
1
He seems to be using the Well-Ordering principle
– Prahlad Vaidyanathan
Sep 28 '13 at 15:07
What if $x=0$ ...?
– Michael Hoppe
Sep 28 '13 at 15:57
@PrahladVaidyanathan I see, thanks. But to me, the well-ordering principle would suggest the following: by Archimedean property, the set $left{m_{1} in Bbb N: m_{1} > nxright}$ is not empty. And by the well-ordering property, there is an $m in Bbb N$ such that $m > nx$ and $nx > m-1$, so $m-1 < nx < m$. We know that $ny > 1 + nx$, so combining the inequalities gives $nx < m < ny$. Is this not enough?
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:54
I guess I'm just confused what the $m_{2}$ is for
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:57
not sure if you have this same issue (even after accepting an answer), but the whole proof Rudin presents seems rather random and as if it comes out of no where. I have no intuition on why he introduces $m_1, m_2$. Sure $m_1 > nx$, $m_2 > -nx$, it feels as if I have no conceptual idea of why one would do this. Why is he doing this beyond the "it works". I am nearly 100% this formal proof comes out from conveying some conceptual idea and just making it formal. If you understand where it comes from, please provide your own answer and clarify it! It still a mystery for me.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:35
1
1
He seems to be using the Well-Ordering principle
– Prahlad Vaidyanathan
Sep 28 '13 at 15:07
He seems to be using the Well-Ordering principle
– Prahlad Vaidyanathan
Sep 28 '13 at 15:07
What if $x=0$ ...?
– Michael Hoppe
Sep 28 '13 at 15:57
What if $x=0$ ...?
– Michael Hoppe
Sep 28 '13 at 15:57
@PrahladVaidyanathan I see, thanks. But to me, the well-ordering principle would suggest the following: by Archimedean property, the set $left{m_{1} in Bbb N: m_{1} > nxright}$ is not empty. And by the well-ordering property, there is an $m in Bbb N$ such that $m > nx$ and $nx > m-1$, so $m-1 < nx < m$. We know that $ny > 1 + nx$, so combining the inequalities gives $nx < m < ny$. Is this not enough?
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:54
@PrahladVaidyanathan I see, thanks. But to me, the well-ordering principle would suggest the following: by Archimedean property, the set $left{m_{1} in Bbb N: m_{1} > nxright}$ is not empty. And by the well-ordering property, there is an $m in Bbb N$ such that $m > nx$ and $nx > m-1$, so $m-1 < nx < m$. We know that $ny > 1 + nx$, so combining the inequalities gives $nx < m < ny$. Is this not enough?
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:54
I guess I'm just confused what the $m_{2}$ is for
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:57
I guess I'm just confused what the $m_{2}$ is for
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:57
not sure if you have this same issue (even after accepting an answer), but the whole proof Rudin presents seems rather random and as if it comes out of no where. I have no intuition on why he introduces $m_1, m_2$. Sure $m_1 > nx$, $m_2 > -nx$, it feels as if I have no conceptual idea of why one would do this. Why is he doing this beyond the "it works". I am nearly 100% this formal proof comes out from conveying some conceptual idea and just making it formal. If you understand where it comes from, please provide your own answer and clarify it! It still a mystery for me.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:35
not sure if you have this same issue (even after accepting an answer), but the whole proof Rudin presents seems rather random and as if it comes out of no where. I have no intuition on why he introduces $m_1, m_2$. Sure $m_1 > nx$, $m_2 > -nx$, it feels as if I have no conceptual idea of why one would do this. Why is he doing this beyond the "it works". I am nearly 100% this formal proof comes out from conveying some conceptual idea and just making it formal. If you understand where it comes from, please provide your own answer and clarify it! It still a mystery for me.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:35
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Yes, $-m_2<m_1$, but we knew this anyway: $m_1$ and $m_2$ are positive integers, so $-m_2$ is negative and $m_1$ is positive.
Rudin introduces both $m_1$ and $m_2$ in order to avoid having to split the argument into cases depending on whether $x>0$, $x=0$, or $x<0$. If you simply take $m_1$ to be the minimal such that $m_1>nx$, you’re in trouble if $x$ is negative: $m_1=1$, which doesn’t do what you want.
Once you have $-m_2<nx<m_1$, you can use the well-ordering principle to set
$$k_0=min{kinBbb N:-m_2+k>nx};;$$
${kinBbb N:-m_2+k>nx}$ is non-empty, because it contains $m_1-(-m_2)$ so the well-ordering principle ensures that $k_0$ exists. Now let $m=-m_2+k_0$, and you can easily check that $m-1le nx<m$.
answered Sep 28 '13 at 19:25
Brian M. Scott
455k38505907
Thank you! this helps a lot
– asdfghjkl
Oct 2 '13 at 18:04
@asdfghjkl: You’re welcome!
