up | next | prev | ptail | tail |
1. Rational numbers. A fraction , where and are positive or negative integers, is called a rational number. We can suppose (i) that and have no common factor, as if they have a common factor we can divide each of them by it, and (ii) that is positive, since
To the rational numbers thus defined we may add the ‘rational number ’ obtained by taking .We assume that the reader is familiar with the ordinary arithmetical rules for the manipulation of rational numbers. The examples which follow demand no knowledge beyond this.
Examples I. 1. If and are rational numbers, then , , , and are rational numbers, unless in the last case (when is of course meaningless).
2. If, , and are positive rational numbers, and , then , , and are positive rational numbers. Hence show how to determine any number of right-angled triangles the lengths of all of whose sides are rational.
3. Any terminated decimal represents a rational number whose denominator contains no factors other than or . Conversely, any such rational number can be expressed, and in one way only, as a terminated decimal.
[The general theory of decimals will be considered in Ch. IV.]
4. The positive rational numbers may be arranged in the form of a simple series as follows:
Show that is the th term of the series.
[In this series every rational number is repeated indefinitely. Thus occurs as , , . We can of course avoid this by omitting every number which has already occurred in a simpler form, but then the problem of determining the precise position of becomes more complicated.]
2. The representation of rational numbers by points on a line. It is convenient, in many branches of mathematical analysis, to make a good deal of use of geometrical illustrations.
The use of geometrical illustrations in this way does not, of course, imply that analysis has any sort of dependence upon geometry: they are illustrations and nothing more, and are employed merely for the sake of clearness of exposition. This being so, it is not necessary that we should attempt any logical analysis of the ordinary notions of elementary geometry; we may be content to suppose, however far it may be from the truth, that we know what they mean.
Assuming, then, that we know what is meant by a straight line, a segment of a line, and the length of a segment, let us take a straight line , produced indefinitely in both directions, and a segment of any length. We call the origin, or the point , and the point , and we regard these points as representing the numbers and .
In order to obtain a point which shall represent a positive rational number , we choose the point such that
being a stretch of the line extending in the same direction along the line as , a direction which we shall suppose to be from left to right when, as in Fig. 1, the line is drawn horizontally across the paper. In order to obtain a point to represent anegative rational number , it is natural to regard length as a magnitude capable of sign, positive if the length is measured in one direction (that of ), and negative if measured in the other, so that ; and to take as the point representing the point such that
We thus obtain a point on the line corresponding to every rational value of , positive or negative, and such that
and if, as is natural, we take as our unit of length, and write , then we have We shall call the points the rational points of the line.3. Irrational numbers. If the reader will mark off on the line all the points corresponding to the rational numbers whose denominators are , , in succession, he will readily convince himself that he can cover the line with rational points as closely as he likes. We can state this more precisely as follows: if we take any segment on , we can find as many rational points as we please on .
Suppose, for example, that falls within the segment . It is evident that if we choose a positive integer so that
(1) |
and divide into equal parts, then at least one of the points of division (say ) must fall inside , without coinciding with either or . For if this were not so, would be entirely included in one of the parts into which has been divided, which contradicts the supposition (1). But obviously corresponds to a rational number whose denominator is . Thus at least one rational point lies between and . But then we can find another such point between and , another between and , and so on indefinitely; i.e., as we asserted above, we can find as many as we please. We may express this by saying that includes infinitely many rational points.
The meaning of such phrases as ‘infinitely many’ or ‘an infinity of ’, in such sentences as ‘ includes infinitely many rational points’ or ‘there are an infinity of rational points on ’ or ‘there are an infinity of positive integers’, will be considered more closely in Ch. IV. The assertion ‘there are an infinity of positive integers’ means ‘given any positive integer , however large, we can find more than positive integers’. This is plainly true whatever may be, e.g. for or . The assertion means exactly the same as ‘we can find as many positive integers as we please’.
The reader will easily convince himself of the truth of the following assertion, which is substantially equivalent to what was proved in the second paragraph of this section: given any rational number , and any positive integer , we can find another rational number lying on either side of and differing from by less than . It is merely to express this differently to say that we can find a rational number lying on either side of and differing from by as little as we please. Again, given any two rational numbers and , we can interpolate between them a chain of rational numbers in which any two consecutive terms differ by as little as we please, that is to say by less than , where is any positive integer assigned beforehand.
From these considerations the reader might be tempted to infer that an adequate view of the nature of the line could be obtained by imagining it to be formed simply by the rational points which lie on it. And it is certainly the case that if we imagine the line to be made up solely of the rational points, and all other points (if there are any such) to be eliminated, the figure which remained would possess most of the properties which common sense attributes to the straight line, and would, to put the matter roughly, look and behave very much like a line.
A little further consideration, however, shows that this view would involve us in serious difficulties.
Let us look at the matter for a moment with the eye of common sense, and consider some of the properties which we may reasonably expect a straight line to possess if it is to satisfy the idea which we have formed of it in elementary geometry.
The straight line must be composed of points, and any segment of it by all the points which lie between its end points. With any such segment must be associated a certain entity called its length, which must be a quantity capable of numerical measurement in terms of any standard or unit length, and these lengths must be capable of combination with one another, according to the ordinary rules of algebra, by means of addition or multiplication. Again, it must be possible to construct a line whose length is the sum or product of any two given lengths. If the length , along a given line, is , and the length , along the same straight line, is , the length must be . Moreover, if the lengths , , along one straight line, are and , and the length along another straight line is , and if we determine the length by Euclid’s construction (Euc. VI. 12) for a fourth proportional to the lines , , , this length must be , the algebraical fourth proportional to , , . And it is hardly necessary to remark that the sums and products thus defined must obey the ordinary ‘laws of algebra’; viz.
