Mixing
Proof explanation of $``exists xinmathbb{R}$ with $x^2=2"$
$begingroup$
Can someone please help me break down the proof below from $(*)$ onwards. I'm lost at what is going on and where the proceeding steps are coming from. Is this a proof by contradiction? Why are we assuming $M^2lt 2 , M^2gt 2$, and choosing $delta$ to be the minimum of $frac{2-M^2}{5}$ and $1$?
Theorem 2.13
(Square root 2 exists). There exists $xinmathbb{R}$ with $x^2=2.$
Proof.
Define $$A={yinmathbb{R}|y^2 leq{2}}.$$
As $0^2leq{2}$, we have $0in{A}$, so $A$ is non-empty. Now suppose $yinmathbb{R}$ has $ygeq{2}$, then $y^2geq{4}$, so $ynotin{A}$. Thus, $2$ is an upper bound for A and hence A is bounded above. Therefore, by the completeness axiom, $M=sup(A)$ exists. Note that $Mgeq{1}$ as $1in{A}$ and $Mleq{2}$ is an upper bound for A.
$(*)$
Suppose $M^2lt{2}$. Choose $deltagt{0}$ with $deltalt $ min$(frac{2-M^2}{5},1)$, and then define $ y=M+delta$. As $deltalt{1}$, we have $delta^2 lt{delta}$ and so
$$y^2=(M+delta)^2=M^2+2Mdelta+delta^2leq M^2+4delta+delta=M^2+5deltalt 2.$$
Thus $yin A$, but this is a contradiction as $ygt M$. Therefore $M^2geq 2$.
Suppose $M^2gt 2$. Choose $delta gt 0$ with $deltalt $min$(M,frac{M^2-2}{2M})$ so that $M^2-2Mdelta gt 2$ and $M-deltagt 0$. Then,
$$(M-delta)^2=M^2-2Mdelta+delta^2geq M^2-2Mdeltagt 2.$$
Now if $ygeq (M-delta)$, then $y^2geq (M-delta)^2 gt 2$ so $ynotin A$. Thus $M-delta$ is an upper bound for $A$, contradicting the fact that $M$ is the supremum of $A$
Since $M^2 lt 2$ and $M^2gt 2$ both lead to contradictions, we conclude that $M^2=2$, as required.
real-analysis proof-explanation intuition real-numbers
edited Jan 3 at 23:46
Bernard
119k740113
asked Jan 3 at 23:42
ImranImran
30715
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can someone please help me break down the proof below from $(*)$ onwards. I'm lost at what is going on and where the proceeding steps are coming from. Is this a proof by contradiction? Why are we assuming $M^2lt 2 , M^2gt 2$, and choosing $delta$ to be the minimum of $frac{2-M^2}{5}$ and $1$?
Theorem 2.13
(Square root 2 exists). There exists $xinmathbb{R}$ with $x^2=2.$
Proof.
Define $$A={yinmathbb{R}|y^2 leq{2}}.$$
As $0^2leq{2}$, we have $0in{A}$, so $A$ is non-empty. Now suppose $yinmathbb{R}$ has $ygeq{2}$, then $y^2geq{4}$, so $ynotin{A}$. Thus, $2$ is an upper bound for A and hence A is bounded above. Therefore, by the completeness axiom, $M=sup(A)$ exists. Note that $Mgeq{1}$ as $1in{A}$ and $Mleq{2}$ is an upper bound for A.
$(*)$
Suppose $M^2lt{2}$. Choose $deltagt{0}$ with $deltalt $ min$(frac{2-M^2}{5},1)$, and then define $ y=M+delta$. As $deltalt{1}$, we have $delta^2 lt{delta}$ and so
$$y^2=(M+delta)^2=M^2+2Mdelta+delta^2leq M^2+4delta+delta=M^2+5deltalt 2.$$
Thus $yin A$, but this is a contradiction as $ygt M$. Therefore $M^2geq 2$.
