4
$\begingroup$

Prove the Archimedean principle for $\mathbb{Q}$, the set of rational numbers. I know the proof for real numbers If not, then the nonempty set $S = \{nx \mid n ∈ \mathbb{N}\}$ has an upper bound $y$, and so by the least upper bound property of the reals, it has a least upper bound $u_∗$. But then $u_∗ − x < u_∗$ (since $x$ is positive) and so it follows that $u_∗ − x$ cannot be an upper bound of $S$. Hence there exists a natural number $m$ such that $u_∗ − x < mx$, that is, $u_∗ < (m + 1)x \in S$. This contradicts the fact that $u_∗$ is an upper bound of $S$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If $x \in \mathbb{Q}$, there are infinitely many numbers $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $nx \in \mathbb{N}$. This should help. $\endgroup$ – Siminore Sep 11 '14 at 7:55
1
$\begingroup$

Proving the Archimedean principle first for ${\mathbb R}$, using the $\sup$, is in a way cheating. This principle is already present in ${\mathbb N}$ and should be proven from the Peano axioms.

Archimedean principle for ${\mathbb N}$: Given natural numbers $x\geq 1$ and $y\geq0$ there is an $n\geq1 $ such that $n\>x>y$.

Proof. This is true for $y=0$ and all $x\geq1$. Assume that it is true for some $y\geq0$ and all $x\geq1$. Consider now $y+1$ and an arbitrary $x\geq1$. By the induction assumption there is an $n\geq1$ with $n\>x>y$, and putting $n':=n+1$ we have $$n'\>x=n x+x>y+x\geq y+1\ .$$

It is not difficult to extend this from ${\mathbb N}$ to ${\mathbb Q}_{>0}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Mathematical induction is a mathematical proof technique used to prove a given statement about any well-ordered set. Most commonly, it is used to establish statements for the set of all natural numbers. $\endgroup$ – iMath Oct 16 '17 at 14:03
1
$\begingroup$

The Archimedean property for $\mathbb Q$ says that :

for all $r_1,r_2 \in \mathbb Q$, there exists $n \in \mathbb N$ such that : $nr_1 \ge r_2$.

We may prove it by contradiction, assuming that :

there exists $r_1,r_2 \in \mathbb Q$ such that, for all $n \in \mathbb N$ : $nr_1 < r_2$.

We have $p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2 \in \mathbb Z$ such that : $r_1=\frac {p_1} {q_1}$ and $r_2=\frac {p_2} {q_2}$, and we can assume that $q_1,q_2 \in \mathbb Z^+$.

Then the above inequality gives us :

$n(q_2p_1) < (q_1p_2)$, for all $n$.

Thus, we have found $M_1,M_2 \in \mathbb N$ such that : $nM_1 < M_2$.

By uniqueness of quotient and reminder of the division in $\mathbb N$ we have that :

$M_2 = M_1k+h$, with $h < M_1$.

Thus :

$nM_1 < M_1k+h < M_1k+M_1 = M_1(k+1)$, for all $n$.

Now we let $n=(k+1)$ and we finally reach a contradiction :

$M_1(k+1) < M_1(k+1)$.

$\endgroup$

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.