The lengths of our lines must also obey a number of obvious laws concerning inequalities as well as equalities: thus if , , are three points lying along from left to right, we must have , and so on. Moreover it must be possible, on our fundamental line , to find a point such that is equal to any segment whatever taken along or along any other straight line. All these properties of a line, and more, are involved in the presuppositions of our elementary geometry.
Now it is very easy to see that the idea of a straight line as composed of a series of points, each corresponding to a rational number, cannot possibly satisfy all these requirements. There are various elementary geometrical constructions, for example, which purport to construct a length such that . For instance, we
may construct an isosceles right-angled triangle such that . Then if , . Or we may determine the length by means of Euclid’s construction (Euc. VI. 13) for a mean proportional to and , as indicated in the figure. Our requirements therefore involve the existence of a length measured by a number , and a point on such that
But it is easy to see that there is no rational number such that its square is . In fact we may go further and say that there is no rational number whose square is , where is any positive fraction in its lowest terms, unless and are both perfect squares.For suppose, if possible, that
having no factor in common with , and no factor in common with . Then . Every factor of must divide , and as and have no common factor, every factor of must divide . Hence , where is an integer. But this involves : and as and have no common factor, must be unity. Thus , , as was to be proved. In particular it follows, by taking , that an integer cannot be the square of a rational number, unless that rational number is itself integral.It appears then that our requirements involve the existence of a number and a point , not one of the rational points already constructed, such that , ; and (as the reader will remember from elementary algebra) we write .
The following alternative proof that no rational number can have its square equal to is interesting.
Suppose, if possible, that is a positive fraction, in its lowest terms, such that or . It is easy to see that this involves ; and so is another fraction having the same property. But clearly , and so . Hence there is another fraction equal to and having a smaller denominator, which contradicts the assumption that is in its lowest terms.
Examples II. 1. Show that no rational number can have its cube equal to .
2. Prove generally that a rational fraction in its lowest terms cannot be the cube of a rational number unless and are both perfect cubes.
3. A more general proposition, which is due to Gauss and includes those which precede as particular cases, is the following: an algebraical equation with integral coefficients, cannot have a rational but non-integral root.
[For suppose that the equation has a root , where and are integers without a common factor, and is positive. Writing for , and multiplying by , we obtain
a fraction in its lowest terms equal to an integer, which is absurd. Thus , and the root is . It is evident that must be a divisor of .]4. Show that if and neither of
is zero, then the equation cannot have a rational root.5. Find the rational roots (if any) of
[The roots can only be integral, and so , , , are the only possibilities: whether these are roots can be determined by trial. It is clear that we can in this way determine the rational roots of any such equation.]
4. Irrational numbers (continued). The result of our geometrical representation of the rational numbers is therefore to suggest the desirability of enlarging our conception of ‘number’ by the introduction of further numbers of a new kind.
The same conclusion might have been reached without the use of geometrical language. One of the central problems of algebra is that of the solution of equations, such as
The first equation has the two rational roots and . But, if our conception of number is to be limited to the rational numbers, we can only say that the second equation has no roots; and the same is the case with such equations as , . These facts are plainly sufficient to make some generalisation of our idea of number desirable, if it should prove to be possible.Let us consider more closely the equation .
We have already seen that there is no rational number which satisfies this equation. The square of any rational number is either less than or greater than . We can therefore divide the rational numbers into two classes, one containing the numbers whose squares are less than , and the other those whose squares are greater than . We shall confine our attention to the positive rational numbers, and we shall call these two classes the class , or the lower class, or the left-hand class, and the class , or the upper class, or the right-hand class. It is obvious that every member of is greater than all the members of . Moreover it is easy to convince ourselves that we can find a member of the class whose square, though less than , differs from by as little as we please, and a member of whose square, though greater than , also differs from by as little as we please. In fact, if we carry out the ordinary arithmetical process for the extraction of the square root of , we obtain a series of rational numbers, viz.
whose squares are all less than , but approach nearer and nearer to it; and by taking a sufficient number of the figures given by the process we can obtain as close an approximation as we want. And if we increase the last figure, in each of the approximations given above, by unity, we obtain a series of rational numbers whose squares are all greater than but approximate to as closely as we please.The reasoning which precedes, although it will probably convince the reader, is hardly of the precise character required by modern mathematics. We can supply a formal proof as follows. In the first place, we can find a member of and a member of , differing by as little as we please. For we saw in §3 that, given any two rational numbers and , we can construct a chain of rational numbers, of which and are the first and last, and in which any two consecutive numbers differ by as little as we please. Let us then take a member of and a member of , and interpolate between them a chain of rational numbers of which is the first and the last, and in which any two consecutive numbers differ by less than , being any positive rational number as small as we please, such as or or . In this chain there must be a last which belongs to and a first which belongs to , and these two numbers differ by less than .
We can now prove that an can be found in and a in such that and are as small as we please, say less than . Substituting for in the argument which precedes, we see that we can choose and so that ; and we may plainly suppose that both and are less than . Thus
and since and it follows a fortiori that and are each less than .It follows also that there can be no largest member of or smallest member of . For if is any member of , then . Suppose that . Then we can find a member of such that differs from by less than , and so or . Thus there are larger members of than ; and as is any member of , it follows that no member of can be larger than all the rest. Hence has no largest member, and similarly has no smallest.
5. Irrational numbers (continued). We have thus divided the positive rational numbers into two classes, and , such that (i) every member of is greater than every member of , (ii) we can find a member of and a member of whose difference is as small as we please, (iii) has no greatest and no least member. Our common-sense notion of the attributes of a straight line, the requirements of our elementary geometry and our elementary algebra, alike demand the existence of a number greater than all the members of and less than all the members of , and of a corresponding point on such that divides the points which correspond to members of from those which correspond to members of .
