Theorem 8.6.8. F: 1. Xry X Y 0 X Y R F 2
Theorem 8.6.8. F: 1. Xry X Y 0 X Y R F 2
Theorem 8.6.8. F: 1. Xry X Y 0 X Y R F 2
PROOF: this follows easily from the fact that I+ is closed under addition
and multiplication. We leave the details to be done as an excercise.
Problems
8.7 Inequalities
This is the third time we have used “≥” to name a relation. We might
have labeled this new relation by means of a symbol such as “≥F”. But
there is no to do this. Sine the system integral rational numbers with
addition and multiplication is isomorphic to the system (I, +, ∙) it follows
that the relation ≥ as defined above in the set of integral rational numbers
is isomorphic to the relation ≥ we had in I. Thus, we are free to interpret
such a statement as 6 ≥-5 as either an assertion about integers or an
assertion about the rational numbers 61 and -51.
In terms of the number line, x > y in F if and only if the rational point x
is at least as far to the right as the rational point y. Since F is closed under
subtraction we have the result similar to one in I that when x and y are
rational numbers.
Compute ad
Compute ad
Is ad = bc?
Ye
Compute ab=
s
cd
N
o
Is ad > bc?
Ye
Compute
s
ab>cd
N
o
Compute
ab<cd
Figure 8.8 flow chart for comparing aband cd when b and d are
positive.
and
-10731000<- since -107,300< -107,000
107100
Also
If a, b, and c are integer and c is positive, then ac>bc if and only if a>
b.
These results tie in nicely with our geometric notions about rational
numbers. When c is a positive integer, 1c is the length of any one of the
segments obtained when we break up the segment from 0 to 1 into c
pieces of equal length. And ac=a1c represents the point reached from the
origin by laying out a consecutive segments of length 1c in the proper
direction – to the right if a is positive and to the left a is negative. bc may
be interpreted similarly. We certainly should have the point ac at least as
far to the right as the point bc when and only when a ≥b.
Since all nonzero elements in F have reciprocals, results (c) and (d)
above are especially useful. If, for instance, we wish to find the maximum
and minimum for the set x-6 ≤7-3x ≤4, we may do so as follows.
x-6 ≤7-3x ≤4= x-6-7 ≤ -3x ≤4-7= x-13 ≤ -3x ≤ -3= x-13-13 ≥ -13-3x ≥ -13-
3= x133 ≥x ≥1= x1 ≤x ≤ 133.
We see immediately that the maximum of this set is 133 and the
minimum is 1. Note well the reseval of the inequalities at the third step
above.
As another example, we have x2x-1 ≤6= x1-6 ≤2x ≤1+6= x12-5 ≤ 122x ≤
127= x-52 ≤x ≤ 72 so that this set has a maximum of 72and a minimum of-
52.
Despite the fact that some of the basic facts about inequalities in I carry
over to F, the order situation in F is strikingly different from that in I. it
isfalse in F that when x<y we must have x+1 ≤y. For example, when x= 12
and y=1, we have x<y and yet x+1= 32 > 1.
This is easy to prove because we can show that x +y2 is between x and
y. This may be done as follows. From x<y it follows that x+x<y+x also
x+y<y+y. Then 2x<x+y<2x. And multiplying both sides of these two
inequalities by the positive number 12 we obtain x< x+y2<y.
(a) x≥x
(b) x≥y and y≥z implies x≥z
(c) x>y and y>z implies x>z
(d) x≥y or y ≥x
(e) x≥y and y≥x implies x=y
(f) x>y or y>x or x=y and only one of these may hold
(g) x+1>x
(h) x≥y if and only if x+z≥y+z
(i) x>y if and only if x+z>y+z
(j) x≥y and z≥w implies z+z≥y+w
(k) x≥y and z>w implies x+z>y+w.
PROBLEMS
1. Which of the following are true?
(a) 3719≥4919 (b) -3719≥-4919
(k) -25741000≥-19,65010,000.
1. Find the maximum and minimum (if any) for each of the following
sets:
(a) x2x≤1 (b) x-34≤x≤75
(g) x-4≤5-6≤3.
(a) We have 520 items we wish to sell to gross at least
$1780. What selling prices are feasible ones for us to set?
Let A be the set of rational numbers between 0 and 1. That is, A=xx∈F
and 0<x<1. 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are all in A. in fact if n is any positive
integer than 1n is in A. 23, 34, 45, 56, and 67 are all in A. in fact, nn+1 is in
A whenever n is a positive number.
The rational points on the number line which are in A all fall between
the poin o and the point 1. A is certainly a bounded set and yet A is
infinite.
We shall now put this notion of a set being bounded a bit being
precisely and less geometrically than we have done before. We shall say
that a rational number a is an upper bound for a nonempty set S of
rationals if x≤a for all x in S. A set which has an upper bound is said to be
bounded above. We shall say that a number b is a lower bound for S if b≤x
for all x in S. A set which has a lower bound is said to be bounded below. If
a set is bounded above and also bounded below than we say that it is
simply bounded.
For the set A=x0<x<1, 1, 5, 7, 9, and 106 are all upper bounds. -1000, -4,
-2, and 0 are all lower bounds for A. A is a bounded set.
The set B={xx=1n where n∈I+} is bounded above by 2 and below bi -2.
Hence B is a bounded set.
The set C={xx=nn+1 where n∈I+} has 10 as an upper bound and -50 as
a lower bound. Hence, C is bounded.
Notice that when we once find an upper bound for a set, than any larger
number will also be an upper bound for the same set. Also if we find any
one lower bound for a set, any smaller number will also be a lower bound.
What is the maximum of the above set B=1, 12, 13, 14, …? Evidently, 1
is the largest element in B sothat max(B)=1. What is the minimum of B?
There is none! We see that 1n+1<1n for any positive integer n. and any
element in B must be in the form 1n for some positive integer n. So, given
any element in B, there is another element in B which is smaller. Hence, B
can have no minimum.
The bounded setC=12, 23, 34, 45, …, as defined above has a minimum of
12 and yet has no minimum.
The bounded set A=x0<x<1 has neither a maximum nor a minimum. For
let x be any element of A. Then 0<x and there is a rational number y such
that 0<y<x. Then y∈A. Since y∈A, x cannot be the minimum of A. Thus, A
does not have a minimum. A similar argument may be used to show that A
has no maximum.
in the other words, it does not make sense to speak of the next rational
point to the right of the origin on the number line. There is no such
animal. Given any rational point to the right of the origin, we can find
another point to the right of 0 that is closer to 0.
Putting this another way, we claim that there is no such thing as the
rational point which is closest to the origin, and yet to the right of the
origin. Given any rational point to the right of the origin, we cand find
another point to the right of 0 that is closer to 0.
We state more briefly that a is the least upper bound for S by writing
“a=lub(S)”.
For the set B above we have lub(B)=1. Notice that when a set S a
maximum element, then maxS= lub(S).
How do we tell if a number is a lub for a set? First of all, a set must be
bounded above if it is to have a lub. For if a set is not bounded above it
has no upper bounds at all, let alone a least upper bound.
Suppose a is an upper bound for a set S. how can we show that is it the
least upper bound? We can prove that is by establishing any one of the
following:
For example, we may use the form (IV) to show that lub(C)=1 for the set
C above. But, before we do, we must mention a basic property of the
rationals called the Archimedean property:
Accepting this fact, weshall show that the lub of C=12, 23, 34, 45, … is 1.
We first see that when n is any positive integer we have n<n+1 so that
nn+1<1. Hence 1 is an upper bound for C. let d be any positive rational. By
the archimedian property of F, there isa positive integer n such that nd>1.
Then d>1n. Hence (-1)d<(-1)1n and 1-d<1-1n=nn-1n=n-1n<1. If n=1 then
d>1 and 1-d<0 so that every member of C is between 1-d and 1. If n≠1,
then n-1n is a member of S which falls between 1-d and 1. We conclude by
(IV) that lubC=1.
If we look at things from the left instead of from the right on the number
line, we are led to make the following definitions for a set S of rational
numbers. A number b is said to be the greatest lower bound (glb) for S if b
is the maximum of collection of all lower bounds for S.
For the sets A, B, and C above we have glb(A)=0, glb(B)=0, and glb(C)=
12. Note that when S has a minimum we have minS= glb(S). suppose b is a
lower bound for S. then b=glb(S) if any of the following holds:
PROOF: Let x=ab and y=cd where a, b, c, and d are positive integers. If
n is a positive integer we have nx=nab=nad if and only if nad>bc.
But by Theorem 6.16.2 we know that whatever the values of a, b,
c, and d, there does exist an n which makes this last equality
hold.