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, an≤bn.
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.
We require [xn+an]=[yn+bn]; that is, we require xn+an−yn−bn→0 as n→∞.
But this is true: if we fix rational ϵ>0, we can find N1 such that for all n>N1, we have |xn−yn|<ϵ2; and we can find N2 such that for all n>N2, we have |an−bn|<ϵ2. Letting N be the maximum of the two N1,N2, we have that for all n>N, |xn+an−yn−bn|≤|xn−yn|+|an−bn| 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.
Let ϵ>0 be rational. Then $|xnan−ynbn|=|xn(an−bn)+bn(xn−yn)|$ using the very handy trick of adding the expression xnbn−xnbn.
By the triangle inequality, this is ≤|xn||an−bn|+|bn||xn−yn|.
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(|an−bn|+|xn−yn|).
Finally, for n sufficiently large we have |an−bn|<ϵ2B, and similarly for xn and yn, so the result follows that |xnan−ynbn|<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).
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).
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].
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 [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:
- Real number (as Cauchy sequence)
There are several ways to construct real numbers; this is the most natural way to use them in computations.