Check my proof of 0 < |r - q| < epsilon. (Real # - Rational #) [duplicate]












-1












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Real Analysis Inequality Proof Involving Reals and Rationals $0 < |r - q| < varepsilon$

    2 answers




I am working on this exercise:



$$ forall varepsilon > 0, exists q in Q text{ where } 0 < |r - q| < varepsilon $$



To clarify, r is a real number, q is a rational number. This is what I have so far:



$$ 0 < |r - q| < varepsilon $$
$$ -varepsilon < (r-q) < varepsilon $$
$$ r - varepsilon < q < r + varepsilon $$



Then making use of a given theorem that "Between any two distinct real numbers there is a rational number and an irrational number," I conclude the proof by claiming that the inequality must hold by the theorem and given that $r - epsilon$ and $r + epsilon$ are two distinct real numbers.



Is this sufficient for the proof? Otherwise, would appreciate some help on how to proof the above inequality more rigorously.



I recall the Archimedean Property that for each positive real number r, there exists a positive integer n such that $frac{1}{n} < r$. There is a hint to use this condition, but I am unsure how to apply it into the proof.



Thanks in advance for any help!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Did real-analysis
Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Jan 13 at 20:36


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.


















  • $begingroup$
    Your proof is backwards. You're starting from the thing that you want to prove, then working backwards from that. Go the other way: start from what you know, and show that such a $q$ has to exist.
    $endgroup$
    – user3482749
    Jan 13 at 19:57










  • $begingroup$
    You already asked a similar question yesterday
    $endgroup$
    – rtybase
    Jan 13 at 20:24
















-1












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Real Analysis Inequality Proof Involving Reals and Rationals $0 < |r - q| < varepsilon$

    2 answers




I am working on this exercise:



$$ forall varepsilon > 0, exists q in Q text{ where } 0 < |r - q| < varepsilon $$



To clarify, r is a real number, q is a rational number. This is what I have so far:



$$ 0 < |r - q| < varepsilon $$
$$ -varepsilon < (r-q) < varepsilon $$
$$ r - varepsilon < q < r + varepsilon $$



Then making use of a given theorem that "Between any two distinct real numbers there is a rational number and an irrational number," I conclude the proof by claiming that the inequality must hold by the theorem and given that $r - epsilon$ and $r + epsilon$ are two distinct real numbers.



Is this sufficient for the proof? Otherwise, would appreciate some help on how to proof the above inequality more rigorously.



I recall the Archimedean Property that for each positive real number r, there exists a positive integer n such that $frac{1}{n} < r$. There is a hint to use this condition, but I am unsure how to apply it into the proof.



Thanks in advance for any help!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Did real-analysis
Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Jan 13 at 20:36


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.


















  • $begingroup$
    Your proof is backwards. You're starting from the thing that you want to prove, then working backwards from that. Go the other way: start from what you know, and show that such a $q$ has to exist.
    $endgroup$
    – user3482749
    Jan 13 at 19:57










  • $begingroup$
    You already asked a similar question yesterday
    $endgroup$
    – rtybase
    Jan 13 at 20:24














-1












-1








-1





$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Real Analysis Inequality Proof Involving Reals and Rationals $0 < |r - q| < varepsilon$

    2 answers




I am working on this exercise:



$$ forall varepsilon > 0, exists q in Q text{ where } 0 < |r - q| < varepsilon $$



To clarify, r is a real number, q is a rational number. This is what I have so far:



$$ 0 < |r - q| < varepsilon $$
$$ -varepsilon < (r-q) < varepsilon $$
$$ r - varepsilon < q < r + varepsilon $$



Then making use of a given theorem that "Between any two distinct real numbers there is a rational number and an irrational number," I conclude the proof by claiming that the inequality must hold by the theorem and given that $r - epsilon$ and $r + epsilon$ are two distinct real numbers.



Is this sufficient for the proof? Otherwise, would appreciate some help on how to proof the above inequality more rigorously.



I recall the Archimedean Property that for each positive real number r, there exists a positive integer n such that $frac{1}{n} < r$. There is a hint to use this condition, but I am unsure how to apply it into the proof.



Thanks in advance for any help!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$





This question already has an answer here:




  • Real Analysis Inequality Proof Involving Reals and Rationals $0 < |r - q| < varepsilon$

    2 answers




I am working on this exercise:



$$ forall varepsilon > 0, exists q in Q text{ where } 0 < |r - q| < varepsilon $$



To clarify, r is a real number, q is a rational number. This is what I have so far:



$$ 0 < |r - q| < varepsilon $$
$$ -varepsilon < (r-q) < varepsilon $$
$$ r - varepsilon < q < r + varepsilon $$



Then making use of a given theorem that "Between any two distinct real numbers there is a rational number and an irrational number," I conclude the proof by claiming that the inequality must hold by the theorem and given that $r - epsilon$ and $r + epsilon$ are two distinct real numbers.



Is this sufficient for the proof? Otherwise, would appreciate some help on how to proof the above inequality more rigorously.



I recall the Archimedean Property that for each positive real number r, there exists a positive integer n such that $frac{1}{n} < r$. There is a hint to use this condition, but I am unsure how to apply it into the proof.



Thanks in advance for any help!





