Is Theorem 1.19 in Rudin's Analysis missing to show that $R=mathbb{R}$?












3












$begingroup$


I studied line-by-line of the proof of the Theorem 1.19 in the book of Principles of Mathematical Analysis (3rd ed) by Rudin. It shows that there is a proper superset of $mathbb{Q}$ such that it is an ordered field and has the least-upper-bound property. It doesn't prove that this proper superset is $mathbb{R}$.



Am I missing something? or, the constructed $R$ can be a proper subset of $mathbb{R}$?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    I studied line-by-line of the proof of the Theorem 1.19 in the book of Principles of Mathematical Analysis (3rd ed) by Rudin. It shows that there is a proper superset of $mathbb{Q}$ such that it is an ordered field and has the least-upper-bound property. It doesn't prove that this proper superset is $mathbb{R}$.



    Am I missing something? or, the constructed $R$ can be a proper subset of $mathbb{R}$?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      I studied line-by-line of the proof of the Theorem 1.19 in the book of Principles of Mathematical Analysis (3rd ed) by Rudin. It shows that there is a proper superset of $mathbb{Q}$ such that it is an ordered field and has the least-upper-bound property. It doesn't prove that this proper superset is $mathbb{R}$.



      Am I missing something? or, the constructed $R$ can be a proper subset of $mathbb{R}$?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I studied line-by-line of the proof of the Theorem 1.19 in the book of Principles of Mathematical Analysis (3rd ed) by Rudin. It shows that there is a proper superset of $mathbb{Q}$ such that it is an ordered field and has the least-upper-bound property. It doesn't prove that this proper superset is $mathbb{R}$.



      Am I missing something? or, the constructed $R$ can be a proper subset of $mathbb{R}$?







      real-analysis proof-explanation






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 5 at 8:00









      72D72D

      267117




      267117






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Since the ordered field with the least upper bound property is unique up to order preserving isomorphisms, Rudin defines $mathbb R$ as $R$ assuming this.



          A sketch proof of this result goes as follows: we assume $mathbb R$ has been constructed (using theorem 1.19) and let $R$ be another ordered field with the least upper bound property.




          • Since $1 in R,$ we get $n = 1 + 1 + dots + 1 in R$ also. This gives a map $varphi : mathbb N rightarrow R.$ Since $varphi(n) < varphi(m)$ whenever $n < m,$ this map is an injection.


          • Since $-1 in R$ defined by $1 + (-1) = 0,$ and $(-1) times n = -n in R$ for any $n in mathbb N,$ this map $varphi$ extends to a map $mathbb Z rightarrow mathbb R.$ Again using the ordered field property, this remains an injection.


          • If $p/q in mathbb Q$ with $p,q in mathbb Z$ and $q neq 0,$ we get $varphi$ extends to a map $mathbb Q rightarrow R$ by sending $varphi(p/q) = varphi(p)/varphi(q).$ Note that this map is an injection by construction. Note $varphi(p/q) = 0$ if and only if $varphi(p)=0,$ so the map remains an injection. Also $varphi$ can be checked to be a order-preserving homomorphism of fields, so $varphi(a)<varphi(b)$ if $a<b,$ $varphi(ab) = varphi(a)varphi(b),$ $varphi(a+b) = varphi(a)+varphi(b)$ and $varphi(c^{-1}) = varphi(c)^{-1}$ whenever $c neq 0.$



          Up until now what we did was completely algebraic, and showed any such field contains a copy of $mathbb Q$ by the above construction. We now want to extend this to all of $mathbb R$ and show the extension is bijective.




          • If $x in mathbb R,$ recall that using Rudin's definition via Dedekind cuts, $x$ satisfies,
            $$ x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }. $$
            Then we define $overline{varphi} : mathbb R rightarrow R$ by sending,
            $$ overline{varphi}(x) = sup{ varphi(a) : a in mathbb Q, a < x }. $$
            Note this makes sense because $R$ has the least upper bound property, so we can take suprema (and by the archimedian property of $mathbb R,$ this is bounded above by $varphi(n)$ with $n > x$ an integer).


