Does there exist a rational whose square is 2

If there existed such rational whose square

would be 2
Then that rational would be the greatest

If you have a non empty subset of real numbers,

& you can find any one upper bound
Then there exists an B (sup or least
upperbound)
1)
B >= all members of the set
1.1) B + any positive > all members
2)
B any positive < some member

Archimedian :: x>0 & y is a real, there ex some

N st Nx>y
If (nat A ^ nat E) % (prime P ^ nat Q) = 0
Then A^E % P^(multipleofE>=Q) = 0
Conv if N st including and after that stage
Limits of convergence of seq are unique,

Sandwich theorem
Product of bounded and vanishing seq, vanishes
Algebra of conv seq conv to algebra of limits
Rationalizing
Conv seq are always bounded
Monotonic & Bounded conv to inf/sup
Triangle inequality
Finding whether conv or not, without finding lim
Cauchy Seq :: E N st, A m,n >= N, |xm-xn|<eps
If not convergent then divergent
Difference of positives < Sum of positives
({xn}l & |xn|<=M A n) |l| <= M
Assume on the contrary l > M
Cantor intersection nested intersection thm
Intersect of [0,1/k] = {0}
Let us prove,
We have an 0 & bn 0
If we claim any +ve element stays in the set
Then bn as bn 0 will soon be < that element

Now 0 will stay in every interval In as its

inclusive
Subsequence
Bolzann Westrauss thm ::
Given any bound seq, some subseq conv
LnN and rootN are not Cauchy though diff 0
If Cauchy seq has conv subseq then the seq
conv
Given,
Xn is Cauchy
After N1, dist bet any 2 < eps1
After N2, distance between terms of subseq
and lim < eps2
Prove, show a stage N3 exists after which dist
Between terms of seq & lim is <eps
Take N3 = Max{N1,N2}
Since N3>=N2, all terms of subseq are within
L+-eps2, catch any one such term,
And since Cauchy and N3>=N1
All terms of seq are within eps1 dist of

Each other, so all terms after N3 are within

L+-(eps1+eps2), sum of epsi can be made
smaller than eps
Every Cauchy is bounded
After N distance between any 2 < eps
Therefore max term after this can be
Nth term + eps so its bounded after finite
stage
Since finitely many terms exist before this,
The max {|x1|,|x2|..|xN-1|, |xn|+eps}
Cauchy is bounded (westrauss)
Some subseq conv Seq conv
Therefore being cauchy is both necessary
As well as sufficient criteria
Cauchy if there exists N such that for m,n>=N
|Xm-Xn|<eps
Specifically if,

If difference of terms decays no slower than

expo
Or if ratio of successive differences is < 1
Then its cauchy
Move ahead by some amount,
Move in opposite, half of previously moved
amount
In the end you converge ahead by 2/3rd of initial
Thm :: if cont fn then if {xn}x0, {f(xn)}f(x0)
& if for every {xn}x0, {f(x0)}x0 then f is
cont
Former, for eps>0 E del st.
(|x-x0|<del) (|f(x)-f(x0)|<eps)
del>0&{xn}x0 so E N st, A n>=N,|xn-x0|< del
but since cont, |xn-x0|<del |f(x)-f(x0)|<eps
hence proved.
Latter, assume on the contrary that,
For every {xn}x0,{f(xn)}f(x0) but f is not
cont

Since {xn}x0, for any del > 0 there exists N1

St for all n>=N1 |xn-x0|<del
Since {f(xn)}f(x0), for any eps > 0 there
exists
N2 st. for all n>=N2, |f(xn)-f(x0)|<eps
So let N3 = max{N1,N2} Then for all n>=N3,
both |xn-x0|<del & |f(xn)-f(x0)|<eps
so taken n>=N3, |xn-x0|<del|f(xn)-f(x0)|<eps
if f is discont then there exists epsmax st, for all
eps <= epsmax, (equality here is compensated
by
ineq later), no delta exists for which
|a-x0|<del |f(a)-f(x0)|<eps
So even if n>=N3,
|xn-x0|<del ShouldNOT |f(xn)-f(x0)|<eps
But this is a contradiction.
If fn is cont and nonzero at a pt, it is so in
vicinity
If f is continuous on R and its value on all points

In a set dense in R for eg in Q, is constant,

Then its value on entire R is the same
A function defined on [a,b] to R if continuous
Is bounded & also assumes its bounds.
{f(x)|x in [a,b]} is subset of [-M,M]
ie.. there exist x0 & y0 for abs max & abs min
Example, f : (0,1] R && f = 1/x
Assume on contrary the f is unbounded,
Then for every natural N there exists xn in [a,b]
Such that |f(xn)| >= N (mod is important)
So {xn} in [a,b] and {f(xn)} is unbounded
{xn} is bounded as all xn <= b
Bolzann Weistrauss :: There exist a subsequence
{xk} with xk = x[n[k]] which converges,
{xk} in [a,b] let it converge to x0
If x0 isntin [a,b] thenfor eps<=min{|x0-a|,|x0b|}
There should exist N1 such that for all k>=N1

|x0-xk| < eps.. so xk for k>=N1 belongs in

(x0-eps,x0+eps) intersect [a,b]
But [a,b] intersect (x0-eps,x0+eps) = NULL
So x0 belongs in [a,b]
f is continuous at x0,
therefore any sequence that converges to x0
sequence of f of the elements converges to
f of x0, but every convergent seq is bounded
{f(xk)} is bounded.. but from construction
|f(x[n[k]])| >= n[k] which means it is unbounded
This is a contradiction. Therefore f is bounded
Let sup{f(x)|x in [a,b]} = M
Definition of supremum
Choose natural n, consider M 1/n , this is < M
M 1/n is not upper bound, let {xn} in [a,b]
such that M 1/n < f(xn) < M
Therefore |M-f(xn)| < 1/n
{xn} is bounded, therefore there is an {xk}
Such that converges and limit is also within [a,b]

Since f is continuous at that limit as well (as it is

In the entire a,b) therefore any sequence that
Converges to this limit, f of elements of that seq
Converge to f of the limit
But by construction |M-f(xnk)| < 1/nk
Or that M 1/nk < f(xnk) < M
Limkinf |f(xnk)-M| <= Limkinf 1/nk = 0
Since modulus is continuous & so is f(xnk)
Limkinf|f(xnk)-M| = |Limkinf f(xnk)-M| = 0
= |f(Limkinf xnk) M | = 0
Therefore f(x0) = M
So we have an x0 in a,b such that f(x0) = M,
Intermediate value theorem,
Specific proof : f(a)<0, f(b)>0 then f(c) = 0
Consider set E = { x | x belongs in [a,b] &&
f(x)<0 }
Let c = sup(E),Let {xn} from set E c,
f(xn)f(c) since continuous.
But f(xn) < 0 therefore the limit f(c) <= 0

Suppose if f(c) < 0 then for eps < |f(c) 0|

there exist del
Such that (c-del < x < c+del) f(x) < f(c) +
eps < 0
So lets look at x = c +del/2, f(c +del/2) < so c
+del/2 belongs
To E, so c cant be supremum therefore the
assumption is
Wrong. So f(c) = 0
Fcont : [0,1] [0,1] then f(x) = x for some x
Either trivially f(0) = 0 or f(1) =1
If not then f(0)>0 & f(1)<1
Let g(x) = f(x) x, diff of cont is cont, g is cont
If g(x) = 0 then f(x) = x g(0) > 0 & g(1) < 0
therefore from the above proved.. g(c)=0 for
some c in [0,1]