Interactive · 7 questions
This is a loose introduction to what the real numbers are. We denote this set by .
Irrationality of
First, let's check that the rationals have "gaps". Intuitively, we know there exists a positive "number" such that . But we can prove that it is impossible to express as a rational number .
Indeed, suppose for positive integers and .
Is the exponent of in the prime factorization of the LHS even or odd?
How about on the right-hand side?
We know that prime factorizations are unique, so this is impossible. Moreover, with trivial modifications we can also prove that , , and so on are irrational.
Dedekind Cuts
Now we know that our rationals have "holes" in them. So we need some way of extending the rationals to the set . However, we need a way to do so formally in terms of only .
Here's one way to do so. Imagine we have the real number line, of which the rationals (which we understand) are a dense subset. For each point on the line, we can make a cut -- some numbers fall to the left of the cut and some numbers fall to the right. The idea is to associate each real number with a position we can place the knife. This gives us a way to use to define .
Take a moment to think about what kind of definition this might lead to, then click Continue.
To formalize this, we use a Dedekind cut.
A Dedekind cut consists of two sets and which satisfies the following conditions:
(i) and are nonempty sets whose union is .
(ii) has no largest element.
(iii) Whenever and , . In particular, and are disjoint.
Then we define a real number to be a Dedekind cut; hence is the set of Dedekind cuts.
Which of these is a cut we might associate with the rational number ?
Now let's see if we can define the square root of ! One definition we might try is and
Does this definition work?
Fortunately, this isn't hard to fix. Just add the negative numbers to and remove them from .
Now we have a way to define using only rational numbers!
Here's another question to think about.
For which of the following number's cuts does have a smallest element?
Exactly -- it's precisely the rational numbers.
Bounds and Inequalities in
It takes a lot more work to show that you can add, subtract, etc. two real numbers, and this explanation is already getting long. However, using the definition above we can derive a very important property of .
First, we need to define what it means for in .
Let and . Which of these definitions makes sense for based on what we know about ?
This gives us one of the most important properties of , the least upper bound property.
Let be a subset of . Let be the set of real numbers with the property that for any we have . Then if is nonempty, it has a smallest element.
The real numbers in are called upper bounds. Essentially this says if is bounded above, then there is a least such bound. When this least upper bound exists, it is called the supremum for the set. Note that the supremum for need not belong to it!
If is the open interval , what is ?
The answer remains the same when . In both cases, the least upper bound is .
Finally, a brief sketch of the proof of our theorem -- basically, we take all the cuts in and consider the union of their left halves. Set this equal to , and let . One can then verify that is a cut in , and moreover any cuts less than are not bounds.