          • To show $overline{varphi}$ is injective, it is useful to show that for any $A subset mathbb Q$ bounded above we have,
            $$ sup varphi(A) = overline{varphi}(sup A). $$
            Using this, it shouldn't be too hard to show that $overline{varphi}$ is also an order preserving field homomorphism $mathbb R rightarrow R$ which agrees with $varphi$ when restricted to $mathbb Q.$


          • Finally to show surjectivity, let $y in R.$ By the Archimedian property, the set,
            $$ A = {a in varphi(mathbb Q) : a < y } $$
            is bounded from above, so $sup A = z in R$ exists. Then $z leq y,$ and we wish to show they are equal. If not, by the archimedian property (applied to $1/(y-z)$) there is $n in mathbb N$ such that $z + varphi(n)^{-1} < y.$ But this implies that,
            $$ A = { a + varphi(n)^{-1} : a in varphi(mathbb Q), a < y }. $$
            But then $a + varphi(n)^{-1} < y$ whenever $a in varphi(mathbb Q)$ such that $a< y,$ so iteratively applying this gives $a + varphi(m)varphi(n)^{-1} < y$ for all $a in A$ and $m in mathbb N.$ But this contradicts the archimedian property of $R$, which asserts that there is $N in mathbb N$ such that $y < N.$
            Hence $y = z,$ so if we let,
            $$ B = {b in mathbb Q : varphi(b) < y}, $$
            we get $overline{varphi}(sup B) = y.$ So $overlinevarphi$ is an isomorphism.







          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Defining a Dedekind cut as $x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }$ is really not good... It assumes that you already have the reals before defining those. Where is that $x$ coming from?
            $endgroup$
            – mathcounterexamples.net
            Jan 5 at 10:22










          • $begingroup$
            @mathcounterexamples.net I worded it incorrectly (indeed it is not by definition), but I am assuming the reals have already been constructed. In that case x does satisfy the claimed property, which is what I want to use. I'll clarify things in an edit.
            $endgroup$
            – ktoi
            Jan 5 at 13:24



















          1












          $begingroup$

          I don’t have Rudin book at hand.



          However an important theorem that he probably uses is that an ordered Archimedean field having the upper bound property is unique up to isomorphism.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            According to the book: "It is a fact, which we will not prove here, that any two ordered fields with the least-upper-bound property are isomorphic." Are you referring to this? If so, where can I find an easiest proof? Thanks.
            $endgroup$
            – 72D
            Jan 5 at 8:17












          • $begingroup$
            Yes this is what I’m referring to. A very classical result. M. Google will help you to find a proof somewhere.
            $endgroup$
            – mathcounterexamples.net
            Jan 5 at 8:30










          • $begingroup$
            A proof and much more can be found in the book "The real numbers and real analysis" by Ethan Block.
            $endgroup$
            – Math_QED
            Jan 5 at 10:04











          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
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062499%2fis-theorem-1-19-in-rudins-analysis-missing-to-show-that-r-mathbbr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2












          $begingroup$

          Since the ordered field with the least upper bound property is unique up to order preserving isomorphisms, Rudin defines $mathbb R$ as $R$ assuming this.



          A sketch proof of this result goes as follows: we assume $mathbb R$ has been constructed (using theorem 1.19) and let $R$ be another ordered field with the least upper bound property.




          • Since $1 in R,$ we get $n = 1 + 1 + dots + 1 in R$ also. This gives a map $varphi : mathbb N rightarrow R.$ Since $varphi(n) < varphi(m)$ whenever $n < m,$ this map is an injection.


          • Since $-1 in R$ defined by $1 + (-1) = 0,$ and $(-1) times n = -n in R$ for any $n in mathbb N,$ this map $varphi$ extends to a map $mathbb Z rightarrow mathbb R.$ Again using the ordered field property, this remains an injection.


          • If $p/q in mathbb Q$ with $p,q in mathbb Z$ and $q neq 0,$ we get $varphi$ extends to a map $mathbb Q rightarrow R$ by sending $varphi(p/q) = varphi(p)/varphi(q).$ Note that this map is an injection by construction. Note $varphi(p/q) = 0$ if and only if $varphi(p)=0,$ so the map remains an injection. Also $varphi$ can be checked to be a order-preserving homomorphism of fields, so $varphi(a)<varphi(b)$ if $a<b,$ $varphi(ab) = varphi(a)varphi(b),$ $varphi(a+b) = varphi(a)+varphi(b)$ and $varphi(c^{-1}) = varphi(c)^{-1}$ whenever $c neq 0.$



          Up until now what we did was completely algebraic, and showed any such field contains a copy of $mathbb Q$ by the above construction. We now want to extend this to all of $mathbb R$ and show the extension is bijective.