Suppose $M^2gt 2$. Choose $delta gt 0$ with $deltalt $min$(M,frac{M^2-2}{2M})$ so that $M^2-2Mdelta gt 2$ and $M-deltagt 0$. Then,
$$(M-delta)^2=M^2-2Mdelta+delta^2geq M^2-2Mdeltagt 2.$$
Now if $ygeq (M-delta)$, then $y^2geq (M-delta)^2 gt 2$ so $ynotin A$. Thus $M-delta$ is an upper bound for $A$, contradicting the fact that $M$ is the supremum of $A$
Since $M^2 lt 2$ and $M^2gt 2$ both lead to contradictions, we conclude that $M^2=2$, as required.
real-analysis proof-explanation intuition real-numbers
edited Jan 3 at 23:46
Bernard
119k740113
asked Jan 3 at 23:42
ImranImran
30715
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can someone please help me break down the proof below from $(*)$ onwards. I'm lost at what is going on and where the proceeding steps are coming from. Is this a proof by contradiction? Why are we assuming $M^2lt 2 , M^2gt 2$, and choosing $delta$ to be the minimum of $frac{2-M^2}{5}$ and $1$?
Theorem 2.13
(Square root 2 exists). There exists $xinmathbb{R}$ with $x^2=2.$
Proof.
Define $$A={yinmathbb{R}|y^2 leq{2}}.$$
As $0^2leq{2}$, we have $0in{A}$, so $A$ is non-empty. Now suppose $yinmathbb{R}$ has $ygeq{2}$, then $y^2geq{4}$, so $ynotin{A}$. Thus, $2$ is an upper bound for A and hence A is bounded above. Therefore, by the completeness axiom, $M=sup(A)$ exists. Note that $Mgeq{1}$ as $1in{A}$ and $Mleq{2}$ is an upper bound for A.
$(*)$
Suppose $M^2lt{2}$. Choose $deltagt{0}$ with $deltalt $ min$(frac{2-M^2}{5},1)$, and then define $ y=M+delta$. As $deltalt{1}$, we have $delta^2 lt{delta}$ and so
$$y^2=(M+delta)^2=M^2+2Mdelta+delta^2leq M^2+4delta+delta=M^2+5deltalt 2.$$
Thus $yin A$, but this is a contradiction as $ygt M$. Therefore $M^2geq 2$.
Suppose $M^2gt 2$. Choose $delta gt 0$ with $deltalt $min$(M,frac{M^2-2}{2M})$ so that $M^2-2Mdelta gt 2$ and $M-deltagt 0$. Then,
$$(M-delta)^2=M^2-2Mdelta+delta^2geq M^2-2Mdeltagt 2.$$
Now if $ygeq (M-delta)$, then $y^2geq (M-delta)^2 gt 2$ so $ynotin A$. Thus $M-delta$ is an upper bound for $A$, contradicting the fact that $M$ is the supremum of $A$
Since $M^2 lt 2$ and $M^2gt 2$ both lead to contradictions, we conclude that $M^2=2$, as required.
real-analysis proof-explanation intuition real-numbers
edited Jan 3 at 23:46
Bernard
119k740113
asked Jan 3 at 23:42
ImranImran
30715
$endgroup$
Can someone please help me break down the proof below from $(*)$ onwards. I'm lost at what is going on and where the proceeding steps are coming from. Is this a proof by contradiction? Why are we assuming $M^2lt 2 , M^2gt 2$, and choosing $delta$ to be the minimum of $frac{2-M^2}{5}$ and $1$?
Theorem 2.13
(Square root 2 exists). There exists $xinmathbb{R}$ with $x^2=2.$
Proof.
Define $$A={yinmathbb{R}|y^2 leq{2}}.$$
As $0^2leq{2}$, we have $0in{A}$, so $A$ is non-empty. Now suppose $yinmathbb{R}$ has $ygeq{2}$, then $y^2geq{4}$, so $ynotin{A}$. Thus, $2$ is an upper bound for A and hence A is bounded above. Therefore, by the completeness axiom, $M=sup(A)$ exists. Note that $Mgeq{1}$ as $1in{A}$ and $Mleq{2}$ is an upper bound for A.
$(*)$
Suppose $M^2lt{2}$. Choose $deltagt{0}$ with $deltalt $ min$(frac{2-M^2}{5},1)$, and then define $ y=M+delta$. As $deltalt{1}$, we have $delta^2 lt{delta}$ and so
$$y^2=(M+delta)^2=M^2+2Mdelta+delta^2leq M^2+4delta+delta=M^2+5deltalt 2.$$
Thus $yin A$, but this is a contradiction as $ygt M$. Therefore $M^2geq 2$.