– Brian M. Scott
Oct 2 '13 at 19:46
sorry if this is really obvious, but what is the trouble if x is negative? if x is negative, say $x=-1$, and $m_1=1$, then $m_1 > nx iff 1 > -n$ which is clearly true if $n in mathbb N$. No? Or am I missing something? I think I don't understand why he wants to avoid cases and how cases even arise in the proof.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 18:45
@Pinocchio: In order for the argument to work, we need to find the smallest integer $m$ such that $m>nx$. If $nx$ is positive, the well-ordering principle takes care of this. If $nx$ is negative, however, using the well-ordering principle to get the smallest member of $Bbb N$ greater than $nx$ merely gives us $1$, and $1$ is not the smallest integer greater than $nx$. If $nx=-pi$, for instance, we need $m$ to be $-3$, not $1$, or the rest of the argument won’t work.
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:03
1
@Pinocchio: The basic idea is the one that works when $x>0$: use the well-ordering principle to find the smallest $minBbb N$ such that $nx<m$, note that $m-1le nx<m$, and proceed from there. There are then two choices: split the argument into cases, or find some way to apply this idea even when $x<0$. Rudin chose the latter approach. He doesn’t have $0<nx$, so he finds a $-m_2<nx$. Then he uses the fact that ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ ‘looks like’ $Bbb N$, just shifted left by $m_2$. This lets him find least elements of non-empty subsets of ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ by shifting the sets ...
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:38
|
show 5 more comments
The whole proof seems to hinge on (1) Archimedian property, and (2) well ordering principle. While Rudin states and proves Archimedian property, just prior to the proof that we are discussing, well ordering principle is not mentioned by Rudin anywhere in his book, neither before nor after the current proof. Assuming something that is not stated anywhere in the book, is not a good proof strategy, especially in subjects like real analysis.
answered Mar 29 '16 at 15:12
V. Venkata Rao
7111
This question had an accepted answer, I don't see how yours adds anything to it.
– Silvia Ghinassi
Mar 29 '16 at 15:36
1
@SilviaGhinassi it adds something by pointing out Rudin doesn't mention the WOP, which seems like a useful remark.
– Charlie Parker
Dec 24 '16 at 16:15
2
I was actually baffled by this! Thanks for pointing out this insanity!
– Jack
Feb 10 '18 at 4:01
@Silvia I don't see how your comment contributes anything.
– orange
Dec 10 '18 at 9:08
add a comment |
The proof seems rather oddly written. I find it more intuitive to note that $nx-ny>1$ implies there must be an integer between $ny$ and $nx$. Look at $m=lfloor nyrfloor+1$.
answered Sep 28 '13 at 15:14
Pedro Tamaroff♦
96.2k10151295
I’m pretty sure that that argument isn’t available to Rudin at that point in the book, because he hasn’t shown that $nx-ny>1$ implies that there is an integer between $ny$ and $nx$ or justified the existence of $lfloor xrfloor$ for an arbitrary $xinBbb R$. He’s trying to be extremely rigorous.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:29
@BrianM.Scott We can be rigorous by defining $lfloor xrfloor$ using WOP, cannot we?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:35
That’s essentially what Rudin is doing in this argument, though he actually gets $lfloor xrfloor+1$.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:37
@BrianM.Scott Aha. That's why I said it is oddly written. I don't feel like correcting Rudin or anything, just saying it can be made clearer.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:40
I also find the proof to be extremely oddly written and super confusing. Having that if $ny -nx > 1$ implies there is some integer between $nx$ and $ny$ and just finding it (say $m$) and dividing by $n$ finds our rational $x<frac{m}{n}<y$ is more obvious. Isn't it super simple to prove that a $m$ does exist if $ny -nx > 1$?
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:24
add a comment |
I agree with Pedro above.
Choose $n >1/(b-a)$ so that $an > bn +1$.
Then we can prove there is a k in Z with an < k < bn because:
Let $k = min{m in Z : an le m}$ This is nonempty by Archimedian thingy
(and we can easily prove that nonempty bounded below sets of integers have a min element
using the fact that nonempty sets of $N$ have a min element)
Then $an le k < bn$ (first $anle k$ by def and $k < bn$ because if $k ge bn$ then $kge bn > an +1$ implies $k-1 >an$ which would contradict minimality)
Then $ale k/n < b$ ($n ge 1$)
edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:02
Hanul Jeon
17.5k42780
answered Dec 10 '18 at 5:51
Joe
1
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f507899%2fproving-the-rationals-are-dense-in-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, $-m_2<m_1$, but we knew this anyway: $m_1$ and $m_2$ are positive integers, so $-m_2$ is negative and $m_1$ is positive.
Rudin introduces both $m_1$ and $m_2$ in order to avoid having to split the argument into cases depending on whether $x>0$, $x=0$, or $x<0$. If you simply take $m_1$ to be the minimal such that $m_1>nx$, you’re in trouble if $x$ is negative: $m_1=1$, which doesn’t do what you want.
Once you have $-m_2<nx<m_1$, you can use the well-ordering principle to set
$$k_0=min{kinBbb N:-m_2+k>nx};;$$
${kinBbb N:-m_2+k>nx}$ is non-empty, because it contains $m_1-(-m_2)$ so the well-ordering principle ensures that $k_0$ exists. Now let $m=-m_2+k_0$, and you can easily check that $m-1le nx<m$.
answered Sep 28 '13 at 19:25
Brian M. Scott
455k38505907
Thank you! this helps a lot
– asdfghjkl
Oct 2 '13 at 18:04
@asdfghjkl: You’re welcome!
