Define a Dedekind cut and show the given set is(n't) a Dedekind cut

  • Thread starter docnet
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Cut Set
In summary, a subset ##L\subset \mathbb{Q}## is a Dedekind cut if it is proper, has no maximal element, and satisfies the third property. However, even if ##L## is a Dedekind cut, its powerset may not also be a Dedekind cut. In the conversation, it is shown that ##P=\{x^4|x\in L\}## is not a Dedekind cut, but ##M=\{23x|x\in L\}## is a Dedekind cut.
  • #1
docnet
Gold Member
799
486
Homework Statement
a) What is a Dedekind cut? Give the precise definition.

b) Let ##L## be a Dedekind cut. Is ##P=\{x^4|x\in L\}## a Dedekind cut?

c) Let ##L## be a Dedekind cut. Is ##P=\{23x|x\in L\}## a Dedekind cut?
Relevant Equations
##\mathbb{Q}##
a) a subset ##L\subset \mathbb{Q}## is a Dedekind cut if ##L## is proper, ##L## has no maximal element, and
$$\forall a,b\in \mathbb{Q}, [(a<b)\land( b\in L)\Longrightarrow a\in L]$$

b)
Is ##P=\{x^4|x\in L\}## a Dedekind cut?

P is proper:
$$(a\in L)\Longrightarrow (a^4\in P)\Longrightarrow P\neq \emptyset$$ $$(-1\in \mathbb{Q})\land (-1\notin P)\Longrightarrow P\neq \mathbb{Q}$$ So ##P## is a proper set.

P has no maximal element:
$$(\forall x \in L, x<d)\Longrightarrow( \forall x^4 \in P, x^4<d^4)$$ So ##P## has no maximal element.

P does not satisfy the 3rd property:
$$(-1\in \mathbb{Q})\land (a^4 \in P)\land(-1<a^4)\land (-1\notin P)$$ So ##P## is not a Dedekind cut.c)
Is ##M=\{23x|x\in L\}## a Dedekind cut?

M is proper:
$$(x\in L)\Longrightarrow (23x \in M)\Longrightarrow M\neq \emptyset$$ $$(L\neq \mathbb{Q})\Longrightarrow (d\notin L\quad \text{for some}\quad d\in\mathbb{Q})$$ $$\Longrightarrow( \mathbb{Q}\ni 23d\notin M)\Longrightarrow (M\neq \mathbb{Q})$$ So ##M## is a proper set.

M has no maximal element:
$$(\forall x\in L, x<d)\Longrightarrow (\forall 23x \in P, 23x<23d)$$ So ##M## has no maximal element.

M satisfies the 3rd property:
##L## satisfies the 3rd property, so $$\forall a,b\in \mathbb{Q}, [(a<b)\land( b\in L)\Longrightarrow a\in L]$$ Multiplying the ##a##s and ##b##s by ##23## leads to $$\forall 23a, 23b\in \mathbb{Q}, [(23a<23b)\land (23b\in M) \Longrightarrow 23a\in M]$$
##M## is a Dedekind cut.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You received no response since you asked no question, but if you want checking of your work, then in b, the argument for no maximal element contains a false claim, i.e. one can. have a<b but b^4< a^4, if a and b are negative.

In part c, the argument that the 3rd property holds is phrased incorrectly. namely one should assume that b is in L and a < 23b, then show a is in M.
 

FAQ: Define a Dedekind cut and show the given set is(n't) a Dedekind cut

What is a Dedekind cut?

A Dedekind cut is a concept in mathematics, specifically in the field of real analysis, that divides the set of real numbers into two non-empty subsets. These subsets are defined based on a specific rational number, called the "cut point," which separates the two subsets. The lower subset contains all real numbers less than the cut point, while the upper subset contains all real numbers greater than or equal to the cut point.

How is a Dedekind cut different from a Cauchy sequence?

While both Dedekind cuts and Cauchy sequences are methods for constructing the set of real numbers, they differ in their approach. Dedekind cuts divide the set of real numbers based on a specific rational number, while Cauchy sequences use a sequence of rational numbers that converge to a specific real number. Additionally, Dedekind cuts are used to define real numbers, while Cauchy sequences are used to show the completeness of the set of real numbers.

How do you show that a given set is a Dedekind cut?

To show that a given set is a Dedekind cut, you must first verify that the set is a partition of the set of real numbers. This means that the set must be non-empty, and the lower subset must contain all real numbers less than the cut point, while the upper subset must contain all real numbers greater than or equal to the cut point. Additionally, you must show that the set has no largest element in the lower subset and no smallest element in the upper subset.

Can you give an example of a set that is not a Dedekind cut?

Yes, a set that is not a Dedekind cut would be one that does not satisfy the properties of a Dedekind cut. For example, a set that has a largest element in the lower subset or a smallest element in the upper subset would not be a Dedekind cut. An example of this could be the set of all real numbers greater than or equal to 0, which has a smallest element in the upper subset (0) and therefore does not satisfy the properties of a Dedekind cut.

How are Dedekind cuts used in the construction of the real numbers?

Dedekind cuts are used in the construction of the real numbers by defining each real number as a set of rational numbers that satisfy the properties of a Dedekind cut. This allows for a rigorous and complete definition of the real numbers, which are essential in many areas of mathematics and science. Dedekind cuts also provide a way to compare and order real numbers, as well as perform arithmetic operations on them.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
2
Replies
42
Views
8K
3
Replies
93
Views
12K
Back
Top