Suppose $M^2gt 2$. Choose $delta gt 0$ with $deltalt $min$(M,frac{M^2-2}{2M})$ so that $M^2-2Mdelta gt 2$ and $M-deltagt 0$. Then,
$$(M-delta)^2=M^2-2Mdelta+delta^2geq M^2-2Mdeltagt 2.$$
Now if $ygeq (M-delta)$, then $y^2geq (M-delta)^2 gt 2$ so $ynotin A$. Thus $M-delta$ is an upper bound for $A$, contradicting the fact that $M$ is the supremum of $A$
Since $M^2 lt 2$ and $M^2gt 2$ both lead to contradictions, we conclude that $M^2=2$, as required.
real-analysis proof-explanation intuition real-numbers
real-analysis proof-explanation intuition real-numbers
edited Jan 3 at 23:46
Bernard
119k740113
asked Jan 3 at 23:42
ImranImran
30715
edited Jan 3 at 23:46
Bernard
119k740113
asked Jan 3 at 23:42
ImranImran
30715
edited Jan 3 at 23:46
Bernard
119k740113
edited Jan 3 at 23:46
Bernard
119k740113
edited Jan 3 at 23:46
Bernard
119k740113
119k740113
asked Jan 3 at 23:42
ImranImran
30715
asked Jan 3 at 23:42
ImranImran
30715
asked Jan 3 at 23:42
ImranImran
30715
30715
add a comment |
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The last part is a proof by contradiction, using the fact that $M^2$ and $2$ are related either by $M^2 < 2$ or $2 < M^2$ or $M^2 = 2$, exclusively. In both cases, we contradict the supremum property of $M$; that $M$ is greater than or equal to every number in $A$, and that it is the least such number with that property.
First, assuming $M^2 < 2$, we construct a $y > M$ but $y in A$, which is impossible if $M$ is the supremum. It's a "little" more than $M$, so add a positive $delta$ "fudge factor." We have complete control of how little or big that $delta$ is; i.e. $y = M + delta$. So, if we want $yin A, y^2 < 2$, we want $(M + delta)^2 < 2$. We will work towards this inequality "backwards", although the engineering of the different number choices are much clearer in this direction.
Start with $(M + delta)^2$, and expand it. Two things happen in $$M^2 + 2Mdelta + delta^2 leq M^2 + 5delta$$
First, we use $M leq 2$ to get $2Mdelta leq 4delta$. Then, we can choose for $delta < 1$ so that $delta^2 < delta$.
To get this inequality: $$M^2 + 5delta < 2$$
We can actually work backwards, and choose $delta < frac{2 - M^2}{5}$. If we choose $delta < min(frac{2 - M^2}{5}, 1)$, then both the inequalities we need will be true. It's a lot more clear where they come from working backwards, though.
I hope this helps you understand the $M^2 > 2$ part, as well, which works on a similar reasoning scheme.
answered Jan 4 at 0:00
Larry B.Larry B.
2,786728
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Do you know the trichotomy law of inequality? It says that for any two numbers $a,b$, either $a < b$, or $a > b$, or $a=b$.
So now if you can prove that $a<b$ leads to a contradiction, and that $a > b$ leads to a contradiction, the only possibility left must be true, namely $a=b$. Apply this with $a=M^2$ and $b=2$.
answered Jan 3 at 23:55
Lee MosherLee Mosher
48.4k33681
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, it is a proof by contradicion. The author proves the supremum $M$ satisfies the equality $M^2=2$ by deducing a contradiction in each of the other two cases, $M^2<2$ and $M^2>2$.
In the first case, he/she obtains a contradiction by finding an element $y=M+delta$ which is both in $A$ but greater than $sup A$.
In the second case, he/she finds an upper bound for $A$ which is smaller than the least upper bound.
$delta<minleft(frac{2-M^2}{5},1right)$ simply means that we have both $delta< frac{2-M^2}{5}$ and $delta<1$. These conditions are technically necessary (i.e. $delta$ must be small enough) to deduce the contradiction.
answered Jan 4 at 0:03
BernardBernard
119k740113
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Indeed, the proof is a bit confusing as it sprawls out with variable definitions and claims. Here we want to calmly prove part of the argument in theorem 2.13, highlighting some of the thinking behind the mechanics.
Proposition: Let $r gt 0$ be a real number satisfying $r^2 gt 2$.
