Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: There are rationals between any two reals? -- Baby Rudin

  1. #1 There are rationals between any two reals? -- Baby Rudin 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    In Principles of Mathematical Analysis 1.20(b), Rudin proves that between any two real numbers x and y, there exists a rational number p. His strategy is to "blow up" x and y by some integer n (generated by the archimedian property) such that ny - nx > 1. Then he attempts to locate another integer m that is between nx and ny, such that m - 1 < nx < m < ny. From here we have

    nx < m < ny

    and when we multiply each term by (1/n) we can say that

    x < m/n < y where p = m/n. Hence the proof is done.

    Now my question is as follows: how can Rudin just pick an m such that m - 1 < nx < m < ny?

    I certainly understand that we can use the archimedian property to find an m greater than nx, but how can we be SURE that this m is less than ny and even less than 1 unit distance greater than nx?

    Here is the proof in full from the text in case it helps:

    Pg 9

    If x in R, y in R, and x<y, then there exists a p in Q such that x<p<y.

    Since x<y, we have y-x>0, and the archimedean property furnishes a positive integer n such that

    Apply the archimedean property again, to obtain positive integers m1 and m2 such that m1>nx, m2>-nx. Then


    Hence there is an integer m ( with -m2<= m <= m1) such that

    m-1 <= nx < m

    If we combine these inequalities, we obtain

    nx<m<= 1 + nx < ny.

    Since n>0, it follows that

    x < m/n < y. This proves (b) with p = m/n.

    Reply With Quote  


  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    It seems pretty intuitive to me that if then we can find an integer between and . If and is an integer, then the next integer falls on and we can find no such . But if you think about it, the maximum distance from any real number to some integer is 1, so the condition guarantees that we have such an integer, and then it's clear also that .

    EDIT: Also, notice the inequalities and in the quoted proof. Due to the in , we can choose if nothing else, and this works. Or, may be closer to than a distance of 1.

    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by gwsinger View Post
    Now my question is as follows: how can Rudin just pick an m such that m - 1 < nx < m < ny?
    This easily follows from the fact that is a complete ordered field. I do not have the text from which you are working, but I DO know that Rudin works logically from first principles, in general. That is, I should be very surprised if you do not know what a complete ordered field is, or what the definition implies. If so, you should have no real difficulty with this.

    If you do, come back and ask again
    Reply With Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Calculus over the reals
    By AlexP in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 8th, 2011, 05:09 PM
  2. Design your baby !
    By evo4ata in forum Biology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 26th, 2009, 05:31 PM
  3. 1,000 posts baby...
    By DaBOB in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 20th, 2007, 10:09 PM
  4. And baby makes three...
    By pseudoscientist in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 18th, 2007, 06:45 AM
  5. Tetration of reals
    By MagiMaster in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 1st, 2006, 10:45 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts