Processing math: 41%

The reals (constructed as classes of Cauchy sequences of rationals) form a field

The real numbers, when constructed as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rationals, form a totally ordered field, with the inherited field structure given by

  • [an]+[bn]=[an+bn]

  • [an]×[bn]=[an×bn]

  • [an][bn] if and only if either [an]=[bn] or for sufficiently large n, anbn.

Proof

Firstly, we need to show that those operations are even well-defined: that is, if we pick two different representatives (xn)n=1 and (yn)n=1 of the same equivalence class [xn]=[yn], we don’t somehow get different answers.

Well-definedness of +

We wish to show that [xn]+[an]=[yn]+[bn] whenever [xn]=[yn] and [an]=[bn]; this is an exercise.

Since [xn]=[yn], it must be the case that both (xn) and (yn) are Cauchy sequences such that xnyn0 as n. Similarly, anbn0 as n.

We require [xn+an]=[yn+bn]; that is, we require xn+anynbn0 as n.

But this is true: if we fix rational ϵ>0, we can find N1 such that for all n>N1, we have |xnyn|<ϵ2; and we can find N2 such that for all n>N2, we have |anbn|<ϵ2. Letting N be the maximum of the two N1,N2, we have that for all n>N, |xn+anynbn||xnyn|+|anbn| by the triangle inequality, and hence ϵ. <div><div>

Well-definedness of ×

We wish to show that [xn]×[an]=[yn]×[bn] whenever [xn]=[yn] and [an]=[bn]; this is also an exercise.

We require [xnan]=[ynbn]; that is, xnanynbn0 as n.

Let ϵ>0 be rational. Then $|xnanynbn|=|xn(anbn)+bn(xnyn)|$ using the very handy trick of adding the expression xnbnxnbn.

By the triangle inequality, this is |xn||anbn|+|bn||xnyn|.

We now use the fact that cauchy sequences are bounded, to extract some B such that |xn|<B and |bn|<B for all n; then our expression is less than B(|anbn|+|xnyn|).

Finally, for n sufficiently large we have |anbn|<ϵ2B, and similarly for xn and yn, so the result follows that |xnanynbn|<ϵ. <div><div>

Well-definedness of

We wish to show that if [an]=[cn] and [bn]=[dn], then [an][bn] implies [cn][dn].

Suppose [an][bn], but suppose for contradiction that [cn] is not [dn]: that is, [cn][dn] and there are arbitrarily large n such that cn>dn. Then there are two cases.

  • If [an]=[bn] then [dn]=[bn]=[an]=[cn], so the result follows immediately. noteWe didn’t need the extra assumption that [c_n] \not \leq [d_n] here.

  • If for all sufficiently large n we have a_n \leq b_n, then this part

Additive commutative group structure on \mathbb{R}

The additive identity is [0] (formally, the equivalence class of the sequence (0, 0, \dots)). Indeed, [a_n] + [0] = [a_n+0] = [a_n].

The additive inverse of the element [a_n] is [-a_n], because [a_n] + [-a_n] = [a_n-a_n] = [0].

The operation is commutative: [a_n] + [b_n] = [a_n+b_n] = [b_n+a_n] = [b_n] + [a_n].

The operation is closed, because the sum of two Cauchy sequences is a Cauchy sequence (exercise).

If (a_n) and (b_n) are Cauchy sequences, then let \epsilon > 0. We wish to show that there is N such that for all n, m > N, we have |a_n+b_n - a_m - b_m| < \epsilon.

But |a_n+b_n - a_m - b_m| \leq |a_n - a_m| + |b_n - b_m| by the triangle inequality; so picking N so that |a_n - a_m| < \frac{\epsilon}{2} and |b_n - b_m| < \frac{\epsilon}{2} for all n, m > N, the result follows. <div><div>

The operation is associative: $[a_n] + ([b_n] + [c_n]) = [a_n] + [b_n+c_n] = [a_n+b_n+c_n] = [a_n+b_n] + [c_n] = ([a_n]+[b_n])+[c_n]$

Ring structure

The multiplicative identity is [1] (formally, the equivalence class of the sequence (1,1, \dots)). Indeed, [a_n] \times [1] = [a_n \times 1] = [a_n].

