The real numbers

December 21, 2021

√
1 The Irrationality of 2
“Real mathematics must be justified as art if
it can be justified at all.”
Hardy 1940 - A mathematician’s apology

Two theorems from classical Greek mathematics:

√
1. Pythagora: 2 is irrational
2. Euclid: There is an infinite number of prime numbers
Theorem 1.1. There is no rational number whose square is 2.
√
Proof. The 2 is irrational
A rational number can be expressed as Q : pq p, q − integers. No matter how p and q are chosen, it is
 2
never the case that pq = 2.
 2
p
6= 2 ⇒ proof by contradiction
q
Assume that p and q have no common factor.
 2
Assume that pq 6= 2

p2 = 2q 2
p2 is an even number(it is divisible by 2) ⇒ p = 2r, where r is also an integer
2r2 = q 2
q 2 is even ⇒ p and q are both even (i.e., divisible by 2)
no common factor!!!!

Hardy’s definition of beauty - Greeks’ understanding of the relationship between:

geometric length
arithmetic number

Prior to the preceding discovery: two line segments AB and CD - always be possible to find a third
line segment whose length divides evenly into first two. Pythagoreans - interpreted any number to
mean rational number ⇒ number was a strictly weaker notion than length.
Modern terminology: length of CD is a rational multiple of the length of AB

German mathematician Leopold Kronecker (1823-1891):

“The natural numbers are the work of God. All of the rest is the work of mankind.”

1
Natural numbers perform addition

Integers
Z = {..., −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
additive identity (zero)
additive inverses necessary to define subtraction
multiplication and division

Rational numbers Q = { All fractions pq where p and q are integers with q 6= 0 } properties of Q:
make up the definition of what is called a field

Definition 1.1 (Field). Any set where addition and multiplication are well-defined operations (commu-
tative, associative, obey the familiar distributive property a(b+c) = ab+ac).

finite set 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 - considered field when addition and multiplication are computed modulo 5
R is obtained by filling in the gaps in Q

ˆ What properties does the set of irrational numbers have?

ˆ How do the sets of rational and irrational numbers fit together?
ˆ Is there a kind of symmetry between rationals and irrationals, or is there some sense in which we
can argue that one type of real number is more common than the other?
ˆ Can all irrational numbers be expressed as algebraic combinations of nth roots and rational numbers,
or are there still other irrational numbers beyond those of this form?

2 Some Preliminaries
2.1 Sets
E ∩ S = ∅ ⇒ E and S are disjoint
set ∅ - called the empty
apply the union and intersection operations to infinite collections of sets

A1 = N = {1, 2, 3, ...}
A2 = {2, 3, 4, ...}
A3 = {3, 4, 5, ...}
for each n ∈ N , define the set
An = {n, n + 1, n + 2, ...}
The result is a nested chain of sets

A1 ⊇ A2 ⊇ A3 ⊇ A4 ⊇ .....
where each successive set is a subset of all the previous ones
∞
[
An
n=1

or [
An
n∈N
or
A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 ∪ .....

2
any element that appears in at least one particular An
∞
[
An = A1
n=1

Intersection
∞
\
An = ∅
n=1
Explanation:
Suppose we have m that might satisfy m ∈ ∩∞
n=1 An ⇒ m/inAn f oreveryAn
But m is not an element of Am+1

Most sets are make of real numbers A ⊆ R

Complement of A: Ac = {x ∈ R : x ∈/ A}
De Morgan’s Laws:
(A ∩ B)c = Ac ∪ B c
(A ∪ B)c = Ac ∩ B c

2.2 Functions
Definition 2.1 (Function).
Given two sets A and B, a function from A to B is a rule or mapping that takes each element x ∈ A
and associates with it a single element of B. The set A is called the domain of f. The range of f is not
necessarily equal to B but refers to the subset of B given by y ∈ B : y = f (x) for some x ∈ A by Peter
Lejeune Dirichlet (1805-1859) in 1830s. His main motivation was to unravel the issues surrounding the
convergence of Fourier series.