– Brian M. Scott
Oct 2 '13 at 19:46
sorry if this is really obvious, but what is the trouble if x is negative? if x is negative, say $x=-1$, and $m_1=1$, then $m_1 > nx iff 1 > -n$ which is clearly true if $n in mathbb N$. No? Or am I missing something? I think I don't understand why he wants to avoid cases and how cases even arise in the proof.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 18:45
@Pinocchio: In order for the argument to work, we need to find the smallest integer $m$ such that $m>nx$. If $nx$ is positive, the well-ordering principle takes care of this. If $nx$ is negative, however, using the well-ordering principle to get the smallest member of $Bbb N$ greater than $nx$ merely gives us $1$, and $1$ is not the smallest integer greater than $nx$. If $nx=-pi$, for instance, we need $m$ to be $-3$, not $1$, or the rest of the argument won’t work.
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:03
1
@Pinocchio: The basic idea is the one that works when $x>0$: use the well-ordering principle to find the smallest $minBbb N$ such that $nx<m$, note that $m-1le nx<m$, and proceed from there. There are then two choices: split the argument into cases, or find some way to apply this idea even when $x<0$. Rudin chose the latter approach. He doesn’t have $0<nx$, so he finds a $-m_2<nx$. Then he uses the fact that ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ ‘looks like’ $Bbb N$, just shifted left by $m_2$. This lets him find least elements of non-empty subsets of ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ by shifting the sets ...
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:38
|
show 5 more comments
Yes, $-m_2<m_1$, but we knew this anyway: $m_1$ and $m_2$ are positive integers, so $-m_2$ is negative and $m_1$ is positive.
Rudin introduces both $m_1$ and $m_2$ in order to avoid having to split the argument into cases depending on whether $x>0$, $x=0$, or $x<0$. If you simply take $m_1$ to be the minimal such that $m_1>nx$, you’re in trouble if $x$ is negative: $m_1=1$, which doesn’t do what you want.
Once you have $-m_2<nx<m_1$, you can use the well-ordering principle to set
$$k_0=min{kinBbb N:-m_2+k>nx};;$$
${kinBbb N:-m_2+k>nx}$ is non-empty, because it contains $m_1-(-m_2)$ so the well-ordering principle ensures that $k_0$ exists. Now let $m=-m_2+k_0$, and you can easily check that $m-1le nx<m$.
answered Sep 28 '13 at 19:25
Brian M. Scott
455k38505907
Thank you! this helps a lot
– asdfghjkl
Oct 2 '13 at 18:04
@asdfghjkl: You’re welcome!
– Brian M. Scott
Oct 2 '13 at 19:46
sorry if this is really obvious, but what is the trouble if x is negative? if x is negative, say $x=-1$, and $m_1=1$, then $m_1 > nx iff 1 > -n$ which is clearly true if $n in mathbb N$. No? Or am I missing something? I think I don't understand why he wants to avoid cases and how cases even arise in the proof.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 18:45
@Pinocchio: In order for the argument to work, we need to find the smallest integer $m$ such that $m>nx$. If $nx$ is positive, the well-ordering principle takes care of this. If $nx$ is negative, however, using the well-ordering principle to get the smallest member of $Bbb N$ greater than $nx$ merely gives us $1$, and $1$ is not the smallest integer greater than $nx$. If $nx=-pi$, for instance, we need $m$ to be $-3$, not $1$, or the rest of the argument won’t work.
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:03
1
@Pinocchio: The basic idea is the one that works when $x>0$: use the well-ordering principle to find the smallest $minBbb N$ such that $nx<m$, note that $m-1le nx<m$, and proceed from there. There are then two choices: split the argument into cases, or find some way to apply this idea even when $x<0$. Rudin chose the latter approach. He doesn’t have $0<nx$, so he finds a $-m_2<nx$. Then he uses the fact that ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ ‘looks like’ $Bbb N$, just shifted left by $m_2$. This lets him find least elements of non-empty subsets of ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ by shifting the sets ...
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:38
|
show 5 more comments
Yes, $-m_2<m_1$, but we knew this anyway: $m_1$ and $m_2$ are positive integers, so $-m_2$ is negative and $m_1$ is positive.
Rudin introduces both $m_1$ and $m_2$ in order to avoid having to split the argument into cases depending on whether $x>0$, $x=0$, or $x<0$. If you simply take $m_1$ to be the minimal such that $m_1>nx$, you’re in trouble if $x$ is negative: $m_1=1$, which doesn’t do what you want.
Once you have $-m_2<nx<m_1$, you can use the well-ordering principle to set
$$k_0=min{kinBbb N:-m_2+k>nx};;$$
${kinBbb N:-m_2+k>nx}$ is non-empty, because it contains $m_1-(-m_2)$ so the well-ordering principle ensures that $k_0$ exists. Now let $m=-m_2+k_0$, and you can easily check that $m-1le nx<m$.
answered Sep 28 '13 at 19:25
Brian M. Scott
455k38505907
Yes, $-m_2<m_1$, but we knew this anyway: $m_1$ and $m_2$ are positive integers, so $-m_2$ is negative and $m_1$ is positive.
Rudin introduces both $m_1$ and $m_2$ in order to avoid having to split the argument into cases depending on whether $x>0$, $x=0$, or $x<0$. If you simply take $m_1$ to be the minimal such that $m_1>nx$, you’re in trouble if $x$ is negative: $m_1=1$, which doesn’t do what you want.
Once you have $-m_2<nx<m_1$, you can use the well-ordering principle to set
$$k_0=min{kinBbb N:-m_2+k>nx};;$$
${kinBbb N:-m_2+k>nx}$ is non-empty, because it contains $m_1-(-m_2)$ so the well-ordering principle ensures that $k_0$ exists. Now let $m=-m_2+k_0$, and you can easily check that $m-1le nx<m$.
answered Sep 28 '13 at 19:25
Brian M. Scott
455k38505907
answered Sep 28 '13 at 19:25
Brian M. Scott
455k38505907
answered Sep 28 '13 at 19:25
Brian M. Scott
455k38505907
answered Sep 28 '13 at 19:25
Brian M. Scott
455k38505907
455k38505907
Thank you! this helps a lot
– asdfghjkl
Oct 2 '13 at 18:04
@asdfghjkl: You’re welcome!
– Brian M. Scott
Oct 2 '13 at 19:46
sorry if this is really obvious, but what is the trouble if x is negative? if x is negative, say $x=-1$, and $m_1=1$, then $m_1 > nx iff 1 > -n$ which is clearly true if $n in mathbb N$. No? Or am I missing something? I think I don't understand why he wants to avoid cases and how cases even arise in the proof.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 18:45
@Pinocchio: In order for the argument to work, we need to find the smallest integer $m$ such that $m>nx$. If $nx$ is positive, the well-ordering principle takes care of this. If $nx$ is negative, however, using the well-ordering principle to get the smallest member of $Bbb N$ greater than $nx$ merely gives us $1$, and $1$ is not the smallest integer greater than $nx$. If $nx=-pi$, for instance, we need $m$ to be $-3$, not $1$, or the rest of the argument won’t work.
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:03
1
@Pinocchio: The basic idea is the one that works when $x>0$: use the well-ordering principle to find the smallest $minBbb N$ such that $nx<m$, note that $m-1le nx<m$, and proceed from there. There are then two choices: split the argument into cases, or find some way to apply this idea even when $x<0$. Rudin chose the latter approach. He doesn’t have $0<nx$, so he finds a $-m_2<nx$. Then he uses the fact that ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ ‘looks like’ $Bbb N$, just shifted left by $m_2$. This lets him find least elements of non-empty subsets of ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ by shifting the sets ...
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:38
|
show 5 more comments
Thank you! this helps a lot
– asdfghjkl
Oct 2 '13 at 18:04
@asdfghjkl: You’re welcome!
– Brian M. Scott
Oct 2 '13 at 19:46
sorry if this is really obvious, but what is the trouble if x is negative? if x is negative, say $x=-1$, and $m_1=1$, then $m_1 > nx iff 1 > -n$ which is clearly true if $n in mathbb N$. No? Or am I missing something? I think I don't understand why he wants to avoid cases and how cases even arise in the proof.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 18:45
@Pinocchio: In order for the argument to work, we need to find the smallest integer $m$ such that $m>nx$. If $nx$ is positive, the well-ordering principle takes care of this. If $nx$ is negative, however, using the well-ordering principle to get the smallest member of $Bbb N$ greater than $nx$ merely gives us $1$, and $1$ is not the smallest integer greater than $nx$. If $nx=-pi$, for instance, we need $m$ to be $-3$, not $1$, or the rest of the argument won’t work.
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:03
1
@Pinocchio: The basic idea is the one that works when $x>0$: use the well-ordering principle to find the smallest $minBbb N$ such that $nx<m$, note that $m-1le nx<m$, and proceed from there. There are then two choices: split the argument into cases, or find some way to apply this idea even when $x<0$. Rudin chose the latter approach. He doesn’t have $0<nx$, so he finds a $-m_2<nx$. Then he uses the fact that ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ ‘looks like’ $Bbb N$, just shifted left by $m_2$. This lets him find least elements of non-empty subsets of ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ by shifting the sets ...
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:38
Thank you! this helps a lot
– asdfghjkl
Oct 2 '13 at 18:04
Thank you! this helps a lot
– asdfghjkl
Oct 2 '13 at 18:04
@asdfghjkl: You’re welcome!
– Brian M. Scott
Oct 2 '13 at 19:46
@asdfghjkl: You’re welcome!
