What if one of Dedekind cut's properties were omitted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ronn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Properties
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of omitting the property of maximum elements in Dedekind cuts, specifically regarding the failure of axiom (A5). The Archimedean property is identified as a key factor in understanding this failure, as it relates to the existence of largest elements. The proof of (A5) does not rely on the absence of maximum elements but rather on the definition of 0^*, which must be adjusted to accommodate cuts with maximum elements. A contradiction is demonstrated through the construction of a cut for irrational numbers, showing that the existence of a maximum leads to inconsistencies in the definitions of negative numbers. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the critical relationship between maximum elements, the Archimedean property, and the validity of Dedekind cuts.
Ronn
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello.

I have a question about Dedekind' cut.
Problem #20 of Baby rudin's p23 asks: prove why axiom (A5) on page 5 fails if cuts had maximum elements.

(A5): To every x in F( a field) corresponds an element -x in F such that x + (-x) = 0.

I guess Archimedean property is a starting point to prove A5 fails. To do that I need to understand the relation between the existence of largest element and Archimedean Property. In what sense are they related? I am puzzled. Please help me out.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You should go through the proof and observe where the maximum element property is used. The first place is in the proof of (A4). This can easily be fixed by letting 0^* be all non-positive rational numbers instead of all negative (it can easily be shown that it must be defined in this way, because for cuts with a maximum 0 must be included, but no positive number can be included). The proof of (A5) never use the fact that cuts don't have maximum elements, but it uses the old definition of 0^*. It starts to break down when the Archimedean property is used, since it's not necessarily true when w=0, but with the new definition of 0^* we can have w=0. However we already proved earlier that r+s < 0 if r\in \alpha, s \in \beta so it certainly can't work with this definition of the negative. We still need to prove that it can't work with any definition of the negative.

We can easily show that we can define a negative such that there exist a negative for all rational numbers. Simply let b = \{p | \forall x\in a \,.\, p &lt; -x \}. So to arrive at a contradiction let's consider the cut of an irrational number. Let,
a = \{x | x^2 &lt; 2 \textrm{ or x is negative}\}
We can easily verify that this is indeed a cut. Assume that there exist a set b such that a+b = 0^*. We know that a doesn't contain a maximum element. Since 0^* \subseteq a +b, we have x+y = 0, for some x in a and y in b. There exist an element z>x in a, but then 0 &lt; z+y \in a+b which is a contradiction since no positive number can be in a+b. The same proof works for all irrational numbers.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top