Then there exists another real number $s$ with $0 lt s lt r$ satisfying $s^2 gt 2$.
Proof
We can write any such number $s$ as $r - delta$ with $delta gt 0$. So we are looking for any $delta$ 'that works', leading us to analyze
$$tag 1 s^2 = (r - delta)^2= r^2 - 2delta r + delta^2$$
Now certainly if $r^2 - 2delta r = 2$ then $s^2 = 2 + delta^2 gt 2$. Solving for $delta$,
$$tag 2 delta = frac{r^2 - 2}{2r}$$
So $delta$ is positive and $s = r - delta lt r$ is guaranteed. We also have
$quad s gt 0 , text{ iff } , 2r^2 - (r^2 -2) gt 0 , text{ iff } , r^2 + 2 gt 0$
and so defining
$$tag 3 s = r - frac{r^2 - 2}{2r}$$
satisfies the requirements of proposition, which completes the proof. $quad blacksquare$
There are any number of ways of putting together the proof of the OP's theorem, one way being to incorporate the above proposition.
Note: Using and extending the above logic, an algorithm can be implemented to calculate square roots - the Babylonian method.
answered Jan 4 at 12:11
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1181628
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm having a hard time following some of these proof attemps, but what about this:
Let
$f(x) = x^2 - 2; tag 1$
then
$f(0) = -2, ; f(2) = 2, tag 2$
and $f(x)$ is clearly continuous (easy to prove). Thus by the itermediate value theorem,
$exists x_0 in (0, 2), ; f(x_0) = 0 Longrightarrow x_0^2 - 2 = 0 Longrightarrow x_0 = 2. tag 3$
answered Jan 12 at 22:22
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
44.7k22964
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061153%2fproof-explanation-of-exists-x-in-mathbbr-with-x2-2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The last part is a proof by contradiction, using the fact that $M^2$ and $2$ are related either by $M^2 < 2$ or $2 < M^2$ or $M^2 = 2$, exclusively. In both cases, we contradict the supremum property of $M$; that $M$ is greater than or equal to every number in $A$, and that it is the least such number with that property.
First, assuming $M^2 < 2$, we construct a $y > M$ but $y in A$, which is impossible if $M$ is the supremum. It's a "little" more than $M$, so add a positive $delta$ "fudge factor." We have complete control of how little or big that $delta$ is; i.e. $y = M + delta$. So, if we want $yin A, y^2 < 2$, we want $(M + delta)^2 < 2$. We will work towards this inequality "backwards", although the engineering of the different number choices are much clearer in this direction.
Start with $(M + delta)^2$, and expand it. Two things happen in $$M^2 + 2Mdelta + delta^2 leq M^2 + 5delta$$
First, we use $M leq 2$ to get $2Mdelta leq 4delta$. Then, we can choose for $delta < 1$ so that $delta^2 < delta$.
To get this inequality: $$M^2 + 5delta < 2$$
We can actually work backwards, and choose $delta < frac{2 - M^2}{5}$. If we choose $delta < min(frac{2 - M^2}{5}, 1)$, then both the inequalities we need will be true. It's a lot more clear where they come from working backwards, though.
I hope this helps you understand the $M^2 > 2$ part, as well, which works on a similar reasoning scheme.
answered Jan 4 at 0:00
Larry B.Larry B.
2,786728
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The last part is a proof by contradiction, using the fact that $M^2$ and $2$ are related either by $M^2 < 2$ or $2 < M^2$ or $M^2 = 2$, exclusively. In both cases, we contradict the supremum property of $M$; that $M$ is greater than or equal to every number in $A$, and that it is the least such number with that property.
First, assuming $M^2 < 2$, we construct a $y > M$ but $y in A$, which is impossible if $M$ is the supremum. It's a "little" more than $M$, so add a positive $delta$ "fudge factor." We have complete control of how little or big that $delta$ is; i.e. $y = M + delta$. So, if we want $yin A, y^2 < 2$, we want $(M + delta)^2 < 2$. We will work towards this inequality "backwards", although the engineering of the different number choices are much clearer in this direction.
Start with $(M + delta)^2$, and expand it. Two things happen in $$M^2 + 2Mdelta + delta^2 leq M^2 + 5delta$$
First, we use $M leq 2$ to get $2Mdelta leq 4delta$. Then, we can choose for $delta < 1$ so that $delta^2 < delta$.