1829, Dirichlet proposed the unruly function

(
1 if x ∈ Q
g(x) =
0 if x ∈
/Q
(
x if x ≥ 0
|x| =
−x if x < 0
Example: “The triangle inequality”

|a + b| ≤ |a| + |b| ⇔
|a − b| = |(a − c) + (c − b)| ⇒
By the triangle inequality
|(a − c) + (c − b)| ≤ |a − c| + |c − b| ⇒
|a − b| ≤ |a − c| + |c − b|

2.3 Logic and proofs

indirect proof
Begins by negating what it is we would like to prove. The argument then proceeds until (hopefully) a
logical contradiction with some other accepted fact is uncovered ussually part of the hypothesis of the
theorem. ⇒ contrapositive proof
Theorem 2.1. Two real numbers a and b are equal if and only if for every real number  > 0itf ollowsthat|a−
b| < .

3
Proof.

2 key phrases in the statement

ˆ “for every”
ˆ “if and only if”
“if and only if ” - two directions.
The forward direction: (⇒) If a = b, then for every real number  > 0 it follows that |a − b| < .

The converse statement: (⇐) If for every real number  > 0 it follows that |a − b| < , then we
must have a = b.
first statement - direct proof
second statement - proof by contradiction
The conclusion is a = b we assume that a 6= b. “for every  > 0”

a 6= b ⇒ 0 = |a − b| > 0
|a − b| <  is true for every  > 0 ⇒
|a − b| < 0
|a − b| < 0 and |a − b| = 0 cannot both be true ⇒
means that our initial assumption that a 6= b is unacceptable
Therefore, a = b

2.4 Induction
fundamental principle behind induction: if S is some subset of N with the property mathematics
ˆ S contains 1
ˆ whenever S contains a natural number n, it also contains n + 1, then it must be that S = N
Example: Let x1 = 1, and for each n ∈ N define
1
xn+1 = xn + 1
2
1 3
x2 = ( )(1) + 1 =
2 2
7
x3 =
4
...
it leads to definition of xn for all n ∈ N .
x1 ≤ x2 ≤ x3
first let’s show (2)
xn ≤ xn+1
for all values of n ∈ N .
n = 1, x1 = 1 and x2 = 3/2 ⇒ x1 ≤ x2
xn ≤ xn+1 ⇒ xn ≤ xn + 1?
xn ≤ xn+1 ⇒
1 1
xn ≤ xn+1 ⇒
2 2
1 1
xn + 1 ≤ xn+1 + 1
2 2
the claim is proved for all n ∈ N

4
3 The Axiom of Completeness
Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789-1857), Bernhard Bolzano (1781-1848), Niels Henrik Abel (1802-1829), Peter
Lejeune Dirichlet, KarlWeierstrass (1815-1897), and Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866). Nearly all of this
work was done using intuitive assumptions about the nature of R.
R - ordered field , which contains Q as a subfield.
R does not contain the gaps that permeate Q. Because this is the defining difference between the ra-
tional numbers and the real numbers, we will be excessively precise about how we phrase this assumption,
hereafter referred to as the Axiom of Completeness.
Definition 3.1 (Axiom of Completeness.). Every nonempty set of real numbers that is bounded above
has a least upper bound.