          • If $x in mathbb R,$ recall that using Rudin's definition via Dedekind cuts, $x$ satisfies,
            $$ x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }. $$
            Then we define $overline{varphi} : mathbb R rightarrow R$ by sending,
            $$ overline{varphi}(x) = sup{ varphi(a) : a in mathbb Q, a < x }. $$
            Note this makes sense because $R$ has the least upper bound property, so we can take suprema (and by the archimedian property of $mathbb R,$ this is bounded above by $varphi(n)$ with $n > x$ an integer).


          • To show $overline{varphi}$ is injective, it is useful to show that for any $A subset mathbb Q$ bounded above we have,
            $$ sup varphi(A) = overline{varphi}(sup A). $$
            Using this, it shouldn't be too hard to show that $overline{varphi}$ is also an order preserving field homomorphism $mathbb R rightarrow R$ which agrees with $varphi$ when restricted to $mathbb Q.$


          • Finally to show surjectivity, let $y in R.$ By the Archimedian property, the set,
            $$ A = {a in varphi(mathbb Q) : a < y } $$
            is bounded from above, so $sup A = z in R$ exists. Then $z leq y,$ and we wish to show they are equal. If not, by the archimedian property (applied to $1/(y-z)$) there is $n in mathbb N$ such that $z + varphi(n)^{-1} < y.$ But this implies that,
            $$ A = { a + varphi(n)^{-1} : a in varphi(mathbb Q), a < y }. $$
            But then $a + varphi(n)^{-1} < y$ whenever $a in varphi(mathbb Q)$ such that $a< y,$ so iteratively applying this gives $a + varphi(m)varphi(n)^{-1} < y$ for all $a in A$ and $m in mathbb N.$ But this contradicts the archimedian property of $R$, which asserts that there is $N in mathbb N$ such that $y < N.$
            Hence $y = z,$ so if we let,
            $$ B = {b in mathbb Q : varphi(b) < y}, $$
            we get $overline{varphi}(sup B) = y.$ So $overlinevarphi$ is an isomorphism.







          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Defining a Dedekind cut as $x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }$ is really not good... It assumes that you already have the reals before defining those. Where is that $x$ coming from?
            $endgroup$
            – mathcounterexamples.net
            Jan 5 at 10:22










          • $begingroup$
            @mathcounterexamples.net I worded it incorrectly (indeed it is not by definition), but I am assuming the reals have already been constructed. In that case x does satisfy the claimed property, which is what I want to use. I'll clarify things in an edit.
            $endgroup$
            – ktoi
            Jan 5 at 13:24
















          2












          $begingroup$

          Since the ordered field with the least upper bound property is unique up to order preserving isomorphisms, Rudin defines $mathbb R$ as $R$ assuming this.



          A sketch proof of this result goes as follows: we assume $mathbb R$ has been constructed (using theorem 1.19) and let $R$ be another ordered field with the least upper bound property.




          • Since $1 in R,$ we get $n = 1 + 1 + dots + 1 in R$ also. This gives a map $varphi : mathbb N rightarrow R.$ Since $varphi(n) < varphi(m)$ whenever $n < m,$ this map is an injection.


          • Since $-1 in R$ defined by $1 + (-1) = 0,$ and $(-1) times n = -n in R$ for any $n in mathbb N,$ this map $varphi$ extends to a map $mathbb Z rightarrow mathbb R.$ Again using the ordered field property, this remains an injection.


          • If $p/q in mathbb Q$ with $p,q in mathbb Z$ and $q neq 0,$ we get $varphi$ extends to a map $mathbb Q rightarrow R$ by sending $varphi(p/q) = varphi(p)/varphi(q).$ Note that this map is an injection by construction. Note $varphi(p/q) = 0$ if and only if $varphi(p)=0,$ so the map remains an injection. Also $varphi$ can be checked to be a order-preserving homomorphism of fields, so $varphi(a)<varphi(b)$ if $a<b,$ $varphi(ab) = varphi(a)varphi(b),$ $varphi(a+b) = varphi(a)+varphi(b)$ and $varphi(c^{-1}) = varphi(c)^{-1}$ whenever $c neq 0.$



          Up until now what we did was completely algebraic, and showed any such field contains a copy of $mathbb Q$ by the above construction. We now want to extend this to all of $mathbb R$ and show the extension is bijective.