To get this inequality: $$M^2 + 5delta < 2$$
We can actually work backwards, and choose $delta < frac{2 - M^2}{5}$. If we choose $delta < min(frac{2 - M^2}{5}, 1)$, then both the inequalities we need will be true. It's a lot more clear where they come from working backwards, though.
I hope this helps you understand the $M^2 > 2$ part, as well, which works on a similar reasoning scheme.
answered Jan 4 at 0:00
Larry B.Larry B.
2,786728
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The last part is a proof by contradiction, using the fact that $M^2$ and $2$ are related either by $M^2 < 2$ or $2 < M^2$ or $M^2 = 2$, exclusively. In both cases, we contradict the supremum property of $M$; that $M$ is greater than or equal to every number in $A$, and that it is the least such number with that property.
First, assuming $M^2 < 2$, we construct a $y > M$ but $y in A$, which is impossible if $M$ is the supremum. It's a "little" more than $M$, so add a positive $delta$ "fudge factor." We have complete control of how little or big that $delta$ is; i.e. $y = M + delta$. So, if we want $yin A, y^2 < 2$, we want $(M + delta)^2 < 2$. We will work towards this inequality "backwards", although the engineering of the different number choices are much clearer in this direction.
Start with $(M + delta)^2$, and expand it. Two things happen in $$M^2 + 2Mdelta + delta^2 leq M^2 + 5delta$$
First, we use $M leq 2$ to get $2Mdelta leq 4delta$. Then, we can choose for $delta < 1$ so that $delta^2 < delta$.
To get this inequality: $$M^2 + 5delta < 2$$
We can actually work backwards, and choose $delta < frac{2 - M^2}{5}$. If we choose $delta < min(frac{2 - M^2}{5}, 1)$, then both the inequalities we need will be true. It's a lot more clear where they come from working backwards, though.
I hope this helps you understand the $M^2 > 2$ part, as well, which works on a similar reasoning scheme.
answered Jan 4 at 0:00
Larry B.Larry B.
2,786728
$endgroup$
The last part is a proof by contradiction, using the fact that $M^2$ and $2$ are related either by $M^2 < 2$ or $2 < M^2$ or $M^2 = 2$, exclusively. In both cases, we contradict the supremum property of $M$; that $M$ is greater than or equal to every number in $A$, and that it is the least such number with that property.
First, assuming $M^2 < 2$, we construct a $y > M$ but $y in A$, which is impossible if $M$ is the supremum. It's a "little" more than $M$, so add a positive $delta$ "fudge factor." We have complete control of how little or big that $delta$ is; i.e. $y = M + delta$. So, if we want $yin A, y^2 < 2$, we want $(M + delta)^2 < 2$. We will work towards this inequality "backwards", although the engineering of the different number choices are much clearer in this direction.
Start with $(M + delta)^2$, and expand it. Two things happen in $$M^2 + 2Mdelta + delta^2 leq M^2 + 5delta$$
First, we use $M leq 2$ to get $2Mdelta leq 4delta$. Then, we can choose for $delta < 1$ so that $delta^2 < delta$.
To get this inequality: $$M^2 + 5delta < 2$$
We can actually work backwards, and choose $delta < frac{2 - M^2}{5}$. If we choose $delta < min(frac{2 - M^2}{5}, 1)$, then both the inequalities we need will be true. It's a lot more clear where they come from working backwards, though.
I hope this helps you understand the $M^2 > 2$ part, as well, which works on a similar reasoning scheme.
answered Jan 4 at 0:00
Larry B.Larry B.
2,786728
answered Jan 4 at 0:00
Larry B.Larry B.
2,786728
answered Jan 4 at 0:00
Larry B.Larry B.
2,786728
answered Jan 4 at 0:00
Larry B.Larry B.
2,786728
2,786728
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Do you know the trichotomy law of inequality? It says that for any two numbers $a,b$, either $a < b$, or $a > b$, or $a=b$.
So now if you can prove that $a<b$ leads to a contradiction, and that $a > b$ leads to a contradiction, the only possibility left must be true, namely $a=b$. Apply this with $a=M^2$ and $b=2$.
answered Jan 3 at 23:55
Lee MosherLee Mosher
48.4k33681
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Do you know the trichotomy law of inequality? It says that for any two numbers $a,b$, either $a < b$, or $a > b$, or $a=b$.