3.1 Least Upper Bounds and Greatest Lower Bounds

Let’s first state the relevant definitions, and then look at some examples. Definition 1.3.1. A set A R
is bounded above if there exists a number b R such that a b for all a A. The number b is called an
upper bound for A. Similarly, the set A is bounded below if there exists a lower bound l R satisfying l
a for every a A. Definition 1.3.2. A real number s is the least upper bound for a set A R if it meets the
following two criteria: (i) s is an upper bound for A; (ii) if b is any upper bound for A, then s b. The
least upper bound is also frequently called the supremum of the set A. Although the notation s = lubA is
sometimes used, we will always write s = supA for the least upper bound. The greatest lower bound or
infimum for A is defined in a similar way (Exercise 1.3.1) and is denoted by inf A (Fig. 1.3). Although a
set can have a host of upper bounds, it can have only one least upper bound. If s1 and s2 are both least
upper bounds for a set A, then by property (ii) in Definition 1.3.2 we can assert s1 s2 and s2 s1. The
conclusion is that s1 = s2 and least upper bounds are unique. 16 Chapter 1. The Real Numbers Example
1.3.3. Let A = 1 n : n N = 1, 1 2 , 1 3 , . . . . The set A is bounded above and below. Successful
candidates for an upper bound include 3, 2, and 3/2. For the least upper bound, we claim supA = 1. To
argue this rigorously using Definition 1.3.2, we need to verify that properties (i) and (ii) hold. For (i), we
just observe that 1 1/n for all choices of n N. To verify (ii), we begin by assuming we are in possession
of some other upper bound b. Because 1 A and b is an upper bound for A, we must have 1 b. This
is precisely what property (ii) asks us to show. Although we do not quite have the tools we need for a
rigorous proof (see Theorem 1.4.2), it should be somewhat apparent that inf A = 0. An important lesson
to take from Example 1.3.3 is that supA and inf A may or may not be elements of the set A. This issue is
tied to understanding the crucial difference between the maximum and the supremum (or the minimum
and the infimum) of a given set. Definition 1.3.4. A real number a0 is a maximum of the set A if a0 is an
element of A and a0 a for all a A. Similarly, a number a1 is a minimum of A if a1 A and a1 a for every
a A. Example 1.3.5. To belabor the point, consider the open interval (0, 2) = x R : 0 ¡ x ¡ 2, and the
closed interval [0, 2] = x R : 0 x 2. Both sets are bounded above (and below), and both have the same
least upper bound, namely 2. It is not the case, however, that both sets have a maximum. A maximum
is a specific type of upper bound that is required to be an element of the set in question, and the open
interval (0, 2) does not possess such an element. Thus, the supremum can exist and not be a maximum,
but when a maximum exists, then it is also the supremum. Let’s turn our attention back to the Axiom of
Completeness. Although we can see now that not every nonempty bounded set contains a maximum, the
Axiom of Completeness asserts that every such set does have a least upper bound. We are not going to
prove this. An axiom in mathematics is an accepted assumption, to be used without proof. Preferably,
an axiom should be an elementary statement about the system in question that is so fundamental that
it seems to need no justification. Perhaps the Axiom of Completeness fits this description, and perhaps
it does not. Before deciding, let’s remind ourselves why it is not a valid statement about Q. 1.3. The
Axiom of Completeness 17 Example 1.3.6. Consider again the set S = r Q : r2 ¡ 2, and pretend for the
moment that our world consists only of rational numbers. The set S is certainly bounded above. Taking
b = 2 works, as does b = 3/2. But notice what happens as we go in search of the least upper bound. (It
may be useful here to know that the decimal expansion for 2 begins 1.4142 . . . .) We might try b =
142/100, which is indeed an upper bound, but then we discover that b = 1415/1000 is an upper bound
that is smaller still. Is there a smallest one? In the rational numbers, there is not. In the real numbers,