          • If $x in mathbb R,$ recall that using Rudin's definition via Dedekind cuts, $x$ satisfies,
            $$ x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }. $$
            Then we define $overline{varphi} : mathbb R rightarrow R$ by sending,
            $$ overline{varphi}(x) = sup{ varphi(a) : a in mathbb Q, a < x }. $$
            Note this makes sense because $R$ has the least upper bound property, so we can take suprema (and by the archimedian property of $mathbb R,$ this is bounded above by $varphi(n)$ with $n > x$ an integer).


          • To show $overline{varphi}$ is injective, it is useful to show that for any $A subset mathbb Q$ bounded above we have,
            $$ sup varphi(A) = overline{varphi}(sup A). $$
            Using this, it shouldn't be too hard to show that $overline{varphi}$ is also an order preserving field homomorphism $mathbb R rightarrow R$ which agrees with $varphi$ when restricted to $mathbb Q.$


          • Finally to show surjectivity, let $y in R.$ By the Archimedian property, the set,
            $$ A = {a in varphi(mathbb Q) : a < y } $$
            is bounded from above, so $sup A = z in R$ exists. Then $z leq y,$ and we wish to show they are equal. If not, by the archimedian property (applied to $1/(y-z)$) there is $n in mathbb N$ such that $z + varphi(n)^{-1} < y.$ But this implies that,
            $$ A = { a + varphi(n)^{-1} : a in varphi(mathbb Q), a < y }. $$
            But then $a + varphi(n)^{-1} < y$ whenever $a in varphi(mathbb Q)$ such that $a< y,$ so iteratively applying this gives $a + varphi(m)varphi(n)^{-1} < y$ for all $a in A$ and $m in mathbb N.$ But this contradicts the archimedian property of $R$, which asserts that there is $N in mathbb N$ such that $y < N.$
            Hence $y = z,$ so if we let,
            $$ B = {b in mathbb Q : varphi(b) < y}, $$
            we get $overline{varphi}(sup B) = y.$ So $overlinevarphi$ is an isomorphism.







          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Defining a Dedekind cut as $x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }$ is really not good... It assumes that you already have the reals before defining those. Where is that $x$ coming from?
            $endgroup$
            – mathcounterexamples.net
            Jan 5 at 10:22










          • $begingroup$
            @mathcounterexamples.net I worded it incorrectly (indeed it is not by definition), but I am assuming the reals have already been constructed. In that case x does satisfy the claimed property, which is what I want to use. I'll clarify things in an edit.
            $endgroup$
            – ktoi
            Jan 5 at 13:24














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          Since the ordered field with the least upper bound property is unique up to order preserving isomorphisms, Rudin defines $mathbb R$ as $R$ assuming this.



          A sketch proof of this result goes as follows: we assume $mathbb R$ has been constructed (using theorem 1.19) and let $R$ be another ordered field with the least upper bound property.




          • Since $1 in R,$ we get $n = 1 + 1 + dots + 1 in R$ also. This gives a map $varphi : mathbb N rightarrow R.$ Since $varphi(n) < varphi(m)$ whenever $n < m,$ this map is an injection.


          • Since $-1 in R$ defined by $1 + (-1) = 0,$ and $(-1) times n = -n in R$ for any $n in mathbb N,$ this map $varphi$ extends to a map $mathbb Z rightarrow mathbb R.$ Again using the ordered field property, this remains an injection.


          • If $p/q in mathbb Q$ with $p,q in mathbb Z$ and $q neq 0,$ we get $varphi$ extends to a map $mathbb Q rightarrow R$ by sending $varphi(p/q) = varphi(p)/varphi(q).$ Note that this map is an injection by construction. Note $varphi(p/q) = 0$ if and only if $varphi(p)=0,$ so the map remains an injection. Also $varphi$ can be checked to be a order-preserving homomorphism of fields, so $varphi(a)<varphi(b)$ if $a<b,$ $varphi(ab) = varphi(a)varphi(b),$ $varphi(a+b) = varphi(a)+varphi(b)$ and $varphi(c^{-1}) = varphi(c)^{-1}$ whenever $c neq 0.$



          Up until now what we did was completely algebraic, and showed any such field contains a copy of $mathbb Q$ by the above construction. We now want to extend this to all of $mathbb R$ and show the extension is bijective.