Let us suppose for a moment that there is such a number , and that it may be operated upon in accordance with the laws of algebra, so that, for example, has a definite meaning. Then cannot be either less than or greater than . For suppose, for example, that is less than . Then it follows from what precedes that we can find a positive rational number such that lies between and . That is to say, we can find a member of greater than ; and this contradicts the supposition that divides the members of from those of . Thus cannot be less than , and similarly it cannot be greater than . We are therefore driven to the conclusion that , and that is the number which in algebra we denote by . And of course this number is not rational, for no rational number has its square equal to . It is the simplest example of what is called an irrational number.
But the preceding argument may be applied to equations other than , almost word for word; for example to , where is any integer which is not a perfect square, or to
or, as we shall see later on, to . We are thus led to believe in the existence of irrational numbers and points on such that satisfies equations such as these, even when these lengths cannot (as can) be constructed by means of elementary geometrical methods.The reader will no doubt remember that in treatises on elementary algebra the root of such an equation as is denoted by or , and that a meaning is attached to such symbols as
by means of the equations And he will remember how, in virtue of these definitions, the ‘laws of indices’ such as are extended so as to cover the case in which and are any rational numbers whatever.The reader may now follow one or other of two alternative courses. He may, if he pleases, be content to assume that ‘irrational numbers’ such as , exist and are amenable to the algebraical laws with which he is familiar.2 If he does this he will be able to avoid the more abstract discussions of the next few sections, and may pass on at once to §§ 13 et seq.
If, on the other hand, he is not disposed to adopt so naive an attitude, he will be well advised to pay careful attention to the sections which follow, in which these questions receive fuller consideration.3
Examples III. 1. Find the difference between and the squares of the decimals given in §4 as approximations to .
2. Find the differences between and the squares of
3. Show that if is a good approximation to , then is a better one, and that the errors in the two cases are in opposite directions. Apply this result to continue the series of approximations in the last example.
4. If and are approximations to , by defect and by excess respectively, and , , then .
5. The equation is satisfied by . Examine how far the argument of the preceding sections applies to this equation (writing for throughout). [If we define the classes , as before, they do not include all rational numbers. The rational number is an exception, since is neither less than or greater than .]
6. Irrational numbers (continued). In § 4 we discussed a special mode of division of the positive rational numbers into two classes, such that for the members of one class and for those of the others. Such a mode of division is called a section of the numbers in question. It is plain that we could equally well construct a section in which the numbers of the two classes were characterised by the inequalities and , or and . Let us now attempt to state the principles of the construction of such ‘sections’ of the positive rational numbers in quite general terms.
Suppose that and stand for two properties which are mutually exclusive and one of which must be possessed by every positive rational number. Further, suppose that every such number which possesses is less than any such number which possesses . Thus might be the property ‘’ and the property ‘.’ Then we call the numbers which possess the lower or left-hand class and those which possess the upper or right-hand class . In general both classes will exist; but it may happen in special cases that one is non-existent and that every number belongs to the other. This would obviously happen, for example, if (or ) were the property of being rational, or of being positive. For the present, however, we shall confine ourselves to cases in which both classes do exist; and then it follows, as in § 4, that we can find a member of and a member of whose difference is as small as we please.
In the particular case which we considered in § 4, had no greatest member and no least. This question of the existence of greatest or least members of the classes is of the utmost importance. We observe first that it is impossible in any case that should have a greatest member and a least. For if were the greatest member of , and the least of , so that , then would be a positive rational number lying between and , and so could belong neither to nor to ; and this contradicts our assumption that every such number belongs to one class or to the other. This being so, there are but three possibilities, which are mutually exclusive. Either (i) has a greatest member , or (ii) has a least member , or (iii) has no greatest member and no least.
The section of §4 gives an example of the last possibility. An example of the first is obtained by taking to be ‘’ and to be ‘’; here . If is ‘’ and is ‘’, we have an example of the second possibility, with . It should be observed that we do not obtain a section at all by taking to be ‘’ and to be ‘’; for the special number escapes classification (cf. Ex. III. 5).
7. Irrational numbers (continued). In the first two cases we say that the section corresponds to a positive rational number , which is in the one case and in the other. Conversely, it is clear that to any such number corresponds a section which we shall denote by .4 For we might take and to be the properties expressed by
respectively, or by and . In the first case would be the greatest member of , and in the second case the least member of . There are in fact just two sections corresponding to any positive rational number. In order to avoid ambiguity we select one of them; let us select that in which the number itself belongs to the upper class. In other words, let us agree that we will consider only sections in which the lower class has no greatest number.There being this correspondence between the positive rational numbers and the sections defined by means of them, it would be perfectly legitimate, for mathematical purposes, to replace the numbers by the sections, and to regard the symbols which occur in our formulae as standing for the sections instead of for the numbers. Thus, for example, would mean the same as , if and are the sections which correspond to and .
But when we have in this way substituted sections of rational numbers for the rational numbers themselves, we are almost forced to a generalisation of our number system. For there are sections (such as that of § 4) which do not correspond to any rational number. The aggregate of sections is a larger aggregate than that of the positive rational numbers; it includes sections corresponding to all these numbers, and more besides. It is this fact which we make the basis of our generalisation of the idea of number. We accordingly frame the following definitions, which will however be modified in the next section, and must therefore be regarded as temporary and provisional.
A section of the positive rational numbers, in which both classes exist and the lower class has no greatest member, is called a positive real number.
A positive real number which does not correspond to a positive rational number is called a positive irrational number.
8. Real numbers. We have confined ourselves so far to certain sections of the positive rational numbers, which we have agreed provisionally to call ‘positive real numbers.’ Before we frame our final definitions, we must alter our point of view a little. We shall consider sections, or divisions into two classes, not merely of the positive rational numbers, but of all rational numbers, including zero. We may then repeat all that we have said about sections of the positive rational numbers in §§ 6, 7, merely omitting the word positive occasionally.
DEFINITIONS. A section of the rational numbers, in which both classes exist and the lower class has no greatest member, is called a real number, or simply a number.
