|February 22nd, 2017, 05:48 AM||#1|
Joined: Jan 2016
From: United Kingdom
The Completeness Axiom Of the Reals
I've been taught the completeness axiom for the real numbers in my calculus lectures, but whilst reading an analysis book I discovered an axiom with the same name, but different in its presentation:
(lecture definition) every convex subset of the real numbers is an interval.
(book) every sequence of real numbers which is increasing and bounded above converges to a real number.
For both, I can see there is a need to "fill in" the real number line. But is one implied by the other? Surely there can be only one such "Axiom"? What's the difference, if any?
Last edited by skipjack; February 22nd, 2017 at 11:23 AM.
|February 22nd, 2017, 11:05 AM||#2|
Joined: Aug 2012
It's normal for there to be several equivalent characterizations of some property, and for different texts to use one as the definition and prove the others as theorems. Since the conditions are equivalent (meaning that if you assume either one you can prove the other) it makes no difference.
|February 27th, 2017, 09:37 AM||#3|
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey
1) means there are no missing points on any line in S (Every Cauchy Sequence converges).
2) is a Cauchy sequence (No missing points on any line)
|axiom, completeness, reals|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Completeness Relation||GradualTint||Complex Analysis||0||May 24th, 2015 11:17 AM|
|Is the completeness of the real number line equivalent to Dedekind's axiom?||RyanPowers||Real Analysis||7||September 25th, 2014 10:55 AM|
|Completeness, consistency, and what we can know||v8archie||Math||3||April 7th, 2014 07:30 PM|
|Countability and completeness||Huitzyl||Real Analysis||1||August 2nd, 2012 02:28 PM|
|Gödel's Completeness Theorem||Hyperreal_Logic||Applied Math||0||December 31st, 2009 06:27 PM|