So now if you can prove that $a<b$ leads to a contradiction, and that $a > b$ leads to a contradiction, the only possibility left must be true, namely $a=b$. Apply this with $a=M^2$ and $b=2$.
answered Jan 3 at 23:55
Lee MosherLee Mosher
48.4k33681
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Do you know the trichotomy law of inequality? It says that for any two numbers $a,b$, either $a < b$, or $a > b$, or $a=b$.
So now if you can prove that $a<b$ leads to a contradiction, and that $a > b$ leads to a contradiction, the only possibility left must be true, namely $a=b$. Apply this with $a=M^2$ and $b=2$.
answered Jan 3 at 23:55
Lee MosherLee Mosher
48.4k33681
$endgroup$
Do you know the trichotomy law of inequality? It says that for any two numbers $a,b$, either $a < b$, or $a > b$, or $a=b$.
So now if you can prove that $a<b$ leads to a contradiction, and that $a > b$ leads to a contradiction, the only possibility left must be true, namely $a=b$. Apply this with $a=M^2$ and $b=2$.
answered Jan 3 at 23:55
Lee MosherLee Mosher
48.4k33681
answered Jan 3 at 23:55
Lee MosherLee Mosher
48.4k33681
answered Jan 3 at 23:55
Lee MosherLee Mosher
48.4k33681
answered Jan 3 at 23:55
Lee MosherLee Mosher
48.4k33681
48.4k33681
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, it is a proof by contradicion. The author proves the supremum $M$ satisfies the equality $M^2=2$ by deducing a contradiction in each of the other two cases, $M^2<2$ and $M^2>2$.
In the first case, he/she obtains a contradiction by finding an element $y=M+delta$ which is both in $A$ but greater than $sup A$.
In the second case, he/she finds an upper bound for $A$ which is smaller than the least upper bound.
$delta<minleft(frac{2-M^2}{5},1right)$ simply means that we have both $delta< frac{2-M^2}{5}$ and $delta<1$. These conditions are technically necessary (i.e. $delta$ must be small enough) to deduce the contradiction.
answered Jan 4 at 0:03
BernardBernard
119k740113
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, it is a proof by contradicion. The author proves the supremum $M$ satisfies the equality $M^2=2$ by deducing a contradiction in each of the other two cases, $M^2<2$ and $M^2>2$.
In the first case, he/she obtains a contradiction by finding an element $y=M+delta$ which is both in $A$ but greater than $sup A$.
In the second case, he/she finds an upper bound for $A$ which is smaller than the least upper bound.
$delta<minleft(frac{2-M^2}{5},1right)$ simply means that we have both $delta< frac{2-M^2}{5}$ and $delta<1$. These conditions are technically necessary (i.e. $delta$ must be small enough) to deduce the contradiction.
answered Jan 4 at 0:03
BernardBernard
119k740113
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, it is a proof by contradicion. The author proves the supremum $M$ satisfies the equality $M^2=2$ by deducing a contradiction in each of the other two cases, $M^2<2$ and $M^2>2$.
In the first case, he/she obtains a contradiction by finding an element $y=M+delta$ which is both in $A$ but greater than $sup A$.
In the second case, he/she finds an upper bound for $A$ which is smaller than the least upper bound.
$delta<minleft(frac{2-M^2}{5},1right)$ simply means that we have both $delta< frac{2-M^2}{5}$ and $delta<1$. These conditions are technically necessary (i.e. $delta$ must be small enough) to deduce the contradiction.
answered Jan 4 at 0:03
BernardBernard
119k740113
$endgroup$
Yes, it is a proof by contradicion. The author proves the supremum $M$ satisfies the equality $M^2=2$ by deducing a contradiction in each of the other two cases, $M^2<2$ and $M^2>2$.
In the first case, he/she obtains a contradiction by finding an element $y=M+delta$ which is both in $A$ but greater than $sup A$.
In the second case, he/she finds an upper bound for $A$ which is smaller than the least upper bound.