A real number which does not correspond to a rational number is called an irrational number.
If the real number does correspond to a rational number, we shall use the term ‘rational’ as applying to the real number also.
The term ‘rational number’ will, as a result of our definitions, be ambiguous; it may mean the rational number of §1, or the corresponding real number. If we say that , we may be asserting either of two different propositions, one a proposition of elementary arithmetic, the other a proposition concerning sections of the rational numbers. Ambiguities of this kind are common in mathematics, and are perfectly harmless, since the relations between different propositions are exactly the same whichever interpretation is attached to the propositions themselves. From and we can infer ; the inference is in no way affected by any doubt as to whether , , and are arithmetical fractions or real numbers. Sometimes, of course, the context in which (e.g.) ‘’ occurs is sufficient to fix its interpretation. When we say (see §9) that , we must mean by ‘’ the real number .
The reader should observe, moreover, that no particular logical importance is to be attached to the precise form of definition of a ‘real number’ that we have adopted. We defined a ‘real number’ as being a section, i.e. a pair of classes. We might equally well have defined it as being the lower, or the upper, class; indeed it would be easy to define an infinity of classes of entities each of which would possess the properties of the class of real numbers. What is essential in mathematics is that its symbols should be capable of some interpretation; generally they are capable of many, and then, so far as mathematics is concerned, it does not matter which we adopt. Mr Bertrand Russell has said that ‘mathematics is the science in which we do not know what we are talking about, and do not care whether what we say about it is true’, a remark which is expressed in the form of a paradox but which in reality embodies a number of important truths. It would take too long to analyse the meaning of Mr Russell’s epigram in detail, but one at any rate of its implications is this, that the symbols of mathematics are capable of varying interpretations, and that we are in general at liberty to adopt whichever we prefer.
There are now three cases to distinguish. It may happen that all negative rational numbers belong to the lower class and zero and all positive rational numbers to the upper. We describe this section as the real number zero. Or again it may happen that the lower class includes some positive numbers. Such a section we describe as a positive real number. Finally it may happen that some negative numbers belong to the upper class. Such a section we describe as a negative real number.5
The difference between our present definition of a positive real number and that of §7 amounts to the addition to the lower class of zero and all the negative rational numbers. An example of a negative real number is given by taking the property of §6 to be and to be . This section plainly corresponds to the negative rational number . If we took to be and to be , we should obtain a negative real number which is not rational.
9. Relations of magnitude between real numbers. It is plain that, now that we have extended our conception of number, we are bound to make corresponding extensions of our conceptions of equality, inequality, addition, multiplication, and so on. We have to show that these ideas can be applied to the new numbers, and that, when this extension of them is made, all the ordinary laws of algebra retain their validity, so that we can operate with real numbers in general in exactly the same way as with the rational numbers of § 1. To do all this systematically would occupy a considerable space, and we shall be content to indicate summarily how a more systematic discussion would proceed.
We denote a real number by a Greek letter such as , , ; the rational numbers of its lower and upper classes by the corresponding English letters , ; , ; , ; …. The classes themselves we denote by , .
If and are two real numbers, there are three possibilities:
(i) every is a and every a ; in this case is identical with and with ;
(ii) every is a , but not all ’s are ’s; in this case is a proper part of ,6 and a proper part of ;
(iii) every is a , but not all ’s are ’s.
These three cases may be indicated graphically as in Fig. 4.
In case (i) we write , in case (ii) , and in case (iii) . It is clear that, when and are both rational, these
definitions agree with the ideas of equality and inequality between rational numbers which we began by taking for granted; and that any positive number is greater than any negative number.
It will be convenient to define at this stage the negative of a positive number . If , are the classes which constitute , we can define another section of the rational numbers by putting all numbers in the lower class and all numbers in the upper. The real number thus defined, which is clearly negative, we denote by . Similarly we can define when is negative or zero; if is negative, is positive. It is plain also that . Of the two numbers and one is always positive (unless ). The one which is positive we denote by and call the modulus of .
2. Prove that , , or according as , , or .
3. If and , then .
4. If , , or , , then .
5. Prove that , , or , according as , , or .
6. Prove that if is positive, and if is negative.
7. Prove that .
8. Prove that .
9. Prove that, if and are two different real numbers, we can always find an infinity of rational numbers lying between and .
[All these results are immediate consequences of our definitions.]
10. Algebraical operations with real numbers. We now proceed to define the meaning of the elementary algebraical operations such as addition, as applied to real numbers in general.
(i) Addition. In order to define the sum of two numbers and , we consider the following two classes: (i) the class formed by all sums , (ii) the class formed by all sums . Plainly in all cases.
Again, there cannot be more than one rational number which does not belong either to or to . For suppose there were two, say and , and let be the greater. Then both and must be greater than every and less than every ; and so cannot be less than . But
and we can choose , , , so that both and are as small as we like; and this plainly contradicts our hypothesis.If every rational number belongs to or to , the classes , form a section of the rational numbers, that is to say, a number . If there is one which does not, we add it to . We have now a section or real number , which must clearly be rational, since it corresponds to the least member of . In any case we call the sum of and , and write
If both and are rational, they are the least members of the upper classes and . In this case it is clear that is the least member of , so that our definition agrees with our previous ideas of addition.
(ii) Subtraction. We define by the equation
The idea of subtraction accordingly presents no fresh difficulties.2. Prove that .
3. Prove that . [This follows at once from the fact that the classes and , or and , are the same, since, e.g., when and are rational.]
5. Prove that .
6. Prove that .
7. From the definition of subtraction, and Exs. 4, 1, and 2 above, it follows that
We might therefore define the difference by the equation .8. Prove that .
9. Give a definition of subtraction which does not depend upon a previous definition of addition. [To define , form the classes , for which , . It is easy to show that this definition is equivalent to that which we adopted in the text.]