– Brian M. Scott
Oct 2 '13 at 19:46
sorry if this is really obvious, but what is the trouble if x is negative? if x is negative, say $x=-1$, and $m_1=1$, then $m_1 > nx iff 1 > -n$ which is clearly true if $n in mathbb N$. No? Or am I missing something? I think I don't understand why he wants to avoid cases and how cases even arise in the proof.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 18:45
sorry if this is really obvious, but what is the trouble if x is negative? if x is negative, say $x=-1$, and $m_1=1$, then $m_1 > nx iff 1 > -n$ which is clearly true if $n in mathbb N$. No? Or am I missing something? I think I don't understand why he wants to avoid cases and how cases even arise in the proof.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 18:45
@Pinocchio: In order for the argument to work, we need to find the smallest integer $m$ such that $m>nx$. If $nx$ is positive, the well-ordering principle takes care of this. If $nx$ is negative, however, using the well-ordering principle to get the smallest member of $Bbb N$ greater than $nx$ merely gives us $1$, and $1$ is not the smallest integer greater than $nx$. If $nx=-pi$, for instance, we need $m$ to be $-3$, not $1$, or the rest of the argument won’t work.
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:03
@Pinocchio: In order for the argument to work, we need to find the smallest integer $m$ such that $m>nx$. If $nx$ is positive, the well-ordering principle takes care of this. If $nx$ is negative, however, using the well-ordering principle to get the smallest member of $Bbb N$ greater than $nx$ merely gives us $1$, and $1$ is not the smallest integer greater than $nx$. If $nx=-pi$, for instance, we need $m$ to be $-3$, not $1$, or the rest of the argument won’t work.
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:03
1
1
@Pinocchio: The basic idea is the one that works when $x>0$: use the well-ordering principle to find the smallest $minBbb N$ such that $nx<m$, note that $m-1le nx<m$, and proceed from there. There are then two choices: split the argument into cases, or find some way to apply this idea even when $x<0$. Rudin chose the latter approach. He doesn’t have $0<nx$, so he finds a $-m_2<nx$. Then he uses the fact that ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ ‘looks like’ $Bbb N$, just shifted left by $m_2$. This lets him find least elements of non-empty subsets of ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ by shifting the sets ...
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:38
@Pinocchio: The basic idea is the one that works when $x>0$: use the well-ordering principle to find the smallest $minBbb N$ such that $nx<m$, note that $m-1le nx<m$, and proceed from there. There are then two choices: split the argument into cases, or find some way to apply this idea even when $x<0$. Rudin chose the latter approach. He doesn’t have $0<nx$, so he finds a $-m_2<nx$. Then he uses the fact that ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ ‘looks like’ $Bbb N$, just shifted left by $m_2$. This lets him find least elements of non-empty subsets of ${kinBbb Z:k>-m_2x}$ by shifting the sets ...
– Brian M. Scott
Dec 25 '16 at 19:38
|
show 5 more comments
The whole proof seems to hinge on (1) Archimedian property, and (2) well ordering principle. While Rudin states and proves Archimedian property, just prior to the proof that we are discussing, well ordering principle is not mentioned by Rudin anywhere in his book, neither before nor after the current proof. Assuming something that is not stated anywhere in the book, is not a good proof strategy, especially in subjects like real analysis.
answered Mar 29 '16 at 15:12
V. Venkata Rao
7111
This question had an accepted answer, I don't see how yours adds anything to it.
– Silvia Ghinassi
Mar 29 '16 at 15:36
1
@SilviaGhinassi it adds something by pointing out Rudin doesn't mention the WOP, which seems like a useful remark.
– Charlie Parker
Dec 24 '16 at 16:15
2
I was actually baffled by this! Thanks for pointing out this insanity!
– Jack
Feb 10 '18 at 4:01
@Silvia I don't see how your comment contributes anything.
– orange
Dec 10 '18 at 9:08
add a comment |
The whole proof seems to hinge on (1) Archimedian property, and (2) well ordering principle. While Rudin states and proves Archimedian property, just prior to the proof that we are discussing, well ordering principle is not mentioned by Rudin anywhere in his book, neither before nor after the current proof. Assuming something that is not stated anywhere in the book, is not a good proof strategy, especially in subjects like real analysis.
answered Mar 29 '16 at 15:12
V. Venkata Rao
7111
This question had an accepted answer, I don't see how yours adds anything to it.
– Silvia Ghinassi
Mar 29 '16 at 15:36
1
@SilviaGhinassi it adds something by pointing out Rudin doesn't mention the WOP, which seems like a useful remark.
– Charlie Parker
Dec 24 '16 at 16:15
2
I was actually baffled by this! Thanks for pointing out this insanity!
– Jack
Feb 10 '18 at 4:01
@Silvia I don't see how your comment contributes anything.