5
there is. Back in R, the Axiom of Completeness states that we may set = supS and be confident that
such a number exists. In the next section, we will prove that 2 = 2. But according to Theorem 1.1.1, this
implies is not a rational number. If we are restricting our attention to only rational numbers, then is
not an allowable option for sup S, and the search for a least upper bound goes on indefinitely. Whatever
rational upper bound is discovered, it is always possible to find one smaller. The tools needed to carry
out the computations described in Example 1.3.6 depend on results about how Q and N fit inside of R.
These are discussed in the next section. In the meantime, it is possible to prove some intuitive algebraic
properties of least upper bounds just using the definition. Example 1.3.7. Let A R be nonempty and
bounded above, and let c R. Define the set c + A by c + A = c + a : a A. Then sup(c + A) = c
+ supA. To properly verify this we focus separately on each part of Definition 1.3.2. Setting s = supA,
we see that a s for all a A, which implies c+a c+s for all a A. Thus, c + s is an upper bound for c
+ A and condition (i) is verified. For (ii), let b be an arbitrary upper bound for c + A; i.e., c + a b
for all a A. This is equivalent to a bc for all a A, from which we conclude that bc is an upper bound
for A. Because s is the least upper bound of A, s bc, which can be rewritten as c + s b. This verifies
part (ii) of Definition 1.3.2, and we conclude sup(c + A) = c + supA. There is an equivalent and useful
way of characterizing least upper bounds. As the previous example illustrates, Definition 1.3.2 of the
supremum has two parts. Part (i) says that supA must be an upper bound, and part (ii) states that it
must be the smallest one. The following lemma offers an alternative way to restate part (ii). Lemma
1.3.8. Assume s R is an upper bound for a set A R. Then, s = supA if and only if, for every choice of
¿ 0, there exists an element a A satisfying s ¡ a. 18 Chapter 1. The Real Numbers Proof. Here is a
short rephrasing of the lemma: Given that s is an upper bound, s is the least upper bound if and only if
any number smaller than s is not an upper bound. Putting it this way almost qualifies as a proof, but
we will expand on what exactly is being said in each direction. () For the forward direction, we assume s
= supA and consider s, where ¿ 0 has been arbitrarily chosen. Because s ¡ s, part (ii) of Definition 1.3.2
implies that s is not an upper bound for A. If this is the case, then there must be some element a A
for which s ¡ a (because otherwise s would be an upper bound). This proves the lemma in one direction.
() Conversely, assume s is an upper bound with the property that no matter how ¿ 0 is chosen, s is
no longer an upper bound for A. Notice that what this implies is that if b is any number less than s,
then b is not an upper bound. (Just let = sb.) To prove that s = supA, we must verify part (ii) of
Definition 1.3.2. (Read it again.) Because we have just argued that any number smaller than s cannot
be an upper bound, it follows that if b is some other upper bound for A, then s b. It is certainly the case
that all of our conclusions to this point about least upper bounds have analogous versions for greatest
lower bounds. The Axiom of Completeness does not explicitly assert that a nonempty set bounded below
has an infimum, but this is because we do not need to assume this fact as part of the axiom. Using the
Axiom of Completeness, there are several ways to prove that greatest lower bounds exist for nonempty
bounded sets. One such proof is explored in Exercise 1.3.3. Exercises Exercise 1.3.1. (a) Write a formal
definition in the style of Definition 1.3.2 for the infimum or greatest lower bound of a set. (b) Now, state
and prove a version of Lemma 1.3.8 for greatest lower bounds. Exercise 1.3.2. Give an example of each
of the following, or state that the request is impossible. (a) A set B with inf B sup B. (b) A finite set
that contains its infimum but not its supremum. (c) A bounded subset of Q that contains its supremum
but not its infimum. Exercise 1.3.3. (a) Let A be nonempty and bounded below, and define B = b R :
b is a lower bound for A. Show that supB = inf A. (b) Use (a) to explain why there is no need to assert
that greatest lower bounds exist as part of the Axiom of Completeness. Exercise 1.3.4. Let A1,A2,A3, .
. . be a collection of nonempty sets, each of which is bounded above. 1.3. The Axiom of Completeness
19 (a) Find a formula for sup(A1A2). Extend this to sup ( n k=1 Ak). (b) Consider sup (
k=1 Ak). Does the formula in (a) extend to the infinite case? Exercise 1.3.5. As in Example 1.3.7,
let A R be nonempty and bounded above, and let c R. This time define the set cA = ca : a A. (a) If
c 0, show that sup(cA) = c supA. (b) Postulate a similar type of statement for sup(cA) for the case c ¡
0. Exercise 1.3.6. Given sets A and B, define A+B = a+b : a A and b B. Follow these steps to prove
that if A and B are nonempty and bounded above then sup(A + B) = supA + supB. (a) Let s = supA
and t = supB. Show s + t is an upper bound for A + B. (b) Now let u be an arbitrary upper bound for
A + B, and temporarily fix a A. Show t u a. (c)

6
4 Consequences of Completeness

5 Cardinality

6 Cantor’s Theorem

7 Epilogue