Proving there is no smallest positive number

  • Thread starter Uranian
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Positive
In summary: Since x cannot be negative, the answer is z. So, if z is the smallest number between x and zero, then z must be smaller than x. If z is smaller than x, then z must be equal to x. So, z must be the smallest number that is both smaller than x and equal to x. This is a contradiction, so the statement is false.
  • #1
Uranian
5
0

Homework Statement


"True or false: there is a smallest positive number. Explain."

Homework Equations


N/A, but for practice I'll try my hand at phrasing it mathematically:
[itex]\forall[/itex]x[itex]\in[/itex](0,∞)[itex]\exists[/itex]z[itex]\in[/itex](0,∞):(z<x)

The Attempt at a Solution


My issue with the question is mathematically proving it - I'm a bit paranoid because I've been losing a lot of marks on communication and I don't think it'll be enough for me in this particular class to simply say that the statement is false because there is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. So, I was thinking it could be proven in a way similar to how we prove there is no largest real number...
Let z be the smallest positive real number such that 0<z<x where x[itex]\in[/itex](0,∞):
let x=z-1
then:
z<z-1
0<-1 which is not true. Therefore, the statement is false and there is no smallest positive number.
Is this a logical argument? This is my first course in proofs, and I'm a freshman, so I don't feel very confident in constructing my arguments. Mainly I would just like some feedback, and if I'm doing something wrong, could someone hint towards the correct argument...? Any response is much appreciated : )
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If z<x, why does x=z-1 ? I would try a contradiction. Let x= the smallest positive number. Then there is no number z such that x>z>0. Let z=x/2... its a little course in the phrasing but you see what I'm trying to do?
 
  • #3
Right, that is a much better argument...I suppose I just misunderstood the proof that there is no largest real number which I came across in my calculus text. : \
 
  • #4
I do that all the time. Flip a sign here, switch all for exists there, and before you know it, you're proving the wrong thing. It got me once on a test >_<
 
  • #5
I see that you apparently understand the problem now.

One way to approach it would be to ask yourself, if given a positive number, x, what number is between x and zero?
 

FAQ: Proving there is no smallest positive number

What is the concept of a smallest positive number?

The concept of a smallest positive number refers to the idea that there is a smallest number that exists in the set of positive numbers. This means that no other number in the set is smaller than this number.

Why is proving that there is no smallest positive number important?

Proving that there is no smallest positive number is important because it helps us understand the concept of infinity and the nature of numbers. It also has implications in the fields of mathematics and philosophy.

How can we prove that there is no smallest positive number?

One way to prove that there is no smallest positive number is to use a proof by contradiction. Assume that there is a smallest positive number and then show that this assumption leads to a contradiction, proving that the original statement is false.

Is there a smallest positive number in the real numbers?

No, there is no smallest positive number in the real numbers. This is because the real numbers are infinitely dense, meaning that between any two numbers, there is always another number. Therefore, there is no number that is the absolute smallest.

What is the significance of proving that there is no smallest positive number?

Proving that there is no smallest positive number has significant implications in mathematics, as it helps us understand the nature of numbers and their infinite nature. It also has philosophical implications, as it challenges our understanding of the concept of infinity and the idea of a "smallest" or "largest" number.

Back
Top