10. Prove that
11. Algebraical operations with real numbers (continued). (iii) Multiplication. When we come to multiplication, it is most convenient to confine ourselves to positive numbers (among which we may include ) in the first instance, and to go back for a moment to the sections of positive rational numbers only which we considered in §§ 4–7. We may then follow practically the same road as in the case of addition, taking to be and to be . The argument is the same, except when we are proving that all rational numbers with at most one exception must belong to or . This depends, as in the case of addition, on showing that we can choose , , , and so that is as small as we please. Here we use the identity
Finally we include negative numbers within the scope of our definition by agreeing that, if and are positive, then
(iv) Division. In order to define division, we begin by defining the reciprocal of a number (other than zero). Confining ourselves in the first instance to positive numbers and sections of positive rational numbers, we define the reciprocal of a positive number by means of the lower class and the upper class . We then define the reciprocal of a negative number by the equation . Finally we define by the equation
We are then in a position to apply to all real numbers, rational or irrational, the whole of the ideas and methods of elementary algebra. Naturally we do not propose to carry out this task in detail. It will be more profitable and more interesting to turn our attention to some special, but particularly important, classes of irrational numbers.
Examples VI. Prove the theorems expressed by the following formulae:
1. . | 5. . | |
2. . | 6. . | |
3. . | 7. . | |
4. . | 8. . | |
12. The number . Let us now return for a moment to the particular irrational number which we discussed in §§ 4–5. We there constructed a section by means of the inequalities , . This was a section of the positive rational numbers only; but we replace it (as was explained in § 8) by a section of all the rational numbers. We denote the section or number thus defined by the symbol .
The classes by means of which the product of by itself is defined are (i) , where and are positive rational numbers whose squares are less than , (ii) , where and are positive rational numbers whose squares are greater than . These classes exhaust all positive rational numbers save one, which can only be itself. Thus
Again
Thus the equation has the two roots and . Similarly we could discuss the equations , and the corresponding irrational numbers , , .13. Quadratic surds. A number of the form , where is a positive rational number which is not the square of another rational number, is called a pure quadratic surd. A number of the form , where is rational, and is a pure quadratic surd, is sometimes called a mixed quadratic surd.
The two numbers are the roots of the quadratic equation
Conversely, the equation , where and are rational, and , has as its roots the two quadratic surds .The only kind of irrational numbers whose existence was suggested by the geometrical considerations of § 3 are these quadratic surds, pure and mixed, and the more complicated irrationals which may be expressed in a form involving the repeated extraction of square roots, such as
It is easy to construct geometrically a line whose length is equal to any number of this form, as the reader will easily see for himself. That irrational numbers of these kinds only can be constructed by Euclidean methods (i.e. by geometrical constructions with ruler and compasses) is a point the proof of which must be deferred for the present.7 This property of quadratic surds makes them especially interesting.
Examples VII. 1. Give geometrical constructions for
2. The quadratic equation has two real roots8 if . Suppose , , rational. Nothing is lost by taking all three to be integers, for we can multiply the equation by the least common multiple of their denominators.
The reader will remember that the roots are . It is easy to construct these lengths geometrically, first constructing . A much more elegant, though less straightforward, construction is the following.
Draw a circle of unit radius, a diameter , and the tangents at the ends of the diameters.
Take and , having regard to sign.9 Join , cutting the circle in and . Draw and , cutting in and . Then and are the roots of the equation with their proper signs.10
The proof is simple and we leave it as an exercise to the reader. Another, perhaps even simpler, construction is the following. Take a line of unit length. Draw perpendicular to , and perpendicular to and in the same direction as . On as diameter describe a circle cutting in and . Then and are the roots.
3. If is positive and will be drawn in the same direction. Verify that will not meet the circle if , while if it will be a tangent. Verify also that if the circle in the second construction will touch .
4. Prove that
14. Some theorems concerning quadratic surds. Two pure quadratic surds are said to be similar if they can be expressed as rational multiples of the same surd, and otherwise to be dissimilar. Thus
and so , are similar surds. On the other hand, if and are integers which have no common factor, and neither of which is a perfect square, and are dissimilar surds. For suppose, if possible, where all the letters denote integers.Then is evidently rational, and therefore (Ex. II. 3) integral. Thus , where is an integer. Let , , be the prime factors of , so that
where , , are positive integers. Then is divisible by , and therefore either (1) is divisible by , or (2) is divisible by , or (3) and are both divisible by . The last case may be ruled out, since and have no common factor. This argument may be applied to each of the factors , , , so that must be divisible by some of these factors and by the remainder. Thus where denotes the product of some of the factors , , and the product of the rest. Hence and are both perfect squares, which is contrary to our hypothesis.THEOREM. If , , , are rational and then either (i) , or (ii) and are both squares of rational numbers.
For is rational, and so is
If is not equal to (in which case it is obvious that is also equal to ), it follows that is also rational. Hence and are rational.COROLLARY. If , then (unless and are both rational).
Examples VIII. 1. Prove ab initio that and are not similar surds.
2. Prove that and , where is rational, are similar surds (unless both are rational).
3. If and are rational, then cannot be rational unless and are rational. The same is true of , unless .
4. If
then either (a) and , or (b) and , or (c) , , , are all rational or all similar surds. [Square the given equation and apply the theorem above.]5. Neither nor can be rational unless is rational.
6. Prove that if , where and are rational, then , where is any integer, can be expressed in the form , where and are rational. For example,
Deduce that any polynomial in with rational coefficients (i.e. any expression of the form where , …, are rational numbers) can be expressed in the form .7. If , where is not a perfect square, is the root of an algebraical equation with rational coefficients, then is another root of the same equation.
8. Express in the form prescribed in Ex. 6. [Multiply numerator and denominator by .]
9. Deduce from Exs. 6 and 8 that any expression of the form , where and are polynomials in with rational coefficients, can be expressed in the form , where and are rational.
