English | Español

Try our Free Online Math Solver!

Online Math Solver












Please use this form if you would like
to have this math solver on your website,
free of charge.

18.100B Problem Set 1 Solutions

1) The proof is by contradiction. Assume ∃r ∈ Q such that r2 = 12. Then we may write r as
with a, b ∈ Z and we can assume that a and b have no common factors . Then

so 12b2 = a2.

Notice that 3 divides 12b2 and hence 3 divides a2. It follows that 3 has to divide a (one way
to see this: every integer can be written as either 3n,3n+1, or3n+2 for some integer n. If you
square these three choices, only the first one gives you a multiple of three.)

Let a =3k, for k ∈ Z. Then substitution yields 12b2 = (3k)2 =9k2, so dividing by 3 we have
4b2 =3k2, so 3 divides 4b2 and hence 3 divides b2. Just as for a, this implies that b has to divide
b. But then a and b share the common factor of 3, which contradicts our choice of representation
of r. So there is no rational number whose square is 12.

2) S ⊆ R, S ≠ Ø, and u = sup S. Given any n ∈ N, ∀s ∈ S, , so is an upper
bound for S. Assume is also an upper bound for S. Since , u would not be the
least upper bound for S, which is a contradiction. Therefore is not an upper bound for S.

3) Recall that a subset of the real numbers , A ⊆ R, is bounded if there are real numbers a and a'
such that

t ∈ A ⇒ a' ≤ t ≤ a.

Since A, B ⊆ R are bounded, they have upper bounds a and b respectively, and lower bounds a'
and b'. Let α = max (a, b) and β = min (a', b'). Clearly,

t ∈ A ⇒ β ≤ a' ≤ t ≤ a ≤ α
t ∈ B ⇒ β ≤ b' ≤ t ≤ b ≤ α,

hence any t ∈ A ∪ B satisfies β ≤ t ≤ α and A ∪ B is bounded.

Notice that, in particular, this shows that max{sup A, supB} is an upper bound for A∪B, so
we only have to show that it is the least upper bound. Suppose γ< max{sup A, supB}. Then
without loss of generality, γ< supA. By definition of supremum, γ is not an upper bound of A,
so ∃a ∈ A with γ<a. But a ∈ A ⇒ a ∈ A ∪ B, so γ is not an upper bound of A ∪ B. Therefore
max{sup A, supB} = supA ∪ B.

4) Start by noting that, if n, m ∈ N then from which it follows that for
n, m ∈ Z (why?). Similarly, you can show that for n, m ∈ Z. Recall that, if x> 0,
then is defined to be the unique positive real number such that .

a ) We have that m/n = p/q so mq = pn. Notice that and that
, which is also equal to . But we know that there is a unique real
number y satisfying hence the two numbers we started with have to be equal, i.e.,

Notice that if this equality didn't hold, then we could not make sense of the symbol b r for
r ∈ Q, because the value would change if we wrote the same number r in two different ways.

b) Let r, s ∈ Q with and . Since nq is an integer we know that

but and similarly . Since mq and np are
integers we can conclude

But there is a unique positive real number, y, such that , so we know that

c) Now with b> 1, given r, s ∈ Q, s ≤ r we want to show bs ≤ br. Let ,0 <n,0 ≤ m
since s ≤ r. Then , and it is easy to see that 1 ≤ bm, since 0 ≤ m and 1 <b.
Thus a positive power of b r-s is greater than or equal to 1, which implies 1 ≤ br-s. Multiplying
by bs gives , so bs ≤ br . Hence for any ,
so br is an upper bound for B(r). Since br ∈ B(r), br must be the least upper bound, so
br = supB(r).

d) So let x, y ∈ R. If r, s ∈ Q are such that r ≤ x, s ≤ y, then r + s ≤ x + y so ∈ B(x + y)
and . Keeping s fixed, notice that for any r ≤ x we have

thus is an upper bound for B (x) which implies . We rearrange this to

and conclude that or .

Suppose the inequality is strict . Then ∃t ∈ Q, t<x + y, such that . We will find
r, s ∈ Q, with r ≤ x, s ≤ y and t<r+s<x+y. First, find N ∈ N so that N (x + y - t) > 1,
then find r ∈ Q so that and s ∈ Q such that (the existence
of N, r, s follow from the Archimedean property of R as shown in class). Now, notice that

hence we have t<r + s<x + y just like we wanted .

But now we have

which is a contradiction because, since r<x and s<y, we have br <bx and bs <by!

5) We know that in any ordered field , squares are greater than or equal to zero . Since i2 = -1, this
means that 0 ≤-1. Butthen1=0+1 ≤-1+1=0 ≤ 1 which implies 0 = 1, a contradiction!

6) I'll write for this relation on C to distinguish it from the normal order on R. To show that
is an order on C, we must show both transitivity and totality (or given x, y ∈ C, exactly one of
the following is true: x y, y x, or x = y). First for transitivity, let x, y, z ∈ C, x = a + bi,
y = c + di, z = e + fi such that x y z. Therefore a ≤ c ≤ e, so a ≤ e by the transitivity of
the order on R. If a<e, then x z, so we are done. If a = e, then a = c = e so we have from
the definition of that b<d<f, so once again by the transitivity of the order on R, b<f.
Now a = e and b<f ⇒ x z, so we have shown transitivity.

Now to show totality. Consider x, y ∈ C, x = a + bi, y = c + di. Without loss of generality,
let a ≤ c. Suppose a = c. Then b<d ⇔ x y, b>d ⇔ y x, and b = d ⇔ x = y, so by the
totality of the order on R, we have the totality of on C in the case of a = c. Suppose instead
that a<c. Then we know x y, and it is not the case that y x or x = y, so we have totality
in this case as well. Thus we have proven that is an order on C.

This order does not have the least-upper-bound property. Consider the set of complex numbers
with real part less than or equal to zero:

S = {a + bi : a ≤ 0,b ∈ R}.

S is bounded above, for instance by the number 1, but it is not possible for any number z = a+bi
to be the supremum of S. If a ≤ 0, then a + bi a +(b + 1)i ∈ S, so a + bi is not an upper
bound for S. If a> 0, then a +(b - 1)i a + bi, and a +(b - 1)i is also an upper bound for S,
so a + bi is not the least upper bound. Therefore S has no least upper bound, even though it is
bounded above.

The geometric interpretation comes from looking at the parallelogram whose vertices are the
points 0, x, x + y and y. Then the equation states that the sum of the squares of the lengths
of the two diagonals (the vectors x + y and x - y) is the same as the sum of the squares of the
lengths of the four sides.

Prev Next