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

  • Thread starter Ronn
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Properties
In summary, the conversation discusses the failure of Axiom (A5) in Dedekind's cut if maximum elements are included. The Archimedean property is used to prove this failure and a new definition of 0^* is proposed to fix it. The relationship between maximum elements and the Archimedean property is also explored. Finally, it is shown that defining a negative for all rational numbers leads to a contradiction, proving the failure of Axiom (A5).
  • #1
Ronn
3
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
  • #2
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 [tex]0^*[/tex] 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 [tex]0^*[/tex]. 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 [tex]0^*[/tex] we can have w=0. However we already proved earlier that r+s < 0 if [tex]r\in \alpha, s \in \beta[/tex] 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 [tex]b = \{p | \forall x\in a \,.\, p < -x \}[/tex]. So to arrive at a contradiction let's consider the cut of an irrational number. Let,
[tex]a = \{x | x^2 < 2 \textrm{ or x is negative}\}[/tex]
We can easily verify that this is indeed a cut. Assume that there exist a set b such that [tex]a+b = 0^*[/tex]. We know that a doesn't contain a maximum element. Since [tex]0^* \subseteq a +b[/tex], we have x+y = 0, for some x in a and y in b. There exist an element z>x in a, but then [tex]0 < z+y \in a+b[/tex] which is a contradiction since no positive number can be in a+b. The same proof works for all irrational numbers.
 

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

What is a Dedekind cut and why is it important?

A Dedekind cut is a method of defining real numbers using rational numbers, developed by mathematician Richard Dedekind. It is important because it provides a rigorous and precise way of defining the continuum of real numbers, which is essential in mathematical analysis and other areas of mathematics.

What are the properties of a Dedekind cut?

The properties of a Dedekind cut include: completeness, where every non-empty subset has a least upper bound; consistency, where if a number is in the set, all smaller numbers are also in the set; and the cut itself, which divides the rational numbers into two non-empty sets that are disjoint and have no common elements.

What happens if one of the properties of a Dedekind cut is omitted?

If one of the properties of a Dedekind cut is omitted, the resulting set may not accurately represent the continuum of real numbers. For example, if completeness is omitted, there may be gaps in the set or numbers that do not have a least upper bound.

Can a Dedekind cut have more than one least upper bound?

No, a Dedekind cut can only have one least upper bound, as this is a fundamental property of the cut. If there were multiple least upper bounds, the cut would not accurately represent the continuum of real numbers.

How does the omission of a property in a Dedekind cut affect mathematical analysis?

The omission of a property in a Dedekind cut can greatly affect mathematical analysis, as it may lead to inconsistencies or inaccuracies in calculations and proofs. It is essential for all properties of a Dedekind cut to be present in order to accurately represent the continuum of real numbers and ensure the validity of mathematical analysis.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Back
Top