$delta<minleft(frac{2-M^2}{5},1right)$ simply means that we have both $delta< frac{2-M^2}{5}$ and $delta<1$. These conditions are technically necessary (i.e. $delta$ must be small enough) to deduce the contradiction.
answered Jan 4 at 0:03
BernardBernard
119k740113
edited Jan 12 at 22:15
answered Jan 4 at 0:03
BernardBernard
119k740113
answered Jan 4 at 0:03
BernardBernard
119k740113
answered Jan 4 at 0:03
BernardBernard
119k740113
119k740113
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Indeed, the proof is a bit confusing as it sprawls out with variable definitions and claims. Here we want to calmly prove part of the argument in theorem 2.13, highlighting some of the thinking behind the mechanics.
Proposition: Let $r gt 0$ be a real number satisfying $r^2 gt 2$.
Then there exists another real number $s$ with $0 lt s lt r$ satisfying $s^2 gt 2$.
Proof
We can write any such number $s$ as $r - delta$ with $delta gt 0$. So we are looking for any $delta$ 'that works', leading us to analyze
$$tag 1 s^2 = (r - delta)^2= r^2 - 2delta r + delta^2$$
Now certainly if $r^2 - 2delta r = 2$ then $s^2 = 2 + delta^2 gt 2$. Solving for $delta$,
$$tag 2 delta = frac{r^2 - 2}{2r}$$
So $delta$ is positive and $s = r - delta lt r$ is guaranteed. We also have
$quad s gt 0 , text{ iff } , 2r^2 - (r^2 -2) gt 0 , text{ iff } , r^2 + 2 gt 0$
and so defining
$$tag 3 s = r - frac{r^2 - 2}{2r}$$
satisfies the requirements of proposition, which completes the proof. $quad blacksquare$
There are any number of ways of putting together the proof of the OP's theorem, one way being to incorporate the above proposition.
Note: Using and extending the above logic, an algorithm can be implemented to calculate square roots - the Babylonian method.
answered Jan 4 at 12:11
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1181628
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Indeed, the proof is a bit confusing as it sprawls out with variable definitions and claims. Here we want to calmly prove part of the argument in theorem 2.13, highlighting some of the thinking behind the mechanics.
Proposition: Let $r gt 0$ be a real number satisfying $r^2 gt 2$.
Then there exists another real number $s$ with $0 lt s lt r$ satisfying $s^2 gt 2$.
Proof
We can write any such number $s$ as $r - delta$ with $delta gt 0$. So we are looking for any $delta$ 'that works', leading us to analyze
$$tag 1 s^2 = (r - delta)^2= r^2 - 2delta r + delta^2$$
Now certainly if $r^2 - 2delta r = 2$ then $s^2 = 2 + delta^2 gt 2$. Solving for $delta$,
$$tag 2 delta = frac{r^2 - 2}{2r}$$
So $delta$ is positive and $s = r - delta lt r$ is guaranteed. We also have
$quad s gt 0 , text{ iff } , 2r^2 - (r^2 -2) gt 0 , text{ iff } , r^2 + 2 gt 0$
and so defining
$$tag 3 s = r - frac{r^2 - 2}{2r}$$
satisfies the requirements of proposition, which completes the proof. $quad blacksquare$
There are any number of ways of putting together the proof of the OP's theorem, one way being to incorporate the above proposition.
Note: Using and extending the above logic, an algorithm can be implemented to calculate square roots - the Babylonian method.
answered Jan 4 at 12:11
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1181628
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Indeed, the proof is a bit confusing as it sprawls out with variable definitions and claims. Here we want to calmly prove part of the argument in theorem 2.13, highlighting some of the thinking behind the mechanics.
Proposition: Let $r gt 0$ be a real number satisfying $r^2 gt 2$.
Then there exists another real number $s$ with $0 lt s lt r$ satisfying $s^2 gt 2$.
Proof
We can write any such number $s$ as $r - delta$ with $delta gt 0$. So we are looking for any $delta$ 'that works', leading us to analyze
$$tag 1 s^2 = (r - delta)^2= r^2 - 2delta r + delta^2$$
Now certainly if $r^2 - 2delta r = 2$ then $s^2 = 2 + delta^2 gt 2$. Solving for $delta$,
$$tag 2 delta = frac{r^2 - 2}{2r}$$
So $delta$ is positive and $s = r - delta lt r$ is guaranteed. We also have
$quad s gt 0 , text{ iff } , 2r^2 - (r^2 -2) gt 0 , text{ iff } , r^2 + 2 gt 0$
and so defining
$$tag 3 s = r - frac{r^2 - 2}{2r}$$
satisfies the requirements of proposition, which completes the proof. $quad blacksquare$
There are any number of ways of putting together the proof of the OP's theorem, one way being to incorporate the above proposition.