10. If , , and are positive, we can express in the form , where
11. Determine the conditions that it may be possible to express , where and are rational, in the form , where and are rational.
12. If is positive, the necessary and sufficient conditions that
should be rational are that and should both be squares of rational numbers.15. The continuum. The aggregate of all real numbers, rational and irrational, is called the arithmetical continuum.
It is convenient to suppose that the straight line of § 2 is composed of points corresponding to all the numbers of the arithmetical continuum, and of no others.11 The points of the line, the aggregate of which may be said to constitute the linear continuum, then supply us with a convenient image of the arithmetical continuum.
We have considered in some detail the chief properties of a few classes of real numbers, such, for example, as rational numbers or quadratic surds. We add a few further examples to show how very special these particular classes of numbers are, and how, to put it roughly, they comprise only a minute fraction of the infinite variety of numbers which constitute the continuum.
(i) Let us consider a more complicated surd expression such as
Our argument for supposing that the expression for has a meaning might be as follows. We first show, as in §12, that there is a number such that , and we can then, as in §10, define the numbers , . Now consider the equation in , The right-hand side of this equation is not rational: but exactly the same reasoning which leads us to suppose that there is a real number such that (or any other rational number) also leads us to the conclusion that there is a number such that . We thus define , and similarly we can define ; and then, as in §10, we define .Now it is easy to verify that
And we might have given a direct proof of the existence of a unique number such that . It is easy to see that there cannot be two such numbers. For if and , we find on subtracting and dividing by that . But if and are positive , and therefore , , , and so the equation just found is impossible. And it is easy to see that neither nor can be negative. For if is negative and equal to , is positive and , or . Hence , and so . But then , and so cannot be equal to , which is less than .Hence there is at most one such that . And it cannot be rational. For any rational root of this equation must be integral and a factor of (Ex. II. 3), and it is easy to verify that no one of , , , is a root.
Thus has at most one root and that root, if it exists, is positive and not rational. We can now divide the positive rational numbers into two classes , according as or . It is easy to see that if and is any number greater than , then also . For suppose if possible . Then since we obtain on subtracting , or , which is impossible; for is positive and (since ). Similarly we can show that if and then also .
Finally, it is evident that the classes and both exist; and they form a section of the positive rational numbers or positive real number which satisfies the equation . The reader who knows how to solve cubic equations by Cardan’s method will be able to obtain the explicit expression of directly from the equation.
(ii) The direct argument applied above to the equation could be applied (though the application would be a little more difficult) to the equation
and would lead us to the conclusion that a unique positive real number exists which satisfies this equation. In this case, however, it is not possible to obtain a simple explicit expression for composed of any combination of surds. It can in fact be proved (though the proof is difficult) that it is generally impossible to find such an expression for the root of an equation of higher degree than . Thus, besides irrational numbers which can be expressed as pure or mixed quadratic or other surds, or combinations of such surds, there are others which are roots of algebraical equations but cannot be so expressed. It is only in very special cases that such expressions can be found.(iii) But even when we have added to our list of irrational numbers roots of equations (such as ) which cannot be explicitly expressed as surds, we have not exhausted the different kinds of irrational numbers contained in the continuum. Let us draw a circle whose diameter is equal to , i.e. to unity. It is natural to suppose12 that the circumference of such a circle has a length capable of numerical measurement. This length is usually denoted by . And it has been shown13 (though the proof is unfortunately long and difficult) that this number is not the root of any algebraical equation with integral coefficients, such, for example, as
where is an integer. In this way it is possible to define a number which is not rational nor yet belongs to any of the classes of irrational numbers which we have so far considered. And this number is no isolated or exceptional case. Any number of other examples can be constructed. In fact it is only special classes of irrational numbers which are roots of equations of this kind, just as it is only a still smaller class which can be expressed by means of surds.16. The continuous real variable. The ‘real numbers’ may be regarded from two points of view. We may think of them as an aggregate, the ‘arithmetical continuum’ defined in the preceding section, or individually. And when we think of them individually, we may think either of a particular specified number (such as , , , or ) or we may think of any number, an unspecified number, the number . This last is our point of view when we make such assertions as ‘ is a number’, ‘ is the measure of a length’, ‘ may be rational or irrational’. The which occurs in propositions such as these is called the continuous real variable: and the individual numbers are called the values of the variable.
A ‘variable’, however, need not necessarily be continuous. Instead of considering the aggregate of all real numbers, we might consider some partial aggregate contained in the former aggregate, such as the aggregate of rational numbers, or the aggregate of positive integers. Let us take the last case. Then in statements about any positive integer, or an unspecified positive integer, such as ‘ is either odd or even’, is called the variable, a positive integral variable, and the individual positive integers are its values.
Naturally ‘’ and ‘’ are only examples of variables, the variable whose ‘field of variation’ is formed by all the real numbers, and that whose field is formed by the positive integers. These are the most important examples, but we have often to consider other cases. In the theory of decimals, for instance, we may denote by any figure in the expression of any number as a decimal. Then is a variable, but a variable which has only ten different values, viz. , , , , , , , , , . The reader should think of other examples of variables with different fields of variation. He will find interesting examples in ordinary life: policeman , the driver of cab , the year , the th day of the week. The values of these variables are naturally not numbers.
17. Sections of the real numbers. In §§ 4–7 we considered ‘sections’ of the rational numbers, i.e. modes of division of the rational numbers (or of the positive rational numbers only) into two classes and possessing the following characteristic properties:
(i) that every number of the type considered belongs to one and only one of the two classes;
(ii) that both classes exist;
(iii) that any member of is less than any member of .
It is plainly possible to apply the same idea to the aggregate of all real numbers, and the process is, as the reader will find in later chapters, of very great importance.