          • If $x in mathbb R,$ recall that using Rudin's definition via Dedekind cuts, $x$ satisfies,
            $$ x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }. $$
            Then we define $overline{varphi} : mathbb R rightarrow R$ by sending,
            $$ overline{varphi}(x) = sup{ varphi(a) : a in mathbb Q, a < x }. $$
            Note this makes sense because $R$ has the least upper bound property, so we can take suprema (and by the archimedian property of $mathbb R,$ this is bounded above by $varphi(n)$ with $n > x$ an integer).


          • To show $overline{varphi}$ is injective, it is useful to show that for any $A subset mathbb Q$ bounded above we have,
            $$ sup varphi(A) = overline{varphi}(sup A). $$
            Using this, it shouldn't be too hard to show that $overline{varphi}$ is also an order preserving field homomorphism $mathbb R rightarrow R$ which agrees with $varphi$ when restricted to $mathbb Q.$


          • Finally to show surjectivity, let $y in R.$ By the Archimedian property, the set,
            $$ A = {a in varphi(mathbb Q) : a < y } $$
            is bounded from above, so $sup A = z in R$ exists. Then $z leq y,$ and we wish to show they are equal. If not, by the archimedian property (applied to $1/(y-z)$) there is $n in mathbb N$ such that $z + varphi(n)^{-1} < y.$ But this implies that,
            $$ A = { a + varphi(n)^{-1} : a in varphi(mathbb Q), a < y }. $$
            But then $a + varphi(n)^{-1} < y$ whenever $a in varphi(mathbb Q)$ such that $a< y,$ so iteratively applying this gives $a + varphi(m)varphi(n)^{-1} < y$ for all $a in A$ and $m in mathbb N.$ But this contradicts the archimedian property of $R$, which asserts that there is $N in mathbb N$ such that $y < N.$
            Hence $y = z,$ so if we let,
            $$ B = {b in mathbb Q : varphi(b) < y}, $$
            we get $overline{varphi}(sup B) = y.$ So $overlinevarphi$ is an isomorphism.







          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Since the ordered field with the least upper bound property is unique up to order preserving isomorphisms, Rudin defines $mathbb R$ as $R$ assuming this.



          A sketch proof of this result goes as follows: we assume $mathbb R$ has been constructed (using theorem 1.19) and let $R$ be another ordered field with the least upper bound property.




          • Since $1 in R,$ we get $n = 1 + 1 + dots + 1 in R$ also. This gives a map $varphi : mathbb N rightarrow R.$ Since $varphi(n) < varphi(m)$ whenever $n < m,$ this map is an injection.


          • Since $-1 in R$ defined by $1 + (-1) = 0,$ and $(-1) times n = -n in R$ for any $n in mathbb N,$ this map $varphi$ extends to a map $mathbb Z rightarrow mathbb R.$ Again using the ordered field property, this remains an injection.


          • If $p/q in mathbb Q$ with $p,q in mathbb Z$ and $q neq 0,$ we get $varphi$ extends to a map $mathbb Q rightarrow R$ by sending $varphi(p/q) = varphi(p)/varphi(q).$ Note that this map is an injection by construction. Note $varphi(p/q) = 0$ if and only if $varphi(p)=0,$ so the map remains an injection. Also $varphi$ can be checked to be a order-preserving homomorphism of fields, so $varphi(a)<varphi(b)$ if $a<b,$ $varphi(ab) = varphi(a)varphi(b),$ $varphi(a+b) = varphi(a)+varphi(b)$ and $varphi(c^{-1}) = varphi(c)^{-1}$ whenever $c neq 0.$



          Up until now what we did was completely algebraic, and showed any such field contains a copy of $mathbb Q$ by the above construction. We now want to extend this to all of $mathbb R$ and show the extension is bijective.




          • If $x in mathbb R,$ recall that using Rudin's definition via Dedekind cuts, $x$ satisfies,
            $$ x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }. $$
            Then we define $overline{varphi} : mathbb R rightarrow R$ by sending,
            $$ overline{varphi}(x) = sup{ varphi(a) : a in mathbb Q, a < x }. $$
            Note this makes sense because $R$ has the least upper bound property, so we can take suprema (and by the archimedian property of $mathbb R,$ this is bounded above by $varphi(n)$ with $n > x$ an integer).


          • To show $overline{varphi}$ is injective, it is useful to show that for any $A subset mathbb Q$ bounded above we have,
            $$ sup varphi(A) = overline{varphi}(sup A). $$
            Using this, it shouldn't be too hard to show that $overline{varphi}$ is also an order preserving field homomorphism $mathbb R rightarrow R$ which agrees with $varphi$ when restricted to $mathbb Q.$


          • Finally to show surjectivity, let $y in R.$ By the Archimedian property, the set,
            $$ A = {a in varphi(mathbb Q) : a < y } $$
            is bounded from above, so $sup A = z in R$ exists. Then $z leq y,$ and we wish to show they are equal. If not, by the archimedian property (applied to $1/(y-z)$) there is $n in mathbb N$ such that $z + varphi(n)^{-1} < y.$ But this implies that,
            $$ A = { a + varphi(n)^{-1} : a in varphi(mathbb Q), a < y }. $$
            But then $a + varphi(n)^{-1} < y$ whenever $a in varphi(mathbb Q)$ such that $a< y,$ so iteratively applying this gives $a + varphi(m)varphi(n)^{-1} < y$ for all $a in A$ and $m in mathbb N.$ But this contradicts the archimedian property of $R$, which asserts that there is $N in mathbb N$ such that $y < N.$
            Hence $y = z,$ so if we let,
            $$ B = {b in mathbb Q : varphi(b) < y}, $$
            we get $overline{varphi}(sup B) = y.$ So $overlinevarphi$ is an isomorphism.








          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 5 at 13:26

























          answered Jan 5 at 9:33









          ktoiktoi

          2,4161618




          2,4161618












          • $begingroup$
            Defining a Dedekind cut as $x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }$ is really not good... It assumes that you already have the reals before defining those. Where is that $x$ coming from?
            $endgroup$
            – mathcounterexamples.net
            Jan 5 at 10:22










          • $begingroup$
            @mathcounterexamples.net I worded it incorrectly (indeed it is not by definition), but I am assuming the reals have already been constructed. In that case x does satisfy the claimed property, which is what I want to use. I'll clarify things in an edit.
            $endgroup$
            – ktoi
            Jan 5 at 13:24


















          • $begingroup$
            Defining a Dedekind cut as $x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }$ is really not good... It assumes that you already have the reals before defining those. Where is that $x$ coming from?
            $endgroup$
            – mathcounterexamples.net
            Jan 5 at 10:22










          • $begingroup$
            @mathcounterexamples.net I worded it incorrectly (indeed it is not by definition), but I am assuming the reals have already been constructed. In that case x does satisfy the claimed property, which is what I want to use. I'll clarify things in an edit.
            $endgroup$
            – ktoi
            Jan 5 at 13:24
















          $begingroup$
          Defining a Dedekind cut as $x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }$ is really not good... It assumes that you already have the reals before defining those. Where is that $x$ coming from?
          $endgroup$
          – mathcounterexamples.net
          Jan 5 at 10:22




          $begingroup$
          Defining a Dedekind cut as $x = {a in mathbb Q : a < x }$ is really not good... It assumes that you already have the reals before defining those. Where is that $x$ coming from?
          $endgroup$
          – mathcounterexamples.net
          Jan 5 at 10:22












          $begingroup$
          @mathcounterexamples.net I worded it incorrectly (indeed it is not by definition), but I am assuming the reals have already been constructed. In that case x does satisfy the claimed property, which is what I want to use. I'll clarify things in an edit.
          $endgroup$
          – ktoi
          Jan 5 at 13:24




          $begingroup$
          @mathcounterexamples.net I worded it incorrectly (indeed it is not by definition), but I am assuming the reals have already been constructed. In that case x does satisfy the claimed property, which is what I want to use. I'll clarify things in an edit.
          $endgroup$
          – ktoi
          Jan 5 at 13:24











          1












          $begingroup$

          I don’t have Rudin book at hand.



          However an important theorem that he probably uses is that an ordered Archimedean field having the upper bound property is unique up to isomorphism.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            According to the book: "It is a fact, which we will not prove here, that any two ordered fields with the least-upper-bound property are isomorphic." Are you referring to this? If so, where can I find an easiest proof? Thanks.
            $endgroup$
            – 72D
            Jan 5 at 8:17












          • $begingroup$
            Yes this is what I’m referring to. A very classical result. M. Google will help you to find a proof somewhere.
            $endgroup$
            – mathcounterexamples.net
            Jan 5 at 8:30










          • $begingroup$
            A proof and much more can be found in the book "The real numbers and real analysis" by Ethan Block.
            $endgroup$
            – Math_QED
            Jan 5 at 10:04
















          1












          $begingroup$

          I don’t have Rudin book at hand.



