Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

For a given cut set $\alpha$, what is the intuition behind considering the set of all such $p$'s such that some number less than $-p$ does not belong $\alpha$ as the inverse of $\alpha$ ? i.e. $\beta=\{p: \exists r>0 \text{such that} -p-r \notin \alpha\}$

BTW, a cut set or a Dedekind cut set $\alpha$ is a subset of $Q$ with the following properties :

1) $\alpha \neq \phi$ and $\alpha \neq Q$

2) if $p \in \alpha$ and $q < p$ then $q \in \alpha$

3) $\alpha$ should not have any greatest element

For example, for the rational number 2 the inverse is -2. Now 2 is represented by the set of rational numbers less than it and -2 is represented by the set of rational numbers less than it. So, if the cut set $\alpha$ represents a rational number then the inverse of $\alpha$ is the set $\{-p-r : p\notin \alpha , r >0\}$. But if the cut set does not represent a rational number then is the above definition is correct ? I think we will miss the first rational number which does not belong to $\alpha$ intuitively. Should not the set $\{-p : p\notin \alpha \}$ be the inverse now ? Confused.

share|improve this question
    
Could you please define what exactly a cut set is ? A quick google search only gives a definition in the context of graphs. I have a feeling you want to talk about Dedekind cuts in case of which it would be better if we knew what a 'cut set' of a Dedekind cut is. –  nsoum Jun 28 '13 at 13:41
    
In 1), the "or" should be an "and". –  Michael Greinecker Jul 3 '13 at 2:31
    
Could you be more explicit in your explanation of the inverse of $\alpha$? In particular, could you write it as a set? –  Michael Albanese Jul 4 '13 at 6:07

1 Answer 1

If we have $\alpha$ and simply take $\beta = \{-x\mid x\in \alpha\}$ then this is not a cut set - it is "the wrong half". So we think that $\gamma:=\mathbb Q\setminus \beta$ is a better idea, but that also poses problem, namely when $\alpha$ happens to represent a rational number. The somewhat indirect sounding formulation you quote is used to circumvent this las t specific problem.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your reply. But, I think there should be some better motivation for this. –  sosha Jun 28 '13 at 13:55

Your Answer

 
discard

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.