– orange
Dec 10 '18 at 9:08
add a comment |
The whole proof seems to hinge on (1) Archimedian property, and (2) well ordering principle. While Rudin states and proves Archimedian property, just prior to the proof that we are discussing, well ordering principle is not mentioned by Rudin anywhere in his book, neither before nor after the current proof. Assuming something that is not stated anywhere in the book, is not a good proof strategy, especially in subjects like real analysis.
answered Mar 29 '16 at 15:12
V. Venkata Rao
7111
The whole proof seems to hinge on (1) Archimedian property, and (2) well ordering principle. While Rudin states and proves Archimedian property, just prior to the proof that we are discussing, well ordering principle is not mentioned by Rudin anywhere in his book, neither before nor after the current proof. Assuming something that is not stated anywhere in the book, is not a good proof strategy, especially in subjects like real analysis.
answered Mar 29 '16 at 15:12
V. Venkata Rao
7111
answered Mar 29 '16 at 15:12
V. Venkata Rao
7111
answered Mar 29 '16 at 15:12
V. Venkata Rao
7111
answered Mar 29 '16 at 15:12
V. Venkata Rao
7111
7111
This question had an accepted answer, I don't see how yours adds anything to it.
– Silvia Ghinassi
Mar 29 '16 at 15:36
1
@SilviaGhinassi it adds something by pointing out Rudin doesn't mention the WOP, which seems like a useful remark.
– Charlie Parker
Dec 24 '16 at 16:15
2
I was actually baffled by this! Thanks for pointing out this insanity!
– Jack
Feb 10 '18 at 4:01
@Silvia I don't see how your comment contributes anything.
– orange
Dec 10 '18 at 9:08
add a comment |
This question had an accepted answer, I don't see how yours adds anything to it.
– Silvia Ghinassi
Mar 29 '16 at 15:36
1
@SilviaGhinassi it adds something by pointing out Rudin doesn't mention the WOP, which seems like a useful remark.
– Charlie Parker
Dec 24 '16 at 16:15
2
I was actually baffled by this! Thanks for pointing out this insanity!
– Jack
Feb 10 '18 at 4:01
@Silvia I don't see how your comment contributes anything.
– orange
Dec 10 '18 at 9:08
This question had an accepted answer, I don't see how yours adds anything to it.
– Silvia Ghinassi
Mar 29 '16 at 15:36
This question had an accepted answer, I don't see how yours adds anything to it.
– Silvia Ghinassi
Mar 29 '16 at 15:36
1
1
@SilviaGhinassi it adds something by pointing out Rudin doesn't mention the WOP, which seems like a useful remark.
– Charlie Parker
Dec 24 '16 at 16:15
@SilviaGhinassi it adds something by pointing out Rudin doesn't mention the WOP, which seems like a useful remark.
– Charlie Parker
Dec 24 '16 at 16:15
2
2
I was actually baffled by this! Thanks for pointing out this insanity!
– Jack
Feb 10 '18 at 4:01
I was actually baffled by this! Thanks for pointing out this insanity!
– Jack
Feb 10 '18 at 4:01
@Silvia I don't see how your comment contributes anything.
– orange
Dec 10 '18 at 9:08
@Silvia I don't see how your comment contributes anything.
– orange
Dec 10 '18 at 9:08
add a comment |
The proof seems rather oddly written. I find it more intuitive to note that $nx-ny>1$ implies there must be an integer between $ny$ and $nx$. Look at $m=lfloor nyrfloor+1$.
answered Sep 28 '13 at 15:14
Pedro Tamaroff♦
96.2k10151295
I’m pretty sure that that argument isn’t available to Rudin at that point in the book, because he hasn’t shown that $nx-ny>1$ implies that there is an integer between $ny$ and $nx$ or justified the existence of $lfloor xrfloor$ for an arbitrary $xinBbb R$. He’s trying to be extremely rigorous.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:29
@BrianM.Scott We can be rigorous by defining $lfloor xrfloor$ using WOP, cannot we?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:35
That’s essentially what Rudin is doing in this argument, though he actually gets $lfloor xrfloor+1$.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:37
@BrianM.Scott Aha. That's why I said it is oddly written. I don't feel like correcting Rudin or anything, just saying it can be made clearer.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:40
I also find the proof to be extremely oddly written and super confusing. Having that if $ny -nx > 1$ implies there is some integer between $nx$ and $ny$ and just finding it (say $m$) and dividing by $n$ finds our rational $x<frac{m}{n}<y$ is more obvious. Isn't it super simple to prove that a $m$ does exist if $ny -nx > 1$?
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:24
add a comment |
The proof seems rather oddly written. I find it more intuitive to note that $nx-ny>1$ implies there must be an integer between $ny$ and $nx$. Look at $m=lfloor nyrfloor+1$.
answered Sep 28 '13 at 15:14
Pedro Tamaroff♦
96.2k10151295
I’m pretty sure that that argument isn’t available to Rudin at that point in the book, because he hasn’t shown that $nx-ny>1$ implies that there is an integer between $ny$ and $nx$ or justified the existence of $lfloor xrfloor$ for an arbitrary $xinBbb R$. He’s trying to be extremely rigorous.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:29
@BrianM.Scott We can be rigorous by defining $lfloor xrfloor$ using WOP, cannot we?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:35
That’s essentially what Rudin is doing in this argument, though he actually gets $lfloor xrfloor+1$.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:37
@BrianM.Scott Aha. That's why I said it is oddly written. I don't feel like correcting Rudin or anything, just saying it can be made clearer.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:40
I also find the proof to be extremely oddly written and super confusing. Having that if $ny -nx > 1$ implies there is some integer between $nx$ and $ny$ and just finding it (say $m$) and dividing by $n$ finds our rational $x<frac{m}{n}<y$ is more obvious. Isn't it super simple to prove that a $m$ does exist if $ny -nx > 1$?