Let us then suppose14 that and are two properties which are mutually exclusive, and one of which is possessed by every real number. Further let us suppose that any number which possesses is less than any which possesses . We call the numbers which possess the lower or left-hand class , and those which possess the upper or right-hand class .
Thus might be and be . It is important to observe that a pair of properties which suffice to define a section of the rational numbers may not suffice to define one of the real numbers. This is so, for example, with the pair ‘’ and ‘’ or (if we confine ourselves to positive numbers) with ‘’ and ‘’. Every rational number possesses one or other of the properties, but not every real number, since in either case escapes classification.
There are now two possibilities.15 Either has a greatest member , or has a least member . Both of these events cannot occur. For if had a greatest member , and a least member , the number would be greater than all members of and less than all members of , and so could not belong to either class. On the other hand one event must occur.16
For let and denote the classes formed from and by taking only the rational members of and . Then the classes and form a section of the rational numbers. There are now two cases to distinguish.
It may happen that has a greatest member . In this case must be also the greatest member of . For if not, we could find a greater, say . There are rational numbers lying between and , and these, being less than , belong to , and therefore to ; and this is plainly a contradiction. Hence is the greatest member of .
On the other hand it may happen that has no greatest member. In this case the section of the rational numbers formed by and is a real number . This number must belong to or to . If it belongs to we can show, precisely as before, that it is the greatest member of , and similarly, if it belongs to , it is the least member of .
Thus in any case either has a greatest member or a least. Any section of the real numbers therefore ‘corresponds’ to a real number in the sense in which a section of the rational numbers sometimes, but not always, corresponds to a rational number. This conclusion is of very great importance; for it shows that the consideration of sections of all the real numbers does not lead to any further generalisation of our idea of number. Starting from the rational numbers, we found that the idea of a section of the rational numbers led us to a new conception of a number, that of a real number, more general than that of a rational number; and it might have been expected that the idea of a section of the real numbers would have led us to a conception more general still. The discussion which precedes shows that this is not the case, and that the aggregate of real numbers, or the continuum, has a kind of completeness which the aggregate of the rational numbers lacked, a completeness which is expressed in technical language by saying that the continuum is closed.
The result which we have just proved may be stated as follows:
Dedekind’s Theorem. If the real numbers are divided into two classes and in such a way that
(i) every number belongs to one or other of the two classes,
(ii) each class contains at least one number,
(iii) any member of
is less than any member of ,
then there is a number ,
which has the property that all the numbers less than it belong
to and all the numbers
greater than it to .
The number
itself may belong to either class.
In applications we have often to consider sections not of all numbers but of all those contained in an interval , that is to say of all numbers such that . A ‘section’ of such numbers is of course a division of them into two classes possessing the properties (i), (ii), and (iii). Such a section may be converted into a section of all numbers by adding to all numbers less than and to all numbers greater than . It is clear that the conclusion stated in Dedekind’s Theorem still holds if we substitute ‘the real numbers of the interval ’ for ‘the real numbers’, and that the number in this case satisfies the inequalities .
18. Points of accumulation. A system of real numbers, or of the points on a straight line corresponding to them, defined in any way whatever, is called an aggregate or set of numbers or points. The set might consist, for example, of all the positive integers, or of all the rational points.
It is most convenient here to use the language of geometry.17 Suppose then that we are given a set of points, which we will denote by . Take any point , which may or may not belong to . Then there are two possibilities. Either (i) it is possible to choose a positive number so that the interval does not contain any point of , other than itself,18 or (ii) this is not possible.
Suppose, for example, that consists of the points corresponding to all the positive integers. If is itself a positive integer, we can take to be any number less than , and (i) will be true; or, if is halfway between two positive integers, we can take to be any number less than . On the other hand, if consists of all the rational points, then, whatever the value of , (ii) is true; for any interval whatever contains an infinity of rational points.
Let us suppose that (ii) is true. Then any interval , however small its length, contains at least one point which belongs to and does not coincide with ; and this whether itself be a member of or not. In this case we shall say that is a point of accumulation of . It is easy to see that the interval must contain, not merely one, but infinitely many points of . For, when we have determined , we can take an interval surrounding but not reaching as far as . But this interval also must contain a point, say , which is a member of and does not coincide with . Obviously we may repeat this argument, with in the place of ; and so on indefinitely. In this way we can determine as many points
as we please, all belonging to , and all lying inside the interval .A point of accumulation of may or may not be itself a point of . The examples which follow illustrate the various possibilities.
Examples IX. 1. If consists of the points corresponding to the positive integers, or all the integers, there are no points of accumulation.
2. If consists of all the rational points, every point of the line is a point of accumulation.
3. If consists of the points , , , there is one point of accumulation, viz. the origin.
4. If consists of all the positive rational points, the points of accumulation are the origin and all positive points of the line.
19. Weierstrass’s Theorem. The general theory of sets of points is of the utmost interest and importance in the higher branches of analysis; but it is for the most part too difficult to be included in a book such as this. There is however one fundamental theorem which is easily deduced from Dedekind’s Theorem and which we shall require later.
THEOREM. If a set contains infinitely many points, and is entirely situated in an interval , then at least one point of the interval is a point of accumulation of .
We divide the points of the line into two classes in the following manner. The point belongs to if there are an infinity of points of to the right of , and to in the contrary case. Then it is evident that conditions (i) and (iii) of Dedekind’s Theorem are satisfied; and since belongs to and to , condition (ii) is satisfied also.
Hence there is a point such that, however small be , belongs to and to , so that the interval contains an infinity of points of . Hence is a point of accumulation of .
This point may of course coincide with or , as for instance when , , and consists of the points , , . In this case is the sole point of accumulation.
1. What are the conditions that , (1) for all values of , , ; (2) for all values of , , subject to ; (3) for all values of , , subject to both and ?
