Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am trying to prove that if $x\in \mathbb{R}$,$y\in \mathbb{R}$ and $x<y$,then there exists a rational $p$ such that $x<r<y$.

Here is what I tried to do:

I am trying to show that given $x$,$y$,there exist $m$ and $n$ such that $x<r=\frac{m}{n}<y$ where $m$ and $n$ are naturals or $$nx<m<ny$$

By the Archimedean property, as $x<y$,

$y-x>0$ so $n(y-x)>1$ for some $n\in \mathbb{N}$.So, $ny>1+nx$.

There must also be an integer $m$ between $nx$ and $1+nx$ so that $nx<m\leq 1+nx$

Which gives $nx<m<ny$, which completes the proof.

Is this proof correct?

I just read Arkeet's comment and I think the statement "There must also be an integer $m$ between $nx$ and $1+nx$" needs a formal proof.I don't think I have one at hand.

share|cite|improve this question
Looks correct. Are you able to justify why an integer $m$ with $nx < m \le 1+nx$ exists? – arkeet Dec 10 '12 at 15:30
I think that is where I have some difficulty. – Richard Nash Dec 10 '12 at 15:33
Let $m$ be the smallest natural number, which satisfies $nx < m$ (exists because of well ordering). Then $m - xn <= 1$ because otherwise is $xn < m-1$. – Maikel Dec 10 '12 at 15:36
OK, the set of integers larger than $nx$ has a smallest element. I just noticed, however, that unless $x$ is nonnegative, $m$ may have to be negative (so not a natural number), so you might have to do a bit more work as the set of integers larger than $nx$ may not be a subset of $\mathbb{N}$. – arkeet Dec 10 '12 at 15:38
For negatives you should say something. If $x$ and $y$ are negative, multiply by $-n$, etc. Otherwise $y$ is positive and we need to find $n$ and $m$, such that $0 < m \leq ny$. Should I remove my "answer"? – Maikel Dec 10 '12 at 15:41
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The part of the proof that you are missing (mentioned in Arkeet's comment) is essentially the existence of the integer part, that is if $x\in \mathbb{R}$ then $\exists k\in \mathbb{N}:k<x< k+1$. (apply this to $nx$ and you are done).

Proof of the existence of integer part:

Let $x\in \mathbb{R}$ and $S=\left\{ k\in \mathbb{Z} :k>x \right\}$. Then $S \subseteq \mathbb{Z}$ is bounded below by $x$ and so $S$ has a least element, $k_0\in \mathbb{Z}$. Then $k_0-1\notin S\Rightarrow k_0-1\le x$ while $k_0\in S\Rightarrow k_0>x$. Therefore by letting $k=k_0-1$ we have that $k<x<k+1$. That $k$ is called the integer part of $x$

share|cite|improve this answer

This seems valid for me as long as you rely on knowledge about the embedding of natural numbers into the real numbers and $x$ and $y$ are positive. You still need to say, what happens if $x < y \leq 0$ or $x < 0 < y$.

As an alternative to this approach, you could have used that $\mathbb Q$ is dense in $\mathbb R$ or that real numbers are suprema of subsets in $\mathbb Q$. It depends a little how you defined the real numbers or what you already assume to know.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.