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:24
add a comment |
The proof seems rather oddly written. I find it more intuitive to note that $nx-ny>1$ implies there must be an integer between $ny$ and $nx$. Look at $m=lfloor nyrfloor+1$.
answered Sep 28 '13 at 15:14
Pedro Tamaroff♦
96.2k10151295
The proof seems rather oddly written. I find it more intuitive to note that $nx-ny>1$ implies there must be an integer between $ny$ and $nx$. Look at $m=lfloor nyrfloor+1$.
answered Sep 28 '13 at 15:14
Pedro Tamaroff♦
96.2k10151295
answered Sep 28 '13 at 15:14
Pedro Tamaroff♦
96.2k10151295
answered Sep 28 '13 at 15:14
Pedro Tamaroff♦
96.2k10151295
answered Sep 28 '13 at 15:14
Pedro Tamaroff♦
96.2k10151295
96.2k10151295
I’m pretty sure that that argument isn’t available to Rudin at that point in the book, because he hasn’t shown that $nx-ny>1$ implies that there is an integer between $ny$ and $nx$ or justified the existence of $lfloor xrfloor$ for an arbitrary $xinBbb R$. He’s trying to be extremely rigorous.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:29
@BrianM.Scott We can be rigorous by defining $lfloor xrfloor$ using WOP, cannot we?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:35
That’s essentially what Rudin is doing in this argument, though he actually gets $lfloor xrfloor+1$.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:37
@BrianM.Scott Aha. That's why I said it is oddly written. I don't feel like correcting Rudin or anything, just saying it can be made clearer.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:40
I also find the proof to be extremely oddly written and super confusing. Having that if $ny -nx > 1$ implies there is some integer between $nx$ and $ny$ and just finding it (say $m$) and dividing by $n$ finds our rational $x<frac{m}{n}<y$ is more obvious. Isn't it super simple to prove that a $m$ does exist if $ny -nx > 1$?
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:24
add a comment |
I’m pretty sure that that argument isn’t available to Rudin at that point in the book, because he hasn’t shown that $nx-ny>1$ implies that there is an integer between $ny$ and $nx$ or justified the existence of $lfloor xrfloor$ for an arbitrary $xinBbb R$. He’s trying to be extremely rigorous.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:29
@BrianM.Scott We can be rigorous by defining $lfloor xrfloor$ using WOP, cannot we?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:35
That’s essentially what Rudin is doing in this argument, though he actually gets $lfloor xrfloor+1$.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:37
@BrianM.Scott Aha. That's why I said it is oddly written. I don't feel like correcting Rudin or anything, just saying it can be made clearer.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:40
I also find the proof to be extremely oddly written and super confusing. Having that if $ny -nx > 1$ implies there is some integer between $nx$ and $ny$ and just finding it (say $m$) and dividing by $n$ finds our rational $x<frac{m}{n}<y$ is more obvious. Isn't it super simple to prove that a $m$ does exist if $ny -nx > 1$?
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:24
I’m pretty sure that that argument isn’t available to Rudin at that point in the book, because he hasn’t shown that $nx-ny>1$ implies that there is an integer between $ny$ and $nx$ or justified the existence of $lfloor xrfloor$ for an arbitrary $xinBbb R$. He’s trying to be extremely rigorous.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:29
I’m pretty sure that that argument isn’t available to Rudin at that point in the book, because he hasn’t shown that $nx-ny>1$ implies that there is an integer between $ny$ and $nx$ or justified the existence of $lfloor xrfloor$ for an arbitrary $xinBbb R$. He’s trying to be extremely rigorous.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:29
@BrianM.Scott We can be rigorous by defining $lfloor xrfloor$ using WOP, cannot we?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:35
@BrianM.Scott We can be rigorous by defining $lfloor xrfloor$ using WOP, cannot we?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:35
That’s essentially what Rudin is doing in this argument, though he actually gets $lfloor xrfloor+1$.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:37
That’s essentially what Rudin is doing in this argument, though he actually gets $lfloor xrfloor+1$.
– Brian M. Scott
Sep 28 '13 at 19:37
@BrianM.Scott Aha. That's why I said it is oddly written. I don't feel like correcting Rudin or anything, just saying it can be made clearer.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:40
@BrianM.Scott Aha. That's why I said it is oddly written. I don't feel like correcting Rudin or anything, just saying it can be made clearer.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Sep 28 '13 at 19:40
I also find the proof to be extremely oddly written and super confusing. Having that if $ny -nx > 1$ implies there is some integer between $nx$ and $ny$ and just finding it (say $m$) and dividing by $n$ finds our rational $x<frac{m}{n}<y$ is more obvious. Isn't it super simple to prove that a $m$ does exist if $ny -nx > 1$?
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:24
I also find the proof to be extremely oddly written and super confusing. Having that if $ny -nx > 1$ implies there is some integer between $nx$ and $ny$ and just finding it (say $m$) and dividing by $n$ finds our rational $x<frac{m}{n}<y$ is more obvious. Isn't it super simple to prove that a $m$ does exist if $ny -nx > 1$?
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:24
add a comment |
I agree with Pedro above.
Choose $n >1/(b-a)$ so that $an > bn +1$.
Then we can prove there is a k in Z with an < k < bn because:
Let $k = min{m in Z : an le m}$ This is nonempty by Archimedian thingy
(and we can easily prove that nonempty bounded below sets of integers have a min element
using the fact that nonempty sets of $N$ have a min element)
Then $an le k < bn$ (first $anle k$ by def and $k < bn$ because if $k ge bn$ then $kge bn > an +1$ implies $k-1 >an$ which would contradict minimality)
Then $ale k/n < b$ ($n ge 1$)
edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:02
Hanul Jeon
17.5k42780
answered Dec 10 '18 at 5:51
Joe
1
add a comment |
I agree with Pedro above.
Choose $n >1/(b-a)$ so that $an > bn +1$.
Then we can prove there is a k in Z with an < k < bn because:
Let $k = min{m in Z : an le m}$ This is nonempty by Archimedian thingy
(and we can easily prove that nonempty bounded below sets of integers have a min element
using the fact that nonempty sets of $N$ have a min element)
Then $an le k < bn$ (first $anle k$ by def and $k < bn$ because if $k ge bn$ then $kge bn > an +1$ implies $k-1 >an$ which would contradict minimality)
Then $ale k/n < b$ ($n ge 1$)
edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:02
Hanul Jeon
17.5k42780
answered Dec 10 '18 at 5:51
Joe
1
add a comment |
I agree with Pedro above.
Choose $n >1/(b-a)$ so that $an > bn +1$.
Then we can prove there is a k in Z with an < k < bn because:
Let $k = min{m in Z : an le m}$ This is nonempty by Archimedian thingy
(and we can easily prove that nonempty bounded below sets of integers have a min element
using the fact that nonempty sets of $N$ have a min element)
Then $an le k < bn$ (first $anle k$ by def and $k < bn$ because if $k ge bn$ then $kge bn > an +1$ implies $k-1 >an$ which would contradict minimality)
Then $ale k/n < b$ ($n ge 1$)
edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:02
Hanul Jeon
17.5k42780
answered Dec 10 '18 at 5:51
Joe
1
I agree with Pedro above.
Choose $n >1/(b-a)$ so that $an > bn +1$.
Then we can prove there is a k in Z with an < k < bn because:
Let $k = min{m in Z : an le m}$ This is nonempty by Archimedian thingy
(and we can easily prove that nonempty bounded below sets of integers have a min element
using the fact that nonempty sets of $N$ have a min element)
Then $an le k < bn$ (first $anle k$ by def and $k < bn$ because if $k ge bn$ then $kge bn > an +1$ implies $k-1 >an$ which would contradict minimality)
Then $ale k/n < b$ ($n ge 1$)
edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:02
Hanul Jeon
17.5k42780
answered Dec 10 '18 at 5:51
Joe
1
edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:02
Hanul Jeon
17.5k42780
edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:02
Hanul Jeon
17.5k42780
edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:02
Hanul Jeon
17.5k42780
17.5k42780
answered Dec 10 '18 at 5:51
Joe
1
answered Dec 10 '18 at 5:51
Joe
1
answered Dec 10 '18 at 5:51
Joe
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f507899%2fproving-the-rationals-are-dense-in-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
He seems to be using the Well-Ordering principle
– Prahlad Vaidyanathan
Sep 28 '13 at 15:07
What if $x=0$ ...?
– Michael Hoppe
Sep 28 '13 at 15:57
@PrahladVaidyanathan I see, thanks. But to me, the well-ordering principle would suggest the following: by Archimedean property, the set $left{m_{1} in Bbb N: m_{1} > nxright}$ is not empty. And by the well-ordering property, there is an $m in Bbb N$ such that $m > nx$ and $nx > m-1$, so $m-1 < nx < m$. We know that $ny > 1 + nx$, so combining the inequalities gives $nx < m < ny$. Is this not enough?
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:54
I guess I'm just confused what the $m_{2}$ is for
– asdfghjkl
Sep 28 '13 at 16:57
not sure if you have this same issue (even after accepting an answer), but the whole proof Rudin presents seems rather random and as if it comes out of no where. I have no intuition on why he introduces $m_1, m_2$. Sure $m_1 > nx$, $m_2 > -nx$, it feels as if I have no conceptual idea of why one would do this. Why is he doing this beyond the "it works". I am nearly 100% this formal proof comes out from conveying some conceptual idea and just making it formal. If you understand where it comes from, please provide your own answer and clarify it! It still a mystery for me.
– Pinocchio
Dec 25 '16 at 19:35