My Math Forum Dedekind's Theory of Irrationals

 Real Analysis Real Analysis Math Forum

 August 20th, 2017, 11:58 PM #1 Senior Member   Joined: Nov 2015 From: hyderabad Posts: 232 Thanks: 2 Dedekind's Theory of Irrationals I have gone through one video lecture about Dedekind's theory of Irrational numbers. I just want to make sure that what I have understood about it is right! Please let me know if I need to know something about it. We divide the whole set of numbers into two classes which is known as a cut/section. Let us say L and R the lower and upper classes respectively. Properties: 1. Each element in the upper class is greater than the elements in the lower class. 2. Each element should belong to either of the classes. 3. If the cut is a rational number, then L had the greatest number and R will not have the least number or 4. If the cut is a rational number, then L doesn't have a greatest number and R has the least number. 5. If the cut is an irrational number then both the classes will not have the greatest & least members respectively. Since the aggregate of the classes are larger than the rational numbers themselves, the additional members are called as irrational numbers. Please go through it and let me know any more points ðŸ˜Š
 August 21st, 2017, 01:14 AM #2 Math Team     Joined: Jul 2011 From: North America, 42nd parallel Posts: 3,372 Thanks: 233 Hi For 2 you should note any irrational number cut does not belong to L or R 3 and 4 can be combined by stating L contains all real numbers less than the Dedekind Cut , R contains all real numbers greater than or equal to the Dedekind Cut. If a cut is a rational number then it belongs ro R. Last edited by agentredlum; August 21st, 2017 at 01:25 AM.
August 21st, 2017, 01:16 AM   #3
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2015

Posts: 232
Thanks: 2

Quote:
 Originally Posted by agentredlum Hi For 2 you should note any irrational number does not belong to L or R 3 and 4 can be combined by stating L contains all real numbers less than the Dedekind Cut , R contains all real numbers less than or equal to the Dedekind Cut. If a cut is a rational number then it belongs ro R.
Sorry! I forget to include that point

Thanks for that ðŸ˜Š

August 21st, 2017, 01:21 AM   #4
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2015

Posts: 232
Thanks: 2

Quote:
 Originally Posted by agentredlum Hi For 2 you should note any irrational number cut does not belong to L or R 3 and 4 can be combined by stating L contains all real numbers less than the Dedekind Cut , R contains all real numbers less than or equal to the Dedekind Cut. If a cut is a rational number then it belongs ro R.
I think here you have mentioned less than or equal to instead of great than or equal to!?

 August 21st, 2017, 01:21 AM #5 Math Team     Joined: Jul 2011 From: North America, 42nd parallel Posts: 3,372 Thanks: 233 Note my edited post , I forgot to include the word 'cut' between the words 'number' and 'does'
August 21st, 2017, 01:23 AM   #6
Math Team

Joined: Jul 2011
From: North America, 42nd parallel

Posts: 3,372
Thanks: 233

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lalitha183 I think here you have mentioned less than or equal to instead of great than or equal to!?
Oh shoot , you're right!!!

@#\$%!!!

I fixed it , thank you

Last edited by agentredlum; August 21st, 2017 at 01:28 AM.

August 21st, 2017, 11:40 AM   #7
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,157
Thanks: 631

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lalitha183 We divide the whole set of numbers into two classes ...
Which set of numbers?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lalitha183 5. If the cut is an irrational number ...
If you already have the irrational numbers, then what is the point of the exercise?

The point is to construct the reals out of the rationals. At the start of the construction you don't have any irrational numbers.

August 21st, 2017, 08:09 PM   #8
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2015

Posts: 232
Thanks: 2

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Maschke Which set of numbers? If you already have the irrational numbers, then what is the point of the exercise? The point is to construct the reals out of the rationals. At the start of the construction you don't have any irrational numbers.
Sorry about including all the points together!

At first, there are only Rational numbers and we divide it into two classes, later when we found that there are gaps in between Rational numbers, we have named the additional numbers as Irrationals and together the Reals.

August 21st, 2017, 08:36 PM   #9
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,157
Thanks: 631

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lalitha183 Sorry about including all the points together! At first, there are only Rational numbers and we divide it into two classes, later when we found that there are gaps in between Rational numbers, we have named the additional numbers as Irrationals and together the Reals.
Yes correct. Just wanted to make sure that was clear. If someone ever challenges us to prove that the set of reals exists, we can whip out this argument. "If you believe in the rationals we can construct the reals." Otherwise nobody ever cares about it. Nobody actually believes that a real number is a pair of sets of rationals. Now we're into philosophy! There are many constructions of the reals. The real numbers are the abstraction represented by all of our models. They aren't the models themselves. In which case ... what are they exactly? Don't worry this won't be in your math curriculum

 August 21st, 2017, 08:41 PM #10 Senior Member   Joined: Nov 2015 From: hyderabad Posts: 232 Thanks: 2 Thank you. It's nice to get challenges from you That way I can learn more things

 Tags dedekind, irrationals, theory

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ActSci Real Analysis 16 September 1st, 2015 11:51 AM complicatemodulus Number Theory 113 August 20th, 2015 05:08 AM shunya Elementary Math 1 March 20th, 2014 01:46 PM nikkor180 Real Analysis 1 August 15th, 2011 02:12 PM tinynerdi Real Analysis 0 October 10th, 2010 03:40 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top