0

I'm currently looking a way to understand how Dedeking is building R from Q set. How can i formally build R set from the Dedeking method ? I mean, from the Q set. Can we see each real number as an element of P(Q) ?

toto
  • 165
  • Maybe you could elaborate some more? What exactly is unclear to you, what textbook are you using as a reference, etc. What do you mean by $P(Q)$? – Yuriy S Aug 16 '16 at 01:22
  • Actually, i saw that to create the R set, you have to get the set of all subset of Q (that's what i called P(Q)) and then, say that every real number is actually defined by a split of Q in two part. But i don't exactly see what are those two parts, how they are defined and what they mean. By the way, have you any reference (book or other) which describes in details the construction of R ? – toto Aug 16 '16 at 01:25
  • here is a fairly readable exposition. For that matter, the wkipedia article at least provides the basic definition and sketches the standard example. – lulu Aug 16 '16 at 01:37
  • Okay, thanks a lot ! – toto Aug 16 '16 at 01:40

1 Answers1

0

The idea is that a real number $x$ can be uniquely defined by the set $Q_x$ of all rational numbers less than it. In fact, if we have two real numbers $x<y$, then there is some $p\in \Bbb{Q}$ with $x < p < y$, so $Q_x \neq Q_y$. So this approach is pretty reasonable.

Starting only with $\Bbb{Q}$ (which we know to be an ordered field with the usual ordering), we can define $\Bbb{R}$ to be the set of all $x\subset \Bbb{Q}$ such that $x$ is an interval which is not bounded below, and not equal to $\Bbb{Q}$. Note: not every element of the power set of $\Bbb{Q}$ gives us a real number as you imply in the OP, only the unbounded below/bounded above intervals do.

We want $\Bbb{R}$ to be an ordered field in which every bounded above subset has a supremum. To do this, we have to define addition, multiplication, negation, and multiplicative inverses, and the order.

Given $x, y\in \Bbb{R}$, we can define $x+y$ to be the sum of $x$ and $y$ as sets; that is, $x+y = \{p+q : p\in x, q \in y\}$. You can check that $x+y\in \Bbb{R}$. Similarly, we define $$x-y = \{p-q:p\in x, q\notin y\}$$ $$x > 0 \iff \exists p\in x : p > 0$$

For multiplication, we have to be very careful so as not to include extra elements in the product. Defining the set $S^* = S\cap [0, \infty)$ for any $S\subset \Bbb{Q}$, the following definitions works for $x,y> 0$: $$xy = \{pq:p\in x^*, q\in y^*\}\cup (-\infty,0)$$ $$\frac{x}{y} = \{\frac{p}{q}:p\in x, q\notin y\}$$ Multiplication and division can then be extended to numbers of arbitrary sign in the obvious manner.

This defines our field operations and the ordering, so one just has to prove that these definitions do, in fact, provide an ordered field, and that $\Bbb{R}$ has the supremum property (note that the supremum of a bounded above $S\in \Bbb{R}$ is just the union of its elements).

florence
  • 12,819
  • Okay, great ! But one more thing, what about limits on R. You said that : "if we have two real numbers x<yx<y, then there is some p∈Qp∈Q with x<p<yx<p<y, so Qx≠QyQx≠Qy. So this approach is pretty reasonable." Okay, but, what's about adding an epsilon (a very tiny real value to x ?) that's like doing a union of the rationals which defines x and the rationals which defines epsilon ? – toto Aug 16 '16 at 02:13
  • Not quite; say $x=5$ and $\epsilon=0.1$. The union of these two numbers as Dedekind sets is just $5$, since $x$ contains all rationals less than $5$, and $\epsilon$ contains all rationals less than $0.1$. However, $x+\epsilon$ would be the set of all rationals less than $5.1$. – florence Aug 16 '16 at 02:31
  • hu, seems weird, okay, got any reference which helped you to learn that kind of things for the first time ? – toto Aug 16 '16 at 02:39
  • I believe I originally learned it from the Wikipedia article about the ways to construct the real numbers, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers#Construction_by_Dedekind_cuts. It doesn't offer the proofs, but those are straightforward (although tedious). – florence Aug 16 '16 at 02:41