Note: Using and extending the above logic, an algorithm can be implemented to calculate square roots - the Babylonian method.
answered Jan 4 at 12:11
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1181628
$endgroup$
Indeed, the proof is a bit confusing as it sprawls out with variable definitions and claims. Here we want to calmly prove part of the argument in theorem 2.13, highlighting some of the thinking behind the mechanics.
Proposition: Let $r gt 0$ be a real number satisfying $r^2 gt 2$.
Then there exists another real number $s$ with $0 lt s lt r$ satisfying $s^2 gt 2$.
Proof
We can write any such number $s$ as $r - delta$ with $delta gt 0$. So we are looking for any $delta$ 'that works', leading us to analyze
$$tag 1 s^2 = (r - delta)^2= r^2 - 2delta r + delta^2$$
Now certainly if $r^2 - 2delta r = 2$ then $s^2 = 2 + delta^2 gt 2$. Solving for $delta$,
$$tag 2 delta = frac{r^2 - 2}{2r}$$
So $delta$ is positive and $s = r - delta lt r$ is guaranteed. We also have
$quad s gt 0 , text{ iff } , 2r^2 - (r^2 -2) gt 0 , text{ iff } , r^2 + 2 gt 0$
and so defining
$$tag 3 s = r - frac{r^2 - 2}{2r}$$
satisfies the requirements of proposition, which completes the proof. $quad blacksquare$
There are any number of ways of putting together the proof of the OP's theorem, one way being to incorporate the above proposition.
Note: Using and extending the above logic, an algorithm can be implemented to calculate square roots - the Babylonian method.
answered Jan 4 at 12:11
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1181628
edited Jan 5 at 1:03
answered Jan 4 at 12:11
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1181628
answered Jan 4 at 12:11
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1181628
answered Jan 4 at 12:11
CopyPasteItCopyPasteIt
4,1181628
4,1181628
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm having a hard time following some of these proof attemps, but what about this:
Let
$f(x) = x^2 - 2; tag 1$
then
$f(0) = -2, ; f(2) = 2, tag 2$
and $f(x)$ is clearly continuous (easy to prove). Thus by the itermediate value theorem,
$exists x_0 in (0, 2), ; f(x_0) = 0 Longrightarrow x_0^2 - 2 = 0 Longrightarrow x_0 = 2. tag 3$
answered Jan 12 at 22:22
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
44.7k22964
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm having a hard time following some of these proof attemps, but what about this:
Let
$f(x) = x^2 - 2; tag 1$
then
$f(0) = -2, ; f(2) = 2, tag 2$
and $f(x)$ is clearly continuous (easy to prove). Thus by the itermediate value theorem,
$exists x_0 in (0, 2), ; f(x_0) = 0 Longrightarrow x_0^2 - 2 = 0 Longrightarrow x_0 = 2. tag 3$
answered Jan 12 at 22:22
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
44.7k22964
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm having a hard time following some of these proof attemps, but what about this:
Let
$f(x) = x^2 - 2; tag 1$
then
$f(0) = -2, ; f(2) = 2, tag 2$
and $f(x)$ is clearly continuous (easy to prove). Thus by the itermediate value theorem,
$exists x_0 in (0, 2), ; f(x_0) = 0 Longrightarrow x_0^2 - 2 = 0 Longrightarrow x_0 = 2. tag 3$
answered Jan 12 at 22:22
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
44.7k22964
$endgroup$
I'm having a hard time following some of these proof attemps, but what about this:
Let
$f(x) = x^2 - 2; tag 1$
then
$f(0) = -2, ; f(2) = 2, tag 2$
and $f(x)$ is clearly continuous (easy to prove). Thus by the itermediate value theorem,
$exists x_0 in (0, 2), ; f(x_0) = 0 Longrightarrow x_0^2 - 2 = 0 Longrightarrow x_0 = 2. tag 3$
answered Jan 12 at 22:22
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
44.7k22964
answered Jan 12 at 22:22
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
44.7k22964
answered Jan 12 at 22:22
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
44.7k22964
answered Jan 12 at 22:22
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
44.7k22964
44.7k22964
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061153%2fproof-explanation-of-exists-x-in-mathbbr-with-x2-2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