\times is closed, because the product of two Cauchy sequences is a Cauchy sequence (exercise).

If (a_n) and (b_n) are Cauchy sequences, then let \epsilon > 0. We wish to show that there is N such that for all n, m > N, we have |a_n b_n - a_m b_m| < \epsilon.

But $|a_n b_n - a_m b_m| = |a_n (b_n - b_m) + b_m (a_n - a_m)| \leq |b_m| |a_n - a_m| + |a_n| |b_n - b_m|$ by the triangle inequality.

Cauchy sequences are bounded, so there is B such that |a_n| and |b_m| are both less than B for all n and m.

So picking N so that |a_n - a_m| < \frac{\epsilon}{2B} and |b_n - b_m| < \frac{\epsilon}{2B} for all n, m > N, the result follows. <div><div>

\times is clearly commutative: [a_n] \times [b_n] = [a_n \times b_n] = [b_n \times a_n] = [b_n] \times [a_n].

\times is associative: $[a_n] \times ([b_n] \times [c_n]) = [a_n] \times [b_n \times c_n] = [a_n \times b_n \times c_n] = [a_n \times b_n] \times [c_n] = ([a_n] \times [b_n]) \times [c_n]$

\times distributes over +: we need to show that [x_n] \times ([a_n]+[b_n]) = [x_n] \times [a_n] + [x_n] \times [b_n]. But this is true: $[x_n] \times ([a_n]+[b_n]) = [x_n] \times [a_n+b_n] = [x_n \times (a_n+b_n)] = [x_n \times a_n + x_n \times b_n] = [x_n \times a_n] + [x_n \times b_n] = [x_n] \times [a_n] + [x_n] \times [b_n]$

Field structure

To get from a ring to a field, it is necessary and sufficient to find a multiplicative inverse for any [a_n] not equal to [0].

Since [a_n] \not = 0, there is some N such that for all n > N, a_n \not = 0. Then defining the sequence b_i = 1 for i \leq N, and b_i = \frac{1}{a_i} for i > N, we obtain a sequence which induces an element [b_n] of \mathbb{R}; and it is easy to check that [a_n] [b_n] = [1].

[a_n] [b_n] = [a_n b_n]; but the sequence (a_n b_n) is 1 for all n > N, and so it lies in the same equivalence class as the sequence (1, 1, \dots).

Ordering on the field

We need to show that:

  • if [a_n] \leq [b_n], then for every [c_n] we have [a_n] + [c_n] \leq [b_n] + [c_n];

  • if [0] \leq [a_n] and [0] \leq [b_n], then [0] \leq [a_n] \times[b_n].

We may assume that the inequalities are strict, because if equality holds in the assumption then everything is obvious.

If [a_n] = [b_n], then for every [c_n] we have [a_n] + [c_n] = [b_n] + [c_n] by well-definedness of addition. Therefore [a_n] + [c_n] \leq [b_n] + [c_n].

If [0] = [a_n] and [0] \leq [b_n], then [0] = [0] \times [b_n] = [a_n] \times [b_n], so it is certainly true that [0] \leq [a_n] \times [b_n]. <div><div>

For the former: suppose [a_n] < [b_n], and let [c_n] be an arbitrary equivalence class. Then [a_n] + [c_n] = [a_n+c_n]; [b_n] + [c_n] = [b_n+c_n]; but we have a_n + c_n \leq b_n + c_n for all sufficiently large n, because a_n \leq b_n for sufficiently large n. Therefore [a_n] + [c_n] \leq [b_n] + [c_n], as required.

For the latter: suppose [0] < [a_n] and [0] < [b_n]. Then for sufficiently large n, we have both a_n and b_n are positive; so for sufficiently large n, we have a_n b_n \geq 0. But that is just saying that [0] \leq [a_n] \times [b_n], as required.

Parents: