THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM

DIRECTIONS: Use axioms/theorems established BEFORE the item was presented in class.

b d bd
Prove:  , a  0, c  0
a c ac

Proof:
b d  1  1
 = b     d   Definition of Division
a c  a  c
 1  1 
=b     d    Associativity
 a  c 
 1  1 
=b    d     Commutativity
 c  a 
  1 1 
=b   d      Associativity
  c a 
 1 1
=b  d     Associativity
c a
1
=b  d  Thm 11
ac
bd
= Definition of Division
ac

b d
Prove:  , then b  d . Use previously established axioms/theorems.
a a

Proof.
b d
 Given
a a
1 1
b d Definition of Division
a a
 1  1
b  a  d  a MPE
 a  a
1  1 
b  a  d  a Associativity
a  a 
b 1 d 1 Existence of Inverses
bd Existence of Identity

Prove: (b/a) + (d/c) = (bc + ad)/ac, a ≠ 0, c ≠ 0.

Proof:
bc b d a d
 
a  c a and c  a c (specify theorem)
 b d bc d a
   By substitution
a c ac ca
bc ad
   is commutative
ac ac
 1   1 
 b  c      a  d     Definition of Division
ac ac
 1 
 b  c   a  d     Distributivity
ac
bc ad
 Definition of Division
ac
b d bc  ad
Therefore,  
a c ac

THIS ITEM IS HERE ONLY TO CONVINCE YOU THAT IS 2 NOT RATIONAL. WE WON’T USE THIS KIND OF
PROOF IN MATH 17.

Prove that there is no rational number whose square is 2, that is , prove that 2 is irrational.

Proof: First, we claim that if a2 is even, then a must be even. (Obviously, a is an integer here.)
Suppose a2 is even but a is odd. Then a = 2k + 1, for some integer k. Then
a2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 2k + 1.
Note that every term of a2 as computed is even (has a factor of 2) except the last term (which is 1). Hence, a2
is odd and therefore not even. This contradicts our assumption that a 2 is even. Thus our assumption that a is
odd must be false. Hence, a must be even.

Now, to prove that there is no rational number whose square is 2, assume the contrary, that is, we assume
that there are integers p and q (q ≠ 0) such that (p/q)2 = 2. We further assume that p and q are relatively
prime, that is, they have no common factor except possibly 1. Then
2
 p p2
   2  2
 2  p 2  2q 2  p 2 is even  p  2k, for some k  Z. (By the claim above)
q q
Now, p2 = 2q2  (2k)2 = 2q2  4k2 = 2q2  q2 = 2k2  q2 is even  q = 2r, for some r  Z. (By the claim)
Thus p = 2k and q = 2r both imply that p and q have a factor in common, namely 2, contrary to the
assumption that they are relatively prime. Thus, there is no rational number whose square is 2.