2
$\begingroup$

Why set of real numbers not a set of ordered pairs ?


We write $\mathbb{R}^2 = \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$, then we define addition and multiplication on this new set. Together with those definitions we call $\mathbb{R}^2$ as the set of complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$.

This is the gist of what I know from my book.

(I don't know much about complex numbers)


We can write any real number as $r = x + y$ ,where $x$ is a rational number and $y$ is a purely irrational number ($2\pi$ is correct value of y but not $2 + \pi$) $\qquad{(1})$.

A complex number is written as $z = x+ iy$, where $x$ and $y$ is real numbers $\qquad{(2})$.

Statement (1) and (2) are similar. We can say, by drawing a little bit of inspiration from the the definition of complex numbers, that $\mathbb{R} = \{(x,y): \ \ x\in \mathbb{Q}, y \in \mathbb{I}\} = \mathbb{Q}\times \mathbb{I}$.

Hence the set of complex numbers is a set of ordered pairs.

But this something that I have never seen anywhere.


  • I want know what is the fault in defining set of real numbers like this ?
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How would you define multiplication on the "ordered-pair" version of the reals? $\endgroup$ – mlg4080 Feb 2 '17 at 17:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Example of many rational-plus-irrational expressions for the same number: $0+(\sqrt2) = 1+(\sqrt2-1) =-17+(17+\sqrt 2)$ where in each case the stuff in parentheses is an irrational number and the stuff before that is rational. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Feb 2 '17 at 18:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I doubt that it can be defined properly. Generically, how would you select a representative of $\xi + \mathbb{Q}$ where $\xi$ is irrational? There are a few cases where we know a "special" representative, but in general, none of the elements is privileged over the others. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Feb 2 '17 at 18:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your basic premises about the real numbers are incorrect. "We can write any real number as $r=x+y$, where $x$ is a rational number and $y$ is a purely irrational number" is false (take $r$ to be a rational number). And as others have mentioned, there is no consistent way to define "purely irrational number" in the way you would like to. $\endgroup$ – Greg Martin Feb 2 '17 at 18:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Good luck trying to define "purely irrational" in a way that makes the rational-plus-purely-irrational representations of all (irrational) real numbers unique. The set of purely-irrational numbers in such a situation cannot be a Borel set, which makes it very unlikely to have a reasonably understandable definition. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Feb 2 '17 at 22:31
1
$\begingroup$

This answer is essentially a re-organization and amplification of what I said in the comments. If one wants to represent every real number $r$ uniquely as $x+y$ with $x$ rational and $y$ taken from some specific set $S$ of irrationals, then two problems arise. The lesser problem is that a rational number $r$ cannot be the sum of a rational and an irrational number; this problem is easily circumvented by allowing $S$ to contain one rational number, say $0$. The bigger problem is to produce the rest of $S$ in a reasonable way. We need $S$ to contain exactly one member from each coset of $\mathbb Q$ in the additive group $\mathbb R$. Such sets exist as an consequence of the axiom of choice. But that's the only way to get such sets. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice does not prove the existence of such a set, and even with the axiom of choice it's consistent with there being no definable such $S$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "Such sets exist by AoC" - are such sets constructible? $\endgroup$ – GFauxPas Feb 3 '17 at 14:39
  • $\begingroup$ @GFauxPas I assume you mean "constructible" in the sense of Gödel's consistency proof for AC+GCH. Then such sets $S$ need not be constructible without some further assumptions. In fact, if there is a constructible one then there is also a definable one, namely the first one in the standard well-ordering of the constructible sets. (Of course, it's consistent that some such $S$ is constructible, simply because it's consistent that all sets are constructible --- Gödel's $V=L$.) $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Feb 3 '17 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasBlass I think mlg4080's comment is also a fair point- "How would you define multiplication on the "ordered-pair" version of the reals?" What do you think about it ? $\endgroup$ – A---B Feb 3 '17 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasBlass I meant in the sense of a constructive proof. What would be an example of such a set? $\endgroup$ – GFauxPas Feb 3 '17 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ @GFauxPas Since the existence of such a set can't be proved in ZF (meaning classical Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice), it's hard to imagine any constructive framework that could prove the existence of such a set. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Feb 3 '17 at 18:35

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.