4
$\begingroup$

The question I am working on is:

Use a proof by contradiction to prove that the sum of an irrational number and a rational number is irrational.

After searching through Google, to see if this particular question had been asked before, I found this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081012182747AA3AaHz

I am looking exclusively at Charles' answer. I understand the proof, and its steps, I just don't understand how it proves the original statement is true; I only see it as proving that, if you add two rational numbers, you get another rational number. Could someone help me?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you understand proof by contradiction? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Feb 14 '13 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ @ThomasAndrews Yes, I do. Essentially, the idea is that you proof that something, say $q$, implies something that is, say $p$, and something that isn't, say $\neg p$. Hence, $q \implies (p \wedge \neg p)$ Which is absurd: something can't both be and not be at the same time--unless, of course, we are discussing quantum mechanics. $\endgroup$ – Mack Feb 14 '13 at 13:37
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, now define your $p$ and $q$. $\endgroup$ – Joe Z. Feb 14 '13 at 13:39
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I know that $p$ would definitely be that "$i$ is irrational"; however, I am not sure exactly what $q$ would be. Would $q$ be "the sum of a rational and irrational number?" $\endgroup$ – Mack Feb 14 '13 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Mack q⟹(p∧¬p) isn't saying that something is: both be and not be at the same time For instance if p is true then ¬p is false, it's not saying that p=¬p, such would be false which is the same logic here: p∧¬p. Ultimately they're not the same, and they are logical opposites. $\endgroup$ – CTS_AE May 17 '17 at 4:38
6
$\begingroup$

He starts by assuming you can find rational $r$ and irrational $i$ that have rational sum $s$. Using a direct proof that the difference of two rationals is rational, he shows that this assumption leads to a contradiction. Therefore you cannot find a rational and irrational that sum to a rational, so the sum of a rational and irrational is always irrational.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, I see. It's as if we have two cases: a rational + irrational can equal either a rational or irrational; we've ruled out that it can't be rational, therefore, it must be irrational. Is that correct thinking? $\endgroup$ – Mack Feb 14 '13 at 13:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes. Basically, the definition of "irrational" is "not rational." So when he shows that a number is irrational and rational, he has his contradiction. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Feb 14 '13 at 13:46
0
$\begingroup$

Actually he proves more than that: he shows that if $r$ is rational and $i\in\mathbb R$, then the sum $r+i$ is rational if and only if the number $i$ is rational: $$ r\in\mathbb Q ~~\text{and}~~ r+i\in\mathbb Q \quad\Rightarrow\quad i\in\mathbb Q $$ hence $$ r\in\mathbb Q ~~\text{and}~~ i\notin\mathbb Q \quad\Rightarrow\quad r+i\notin\mathbb Q $$

$\endgroup$

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.