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

The problem follows

"Using the Completeness Axiom for R, prove the Archimedian property of the real numbers : for any x in R, there is an integer n>0 such that n>x "

I tried to prove it in a reductio ad absurdumd. But I can't....

(I tried in this way) : for a fixed x in R, assume n<=x for all interger n. since left side diverges to infinity so, x cannot be fixed. therefore the assumption is not the case, there exists n s.t n>x.

I think my proof has some problems.. and I don't know how I can prove it using the Completeness Axiom.

Thanks you!

share|cite|improve this question

I'm not sure what form of the completeness axiom you're used to, but I guess we could use here the following: if a subset of the real numbers has an upper [lower] bound then it has a least [greatest] upper [lower] bound (supremum) (infimum).

Thus suppose the claim is false, so

$$\exists\,x\in\Bbb R\;\;s.t.\;\;\forall\,n\in\Bbb N\;,\;n<x$$

By the above, let

$$x_0:=\sup\Bbb N\;\implies \forall\,\epsilon>0\;\exists\,n_\epsilon\in\Bbb N\,\,\;s.t.\,\,\;x_0-\epsilon<n_\epsilon\le x_0$$

This means $\,x_0\in\Bbb N\,$ (why?) , but then the successor of $\;x_0\;$ is not longer bounded by $\,x_0\;$ (I'm assuming here Peano's Axioms for the naturals)

share|cite|improve this answer

How do you know the left side diverges to infinity?

(one method is to assume it doesn't, then apply completeness to show that assumption is absurd!)

share|cite|improve this answer

Without loss of generality let $x > 0$. For the sake of contradiction, let $n\leqslant x\forall n\in\mathbb N$. Let$S=\{{n\over x}: n\in\mathbb N\}$. Since S is bounded above, by completeness of R, it has a least upper bound, say$\alpha$. Then, $\alpha -(1/x) < \alpha$, so $\exists n_0\in\mathbb N$ such that $\alpha -(1/x) \leqslant (n_0/x)\Rightarrow \alpha\leqslant(n_0+1)/x$, a contradiction. Hence we must have an $n\in\mathbb N$ such that $n>x$.

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.