          However an important theorem that he probably uses is that an ordered Archimedean field having the upper bound property is unique up to isomorphism.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            According to the book: "It is a fact, which we will not prove here, that any two ordered fields with the least-upper-bound property are isomorphic." Are you referring to this? If so, where can I find an easiest proof? Thanks.
            $endgroup$
            – 72D
            Jan 5 at 8:17












          • $begingroup$
            Yes this is what I’m referring to. A very classical result. M. Google will help you to find a proof somewhere.
            $endgroup$
            – mathcounterexamples.net
            Jan 5 at 8:30










          • $begingroup$
            A proof and much more can be found in the book "The real numbers and real analysis" by Ethan Block.
            $endgroup$
            – Math_QED
            Jan 5 at 10:04














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          I don’t have Rudin book at hand.



          However an important theorem that he probably uses is that an ordered Archimedean field having the upper bound property is unique up to isomorphism.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I don’t have Rudin book at hand.



          However an important theorem that he probably uses is that an ordered Archimedean field having the upper bound property is unique up to isomorphism.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 5 at 8:07









          mathcounterexamples.netmathcounterexamples.net

          27k22158




          27k22158












          • $begingroup$
            According to the book: "It is a fact, which we will not prove here, that any two ordered fields with the least-upper-bound property are isomorphic." Are you referring to this? If so, where can I find an easiest proof? Thanks.
            $endgroup$
            – 72D
            Jan 5 at 8:17












          • $begingroup$
            Yes this is what I’m referring to. A very classical result. M. Google will help you to find a proof somewhere.
            $endgroup$
            – mathcounterexamples.net
            Jan 5 at 8:30










          • $begingroup$
            A proof and much more can be found in the book "The real numbers and real analysis" by Ethan Block.
            $endgroup$
            – Math_QED
            Jan 5 at 10:04


















          • $begingroup$
            According to the book: "It is a fact, which we will not prove here, that any two ordered fields with the least-upper-bound property are isomorphic." Are you referring to this? If so, where can I find an easiest proof? Thanks.
            $endgroup$
            – 72D
            Jan 5 at 8:17












          • $begingroup$
            Yes this is what I’m referring to. A very classical result. M. Google will help you to find a proof somewhere.
            $endgroup$
            – mathcounterexamples.net
            Jan 5 at 8:30










          • $begingroup$
            A proof and much more can be found in the book "The real numbers and real analysis" by Ethan Block.
            $endgroup$
            – Math_QED
            Jan 5 at 10:04
















          $begingroup$
          According to the book: "It is a fact, which we will not prove here, that any two ordered fields with the least-upper-bound property are isomorphic." Are you referring to this? If so, where can I find an easiest proof? Thanks.
          $endgroup$
          – 72D
          Jan 5 at 8:17






          $begingroup$
          According to the book: "It is a fact, which we will not prove here, that any two ordered fields with the least-upper-bound property are isomorphic." Are you referring to this? If so, where can I find an easiest proof? Thanks.
          $endgroup$
          – 72D
          Jan 5 at 8:17














          $begingroup$
          Yes this is what I’m referring to. A very classical result. M. Google will help you to find a proof somewhere.
          $endgroup$
          – mathcounterexamples.net
          Jan 5 at 8:30




          $begingroup$
          Yes this is what I’m referring to. A very classical result. M. Google will help you to find a proof somewhere.
          $endgroup$
          – mathcounterexamples.net
          Jan 5 at 8:30












          $begingroup$
          A proof and much more can be found in the book "The real numbers and real analysis" by Ethan Block.
          $endgroup$
          – Math_QED
          Jan 5 at 10:04




          $begingroup$
          A proof and much more can be found in the book "The real numbers and real analysis" by Ethan Block.
          $endgroup$
          – Math_QED
          Jan 5 at 10:04


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062499%2fis-theorem-1-19-in-rudins-analysis-missing-to-show-that-r-mathbbr%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bressuire

          Cabo Verde

          Gyllenstierna