This question already has an answer here:




  • Real Analysis Inequality Proof Involving Reals and Rationals $0 < |r - q| < varepsilon$

    2 answers








real-analysis proof-verification inequality proof-writing rational-numbers






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 13 at 19:53









Zen'zZen'z

243




243




marked as duplicate by Did real-analysis
Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Jan 13 at 20:36


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by Did real-analysis
Users with the  real-analysis badge can single-handedly close real-analysis questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Jan 13 at 20:36


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • $begingroup$
    Your proof is backwards. You're starting from the thing that you want to prove, then working backwards from that. Go the other way: start from what you know, and show that such a $q$ has to exist.
    $endgroup$
    – user3482749
    Jan 13 at 19:57










  • $begingroup$
    You already asked a similar question yesterday
    $endgroup$
    – rtybase
    Jan 13 at 20:24


















  • $begingroup$
    Your proof is backwards. You're starting from the thing that you want to prove, then working backwards from that. Go the other way: start from what you know, and show that such a $q$ has to exist.
    $endgroup$
    – user3482749
    Jan 13 at 19:57










  • $begingroup$
    You already asked a similar question yesterday
    $endgroup$
    – rtybase
    Jan 13 at 20:24
















$begingroup$
Your proof is backwards. You're starting from the thing that you want to prove, then working backwards from that. Go the other way: start from what you know, and show that such a $q$ has to exist.
$endgroup$
– user3482749
Jan 13 at 19:57




$begingroup$
Your proof is backwards. You're starting from the thing that you want to prove, then working backwards from that. Go the other way: start from what you know, and show that such a $q$ has to exist.
$endgroup$
– user3482749
Jan 13 at 19:57












$begingroup$
You already asked a similar question yesterday
$endgroup$
– rtybase
Jan 13 at 20:24




$begingroup$
You already asked a similar question yesterday
$endgroup$
– rtybase
Jan 13 at 20:24










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

If you're using the density of the rationals, then your proof is upside down, i.e., to fix it, go from $r - epsilon < q < r + epsilon$ to your claim.



Nevertheless, you're using a rocket launcher against a fly; in fact, the two statements are pretty much equal, so it's almost circular reasoning. Suppose WLOG $r > 0$; since you have the Archimedian property, fix $epsilon$ and pick the least $n$ such that $epsilon geq 1/n$. If $r < epsilon$ pick $q=0$ and you're done. Otherwise, pick the biggest $m$ such that $r - m/n geq 0$; since $r - (m+1)/n < 0$ (because $m$ is maximal), $r-m/n < 1/n leq epsilon$. Pick $q = m/n$ and we're done.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    If you're using the density of the rationals, then your proof is upside down, i.e., to fix it, go from $r - epsilon < q < r + epsilon$ to your claim.



    Nevertheless, you're using a rocket launcher against a fly; in fact, the two statements are pretty much equal, so it's almost circular reasoning. Suppose WLOG $r > 0$; since you have the Archimedian property, fix $epsilon$ and pick the least $n$ such that $epsilon geq 1/n$. If $r < epsilon$ pick $q=0$ and you're done. Otherwise, pick the biggest $m$ such that $r - m/n geq 0$; since $r - (m+1)/n < 0$ (because $m$ is maximal), $r-m/n < 1/n leq epsilon$. Pick $q = m/n$ and we're done.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      If you're using the density of the rationals, then your proof is upside down, i.e., to fix it, go from $r - epsilon < q < r + epsilon$ to your claim.



      Nevertheless, you're using a rocket launcher against a fly; in fact, the two statements are pretty much equal, so it's almost circular reasoning. Suppose WLOG $r > 0$; since you have the Archimedian property, fix $epsilon$ and pick the least $n$ such that $epsilon geq 1/n$. If $r < epsilon$ pick $q=0$ and you're done. Otherwise, pick the biggest $m$ such that $r - m/n geq 0$; since $r - (m+1)/n < 0$ (because $m$ is maximal), $r-m/n < 1/n leq epsilon$. Pick $q = m/n$ and we're done.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        If you're using the density of the rationals, then your proof is upside down, i.e., to fix it, go from $r - epsilon < q < r + epsilon$ to your claim.



        Nevertheless, you're using a rocket launcher against a fly; in fact, the two statements are pretty much equal, so it's almost circular reasoning. Suppose WLOG $r > 0$; since you have the Archimedian property, fix $epsilon$ and pick the least $n$ such that $epsilon geq 1/n$. If $r < epsilon$ pick $q=0$ and you're done. Otherwise, pick the biggest $m$ such that $r - m/n geq 0$; since $r - (m+1)/n < 0$ (because $m$ is maximal), $r-m/n < 1/n leq epsilon$. Pick $q = m/n$ and we're done.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        If you're using the density of the rationals, then your proof is upside down, i.e., to fix it, go from $r - epsilon < q < r + epsilon$ to your claim.



        Nevertheless, you're using a rocket launcher against a fly; in fact, the two statements are pretty much equal, so it's almost circular reasoning. Suppose WLOG $r > 0$; since you have the Archimedian property, fix $epsilon$ and pick the least $n$ such that $epsilon geq 1/n$. If $r < epsilon$ pick $q=0$ and you're done. Otherwise, pick the biggest $m$ such that $r - m/n geq 0$; since $r - (m+1)/n < 0$ (because $m$ is maximal), $r-m/n < 1/n leq epsilon$. Pick $q = m/n$ and we're done.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 13 at 20:13









        Lucas HenriqueLucas Henrique

        1,042414




        1,042414















            Popular posts from this blog

            Mario Kart Wii

            What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese