So the definition of a Dedekind cut is: a = sup{r $\in$ $\mathbb{Q}$: r < a} for each a $\in$ $\mathbb{R}$. Subsets a $\in$ $\mathbb{Q}$ having the form {r $\in$ $\mathbb{Q}$ : r < a} satisfy three properties:

(i) a $\neq$ Q and a is nonempty.

(ii) if r $\in$ a, s $\in$ $\mathbb{Q}$, and s < r, then s $\in$ a.

(iii) a contains no largest rational.

What I'm not understanding is 4 things:

1) Why can't a contain a largest rational number? I mean, on one hand, if it does, then the set is bounded? But the set is bounded.

2) Is a a set or is a some number in the real numbers line? But if it's a real number what I'm confused is; it's a set. It's a set that satisfies a property?

3) So a $\in$ $\mathbb{R}$, but is a $\in$ $\mathbb{Q}$?

4) How is $\mathbb{Q}$ a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ just from the definition of a Dedekind cut?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dedekind cut has not been defined properly. A Dedekind cut is a certain kind of set of rationals. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Aug 13 '15 at 3:21

That is not the definition of a Dedekind cut. Rather, it's a proper subset $A\subset \mathbb{Q}$ that's downward closed (that is, if $x\leq y$ with $y\in A$, then $x\in A$) such that $A$ contains no greatest element. (There are a couple of equivalent definitions that are also often used; see, for example, Wikipedia for some alternatives.) It looks like you're confusing the set $A$ with the real number it represents. Identifying $A$ with a real number is the point of this construction, but it's not immediate; we're trying to construct $\mathbb{R}$ from just $\mathbb{Q}$, and $A$ is a subset of $\mathbb{Q}$.

To answer your specific questions:

1) It's not a crucial part of the construction, but it does help with the uniqueness. Ultimately, we want an embedding $\mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{R}$ such that a Dedekind cut $A$ is just $A = \{q\in \mathbb{Q}:\, q < A\}$. Of course, that expression is currently meaningless; I haven't put an order on $\mathbb{R}$ or described that embedding. But intuitively, the Dedekind cut corresponding a number $x$ on the real number line is the set of rationals $q < x$. Making that intuition rigorous is the point of this construction. Remember, we don't even have the real number line yet; we just have $\mathbb{Q}$.

2) It's a set of rationals. Forget anything about the real number line; the point of Dedekind cuts is to rigorously construct it from $\mathbb{Q}$.

3) A Dedekind cut $A$ is a subset of $\mathbb{Q}$. In this construction, $\mathbb{R}$ is a set of subsets of $\mathbb{Q}$. (For right now, forget the usual embedding of $\mathbb{Q}$ as a set of points on $\mathbb{R}$. It takes a little bit of work to produce that from this particular construction of $\mathbb{R}$.)

4) It's not quite immediate from the definition, but the embedding maps $q\in \mathbb{Q}$ to the Dedekind cut $A_q = \{q'\in \mathbb{Q}:\, q' < q\}$.


the point is to create a collection of objects that we can map the rationals into injectively.

A cut is supposed to model a real number $x.$ The cut is $\{ q < x \}.$ (Of course, we can't actually use $x$ since that's what we are trying to define.)

If $x$ is rational then we could end up with two sets representing $x$: $\{ q < x \}$ and $\{ q \leq x \}$ by banning sets with a maximum we outlaw the second case.

We define $\mathbb{R}$ to be set of such cuts. We can map $\mathbb{Q}$ into $\mathbb{R}$ by the map $$ a \mapsto \{ a < q\}. $$ It is then typically identified its image under this map.

( I have a lot of discussion of the motivation for this definition in my book "Proof patterns").


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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