본문으로 바로 이동 / Skip to content

PROOF 86

Prove.

What each extension gains

On each number system.

A way to read this proof

First separate what is assumed from what is to be proved. At each step, ask which definition or earlier result permits the move. If it is unclear, return to that premise rather than skipping to the conclusion.

Definition D1

What an extension gains is measured by a single yardstick. Does an equation unsolvable in the previous system become solvable in the new one?

Proof.

(1)View the systems as nested: ℕ ⊂ ℤ ⊂ ℚ ⊂ ℝ ⊂ ℂ.convention
(2)'Solvable' means a solution exists within that system.convention

∎

Lemma L1

0 < 1 < 2 < 4

Proof.

(1)0 < 1A12
(2)Set 2 = 1 + 1 and 4 = 2 + 2.convention
(3)0 + 1 < 1 + 1, that is, 1 < 2(1), (2), A13, A4, A1
(4)0 < 2(1), (3), A14
(5)0 + 2 < 2 + 2, that is, 2 < 4(2), (4), A13, A4, A1

∎

Theorem T1

In ℤ, x + a = b is solvable for all a, b. In ℕ it may fail to be.

Proof.

(1)Set x = b + (−a).A2
(2)x + a = (b + (−a)) + a(1), E
(3)   = b + ((−a) + a)A3
(4)(−a) + a = a + (−a) = 0A4, A2
(5)x + a = b + 0 = b(2), (3), (4), A1
(6)Therefore in ℤ a solution always exists.(5), D1
(7)Suppose there is x in ℕ with x + 2 = 1.assumption
(8)x is a natural number, so 0 < x.(7), A11
(9)0 + 2 < x + 2, that is, 2 < x + 2(8), A13, A4, A1
(10)x + 2 = 1, so 2 < 1.(7), (9), E
(11)1 < 2L1
(12)(10) and (11) violate trichotomy.(10), (11), A15
(13)Unsolvable in ℕ, solvable in ℤ. The additive inverse solves it.(6), (12)

∎

Theorem T2

In ℚ, ax = b is solvable for all a, b with a ≠ 0. In ℤ it may fail to be.

Proof.

(1)a ≠ 0, so there is c with ac = 1.A6
(2)Set x = cb.convention
(3)ax = a(cb) = (ac)b(2), A7, E
(4)(ac)b = 1 × b = b × 1 = b(1), A8, A5
(5)Therefore in ℚ a solution always exists.(3), (4), E, D1
(6)Suppose there is x in ℤ with 2x = 1.assumption
(7)1 = 2x, so 1 has the form 2k.(6), A10
(8)On the other hand 2 × 0 = 0, so 1 = 2 × 0 + 1.A9, A4, A1
(9)1 would have both forms, violating A10.(7), (8), A10
(10)Unsolvable in ℤ, solvable in ℚ. The multiplicative inverse solves it.(5), (9)

∎

Theorem T3

In ℝ, x² = 2 is solvable. In ℚ it is not.

Proof.

(1)Set f(x) = x × x.convention
(2)f is continuous.A16
(3)f(1) = 1 × 1 = 1(1), A5
(4)f(2) = 2 × 2 = 4(1), convention
(5)1 < 2 < 4L1
(6)Therefore f(1) < 2 < f(2).(3), (4), (5), E
(7)There is c between 1 and 2 with f(c) = 2.(2), (6), A17
(8)c × c = 2(1), (7)
(9)No rational x satisfies x² = 2.A18
(10)Unsolvable in ℚ, solvable in ℝ. Completeness solves it.(8), (9), D1

∎

Theorem T4

In ℂ, x² = −1 is solvable. In ℝ it is not.

Proof.

(1)i × i = −1A20
(2)i is an element of ℂ.D1
(3)No real x satisfies x² = −1.A19
(4)Unsolvable in ℝ, solvable in ℂ. i solves it.(1), (2), (3), D1

∎

Remark

Can A17 be removed from these proofs?

Check which of the four theorems rests on completeness. What do the others stand on?