Contents

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

1 Logic 1
1.1 Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Conjunction, Disjunction and Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4 Special Focus on Negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.5 Variables and Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.6 Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.7 Using Tautologies to Analyze Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1.8 Russell’s Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

2 Set Theory 47
2.1 Sets and Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.2 The Axiom of Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.3 The Axiom of Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.4 The Axiom of Unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.5 The Axiom of Powers; Relations and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.6 The Axiom of Infinity; Natural Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

3 Number Systems I: Natural Numbers 85

3.1 Arithmetic With Natural Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.2 Ordering the Natural Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.3 A More Abstract Viewpoint: Binary Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.4 Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.5 Sums and Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.6 Divisibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.7 Equivalence Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.8 Arithmetic Modulo m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
3.9 Public Key Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

v
vi CONTENTS

4 Number Systems II: Integers 155

4.1 Arithmetic With Integers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
4.2 Groups and Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
4.3 Finding the Natural Numbers in the Integers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.4 Ordered Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
4.5 Division in Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.6 Countable Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

5 Number Systems III: Fields 195

5.1 Arithmetic With Rational Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
5.2 Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
5.3 Ordered Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
5.4 A Problem with the Rational Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
5.5 The Real Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
5.6 Uncountable Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
5.7 The Complex Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
5.8 Solving Polynomial Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.9 Beyond Fields: Vector Spaces and Algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

6 Unsolvability of the Quintic by Radicals 243

6.1 Irreducible Polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
6.2 Field Extensions and Splitting Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
6.3 Uniqueness of the Splitting Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
6.4 Field Automorphisms and Galois Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.5 Normal Field Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
6.6 The Groups Sn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
6.7 The Fundamental Theorem of Galois Theory and Normal Subgroups . 275
6.8 Consequences of Solvability by Radicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
6.9 Abel’s Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

7 More Axioms 295

7.1 The Axiom of Choice, Zorn’s Lemma and the Well-Ordering Theorem 295
7.2 Ordinal Numbers and the Axiom of Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . 302
7.3 Cardinal Numbers and the Continuum Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . 305

A Historical Overview and Commentary 311

A.1 Ancient Times: Greece and Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
A.2 The Dark Ages and First New Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
A.3 There is No Quintic Formula: Abel and Galois . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
A.4 Understanding Irrational Numbers: Set Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Conclusion and Outlook 322

Bibliography 323

Index 325
Preface
The foundation of mathematics is not found in a single discipline, because math-
ematics is a general way of thinking in a very rigorous logical fashion. This text is
written especially for students who are about to make first contact with this way of
thinking.1 No matter what the first “proof class” in your curriculum is, you may have
heard stories from upperclassmen about how hard it is. The bad news: They are right.
Proofs are hard. The good news: You can adjust to this new way of thinking, and it
will make you more capable in general.
The biggest challenge in a first proof class is that you need a certain mental dis-
cipline to not use mathematics that you already know (all that calculus you took) to
prove some rather simple-looking results. In fact, for some early theorems, it is very
common to ask yourself “Why do we even need to prove this?” or to realize “I already
know this, but why is it true?” Check out the questions on page x for some simple and
hard questions that we will answer in this text.
To keep the temptation to use “known stuff” to a minimum, it is appropriate to
start with nothing but formal logic and the axioms of set theory. But we must assure
that we do not get too tangled in the technical details of these subjects. So the trick to
this introduction (hopefully) is to give you enough of everything, but not too much of
anything: Because mathematics is pure logical reasoning, the text is about logic. But
formal logic is also a branch of mathematics, and this text is not a logic text. Because
everything in mathematics is constructed from sets, the text is about set theory. But
formal set theory is also a branch of mathematics, and this text is not a set theory
text. Because mathematics deals with numbers, the text is about numbers. But formal
number theory is also a branch of mathematics, and this text is not a number theory
text. Because a lot of mathematics is algebraic, the text is about algebra. But formal
algebra is also a branch of mathematics, and this text is not an algebra text.
So what is this text? Chapters 1-5, which I recommend for an introductory course,
provide a rigorous, self-contained construction of the familiar number systems (natu-
ral numbers, integers, real and complex numbers) from the axioms of set theory. The
construction in itself is quite beautiful, and it will train you in many of the proof tech-
niques that mathematicians use almost subconsciously. But learning anything just for
the sake of doing it is typically less efficient than learning something for a known pur-
pose or within a known context (see [3]). Whenever possible, to increase motivation,
I have included important applications of the fundamentals: Among other things, we
1 But nonetheless, I hope that advanced students, and even experts, will enjoy it, too.
viii Preface