2. Any positive rational number can be expressed in one and only one way in the form
where , , …, are integers, and3. Any positive rational number can be expressed in one and one way only as a simple continued fraction
where , are positive integers, of which the first only may be zero.[Accounts of the theory of such continued fractions will be found in text-books of algebra. For further information as to modes of representation of rational and irrational numbers, see Hobson, Theory of Functions of a Real Variable, pp. 45–49.]
4. Find the rational roots (if any) of .
5. A line is divided at in aurea sectione (Euc. II. 11)—i.e. so that . Show that the ratio is irrational.
[A direct geometrical proof will be found in Bromwich’s Infinite Series, §143, p. 363.]
6. is irrational. In what circumstances can , where , , , are rational, be rational?
7. Some elementary inequalities. In what follows , denote positive numbers (including zero) and , positive integers. Since and have the same sign, we have , or
(1) |
an inequality which may also be written in the form
(2) |
By repeated application of this formula we obtain
(3) |
and in particular
(4) |
When in (1), or in (4), the inequalities are merely different forms of the inequality , which expresses the fact that the arithmetic mean of two positive numbers is not less than their geometric mean.
8. Generalisations for numbers. If we write down the inequalities of the type (1) which can be formed with numbers , , …, , and add the results, we obtain the inequality
(5) |
or
(6) |
Hence we can deduce an obvious extension of (3) which the reader may formulate for himself, and in particular the inequality
(7) |
9. The general form of the theorem concerning the arithmetic and geometric means. An inequality of a slightly different character is that which asserts that the arithmetic mean of , , …, is not less than their geometric mean. Suppose that and are the greatest and least of the ’s (if there are several greatest or least ’s we may choose any of them indifferently), and let be their geometric mean. We may suppose , as the truth of the proposition is obvious when . If now we replace and by
we do not alter the value of the geometric mean; and, since we certainly do not increase the arithmetic mean.It is clear that we may repeat this argument until we have replaced each of , , …, by ; at most repetitions will be necessary. As the final value of the arithmetic mean is , the initial value cannot have been less.
10. Schwarz’s inequality. Suppose that , , …, and , , …, are any two sets of numbers positive or negative. It is easy to verify the identity
where and assume the values , , …, . It follows that an inequality usually known as Schwarz’s (though due originally to Cauchy).11. If , , …, are all positive, and , then
12. If , , …, and , , …, are two sets of positive numbers, arranged in descending order of magnitude, then
13. If , , , … and , , , … are two sets of numbers, and all of the first set are positive, then
lies between the algebraically least and greatest of , , …, .14. If , are dissimilar surds, and , where , , , are rational, then , , , .
[Express in the form , where and are rational, and apply the theorem of §14.]
15. Show that if , where , , are rational numbers, then , , .
16. Any polynomial in and , with rational coefficients (i.e. any sum of a finite number of terms of the form , where and are integers, and rational), can be expressed in the form
where , , , are rational.17. Express , where , , etc. are rational, in the form
where , , , are rational.[Evidently
where , , etc. are rational numbers which can easily be found. The required reduction may now be easily completed by multiplication of numerator and denominator by . For example, prove that
18. If , , , are rational numbers such that
then either (i) , or (ii) and are squares of rational numbers.19. If all the values of and given by
(where , , , , , are rational) are rational, then are both squares of rational numbers.20. Show that and are cubic functions of , with rational coefficients, and that is the ratio of two linear functions of .
21. The expression
is equal to if , and to if .22. Show that any polynomial in , with rational coefficients, can be expressed in the form
where , , are rational.More generally, if is any rational number, any polynomial in with rational coefficients can be expressed in the form
where , are rational and . For any such polynomial is of the form where the ’s are rational. If , this is already of the form required. If , let be any power of higher than the th. Then , where is an integer and ; and . Hence we can get rid of all powers of higher than the th.23. Express and in the form , where , , are rational. [Multiply numerator and denominator of the second expression by .]
24. If
where , , are rational, then , , .[Let . Then and
Hence orMultiplying these two quadratic equations by and and subtracting, we obtain , or , a rational number, which is impossible. The only alternative is that , .
Hence , . If neither nor is zero, we can divide the second equation by the first, which gives : and this is impossible, since cannot be equal to the rational number . Hence , , and it follows from the original equation that , , and are all zero.
As a corollary, if , then , , .
It may be proved, more generally, that if
not being a perfect th power, then ; but the proof is less simple.]25. If , then either , , or and are both cubes of rational numbers.
26. If , then either one of , , is zero, and the other two equal and opposite, or , , are rational multiples of the same surd .
27. Find rational numbers , such that
28. If , then
is rational. [Each of the numbers under a cube root is of the form where and are rational.]29. If , any polynomial in is the root of an equation of degree , with rational coefficients.
[We can express the polynomial ( say) in the form
where , are rational, as in Ex. 22.Similarly
Hence
where is the determinant and , the minors of , .]30. Apply this process to , and deduce the theorem of §14.
31. Show that satisfies the equation
32. Algebraical numbers. We have seen that some irrational numbers (such as ) are roots of equations of the type
where , , …, are integers. Such irrational numbers are called algebraical numbers: all other irrational numbers, such as (§15), are called transcendental numbers. Show that if is an algebraical number, then so are , where is any rational number, and , where and are any integers.33. If and are algebraical numbers, then so are , , and .
[We have equations
where the ’s and ’s are integers. Write , in the second, and eliminate . We thus get an equation of similar form
satisfied by . Similarly for the other cases.]34. If
where , , …, are any algebraical numbers, then is an algebraical number. [We have equations of the type in which the coefficients , are integers. Eliminate , , …, between these and the original equation for .]35. Apply this process to the equation .
36. Find equations, with rational coefficients, satisfied by
37. If , then , where
38. If and , then satisfies a quadratic equation with rational coefficients.
[It will be found that .]
up | next | prev | ptail | top |