will discuss the scientific method in general (which is the reason why civilization has
advanced to today’s highly technological state), the fundamental building blocks of
digital processors (which make computers work), and public key encryption (which
makes internet commerce secure). To attach more familiar meanings to the entities
with which we work in this text, and to specifically serve education majors, I have also
included examples and exercises on a lot of the neat mathematics that we have learned
in elementary and high school.
The various number systems were developed to better solve certain problems, most
notably equations. So it is natural to cap the construction of the number systems with
the solution of cubic and quartic equations in Section 5.8 and with the unsolvability
of the quintic by radicals in Chapter 6. I don’t expect Chapter 6 to fit into a standard
one-term introductory course. But it makes for fascinating, if challenging, reading, and
it could be used in a follow-up course or seminar.
Finally, Chapter 7 puts the finishing touches on our excursion into set theory. The
axioms presented there do not directly impact our elementary construction of the num-
ber systems. But once they are needed in an advanced class, you will appreciate them.
Once you have gone through the majority of this text, I am confident that you will
be prepared for your first “targeted” proof class, no matter if it is analysis, algebra,
linear algebra (these are “the usual suspects”) or another subject altogether.
That leaves us with the subject of proofs themselves. I have tried to present standard
proof methods and to make the transition into proofs and abstract reasoning as smooth
as possible. But that’s the same as saying that a successful cross country running coach
made the start of spring training as smooth as possible: The overall effort to go from
untrained to competition level remains the same. All we can do is make the preparation
as effective as possible. Moreover, unlike in, say, calculus, we will not be able to mimic
examples. The only good example for a proof pretty much amounts to the proof itself.
This is a radical shift for many of us, whether we are consciously aware of it or not.
I had a hard time with it myself, because I did not even realize that the comparatively
small number of techniques (examples if you will) in calculus had become second
nature and sustained me through a lot of physics, for example.
To help us understand mathematical reasoning, reasons why proofs are set up in a
certain way are frequently discussed in the early chapters. In fact, you should think
about why a proof ran the way it did after every proof you read. Even if you don’t find
a good answer, the effort spent thinking about these ideas will help settle the necessary
structures in your mind. (Consider [2] for the value of training that “feels hard”.) In
later chapters, proofs are presented in the way you would see them in a text for people
who know how to do proofs. That means that as we progress, you will be required
to fill in more and more gaps. This is quite customary in mathematics. If we were
to fill in every detail of every proof, communication would be hard, because a lot of
unnecessary detail would be included every time. In the video presentations (see [27])
many details are filled in verbally.
It is virtually certain that at some point you will wonder how your teacher or your
classmates can produce proofs with seeming ease, while you cannot. This can be very
frustrating, but just about everyone I know has gone through this struggle.2 Think
2 The only possible exception is an individual who started taking college classes at 12, graduated with a
Preface ix

of it this way: Do we really know what happens when we walk or pursue any daily
activity that we may take for granted? Naturally, the task of walking is simple for a
healthy, fully developed, non-inebriated adult.3 But this ability must be acquired, too.
Children spend hours, days, and weeks learning to stand up, stand without support,
take one step, two steps and so on. Just because we can do it now does not mean it was
always easy. So what exactly happens when we walk? Few people, and I am not one of
them, even know all the muscle groups that have to work in very coordinated fashion
as people walk. And the details of what happens in our bodies do not stop there.
The muscle groups are steered by neural connections to the central nervous system,
where a combination of conscious and unconscious processes governs how we walk.
Conscious thoughts determine where we are going and at what speed, unconscious
processes assure that we do not trip over our feet. A fully detailed description seems to
be impossible. Moreover, an intellectual understanding of all the underlying processes
will not make anyone, say, a better soccer player. On the other hand, a child who grew
up playing the game can be a very good soccer player, even with no knowledge of
physiology. So do proofs (“play the game”) as much as you can, and chances are that
they will become second nature.
Acknowledgements. Constructing the real numbers “from nearly nothing” is a
natural start. My first analysis teacher, Professor Wegener, constructed R from N at
the start of our class. At Tech, we used Clayton Dodge’s out of print book [4], which
constructs R in set theory, for the class for which I developed this text. Halmos’ classic
text [8] helped me with set theory, the Encyclopaedia of Mathematics [9] was an in-
valuable resource for quick references as well as some historical notes, my background
in logic is from Hurd and Loeb [11], the idea to include a proof of the unsolvability of
the quintic, and the proof itself, stem mostly from Maxfield and Maxfield [15], with
Meyberg’s texts [16] and [17] further helping with the presentation of Galois Theory,
and [1] helping with Descartes’ Rule of Signs. Finally, I used [9] and Wikipedia to
refresh my memory on the few Latin words I know, on RSA encryption and as a gen-
eral resource. The students in my Spring and Summer 2009 classes provided good
feedback on the text and were patient with typos. Special thanks go to James Sims,
who inspired Exercise 3-79, Wei Wang, whose ideas greatly improved Exercise 6-8
on Descartes’ Rule of Signs, and Nichamon Naksinehaboon and Narate Taerat who
corrected Exercise 6-44 on commuting cycles.
But most importantly, this work would not have been possible without the love
and understanding of my family. They continue to live with me and my obsession for
mathematics, and I am eternally grateful for that.
Ruston, Louisiana, August 26, 2009
– Bernd Schröder

BS in mathematics at 18 and had a Ph.D. in mathematics from a world-leading institution by age 23. He is
an exceptional talent. Do not be disappointed if your progress is slower. Do not get discouraged when you
get bogged down. That is simply normal.
3 In case of inebriation, walking may be difficult, but it must be preferred over driving.
x Questions

Questions
Human inquisitiveness is driven by questions. In high school, Einstein once asked
himself a very simple question: If he had the appropriate means of transportation,
could he catch up with the light emitted from a match he just lit? The answer he found
about a decade later has revolutionized our understanding of the world. So it is good
to ask questions, even questions that sound simple or strange. Of course, not all of
us can ask and answer questions of Einstein’s caliber. But answers to our questions
can change our understanding of any subject, including mathematics. Think about the
questions below, then start reading. References to the answers, if they exist as this text
is published, are provided in parentheses.
1. Why is 1 + 1 = 2? (Definition 3.7.)
2. Why is 3 < 9? (Comment after Definition 3.20.)
3. Why can we not divide by zero? (Comments after Proposition 4.17 and after
Proposition 5.1, as well as Proposition 5.11 itself.)
4. Is 3 a solution of x 3 − 5x 2 + 3x + 9 = 0? Why? Are there more solutions? If
so, what are they? (Definition 4.55, Theorems 5.65, 5.66 and Exercise 5-63d.)
5. What is a set? (Sections 1.8 and 2.1.)
6. What is a digital computer made of? (Example 1.22 and Exercise 1-9.)
7. What is the scientific method? (Example 1.57.)
8. Why are publicly encrypted internet transactions safe? (Section 3.9.)
9. Why is there no quintic formula? (Chapter 6 – all of it!)
10. Why can angles not be trisected with straightedge and compass? (Exercises 6-5,
6-17, 6-32, 6-33 and 6-34.)
11. Can we count past infinity? (Section 7.2.)
12. Are there infinitely many twin prime numbers? (Unsolved, see Example 1.5 for
the statement.)
13. Is there an efficient factorization algorithm for integers? (Unsolved, see the dis-
cussion after Theorem 3.107 for the relevance of this question.)