rs

ro
er
be
Math 101: Lecture 1

ay
M. K. Vemuri

m
e
er
Tuesday, 8 August, 2023
th
ft:
ra
 rs
Course Information

ro
er
be
TEXT BOOK
1. Thomas’ Calculus by G. B. Thomas, M. D. Weir

ay
and J. Hass
REFERENCE BOOKS

m
1. Introduction to Real Analysis by R. G. Bartle
e
and D. R. Sherbert
er
2. Advanced Engineering Mathematics by E.
Kreyszig
th
ft:
ra
 rs
Ordered Sets

ro
er
Definition
Let S be a set. An order on S is a relation, denoted by <, with the

be
following two properties:
(i). If x ∈ S and y ∈ S then one and only one of the statements

ay
x < y, x = y, y <x

m
is true.
e
(ii). If x, y , z ∈ S, if x < y and y < z, then x < z.
er
Property (i) is called the trichotomy law and property (ii) is called
th

transitivity.
It is often convenient to write y > x in place of x < y .
ft:

The notation x ≤ y indicates (x < y or x = y ). Thus

x ≤ y ⇔∼ (y < x).
ra
 rs
Ordered Sets (contd)

ro
er
Definition

be
An ordered set is a set S in which an order is defined.

Example

ay
Recall that if m, n ∈ N, we say that m < n if there exists r ∈ N

m
such that n = m + r . We claim that this defines an order on N.
(i) is evident to us from our understanding of apples and oranges.
e
It cannot be “proved” because we didn’t give a formal construction
er
of N.
(ii) Let m, n, p ∈ N and assume m < n and n < p. Then there
th

exist r , s ∈ N such that n = m + r and p = n + s, whence

p = m + (r + s), and m < p.
ft:
ra
 rs
Ordered Sets (contd)

ro
er
be
Example
If r = mn ∈ Q, define r > 0 if mn > 0. This is well defined because
p

ay
if mn = 2 2
q , then mq = pn, therefore (mn)q = (pq)n , whence mn
and pq have the same sign.

m
Now, if r , s ∈ Q, define r < s if s − r > 0. It is an exercise for you
to check that this defines an order on Q.
e
er
Observe that between any two rationals there is another: if r < s
then r < r +s
2 < s. However, there are still some “gaps”, as the
th

following example illustrates.

ft:
ra
 rs
Ordered Sets (contd)

ro
Example

er
Let A be the set of all positive rationals such that p 2 < 2 and let
B consist of all positive rationals such that p 2 > 2. We claim that

be
A has no largest element and B has no smallest element, i.e. for
every p ∈ A we can find q ∈ A such that p < q and for every

ay
p ∈ B we can find q ∈ B such that q < p.
To do this, we associate with each rational p > 0, the number

m
p2 − 2 2p + 2
q=p− =
e p+2 p+2
er
th
Then
2(p 2 − 2)
q2 − 2 = .
(p + 2)2
ft:

If p ∈ A then p 2 − 2 < 0, so q > p and q 2 < 2, so q ∈ A.

ra

If p ∈ B then p 2 − 2 > 0, so q < p and q 2 > 2, so q ∈ B.

 rs
Ordered Sets (contd)

ro
Definition

er
Suppose S is an ordered set, and E ⊆ S. If there exists β ∈ S such
that x ≤ β for all x ∈ E , we say that E is bounded above, and call

be
β an upper bound of E .
Lower bounds are defined in the same way (with ≥ in place of ≤).

ay
Definition

m
Suppose S is an ordered set, E ⊆ S, and E is bounded above.
Suppose there exists α ∈ S with the following properties:
e
(i). α is an upper bound of E .
er
(ii). If γ < α then γ is not an upper bound of E .
th

Then α is called the least upper bound of E or the supremum of

E , and we write
ft:

α = sup E .
ra

That there is at most one such α is clear from (ii).

 rs
Ordered Sets (contd)

ro
er
The greatest lower bound or infimum, of a set E which is bounded
below is defined in the same manner: The statement

be
α = inf E

ay
means that α is a lower bound of E and that no β with β > α is a
lower bound of E .

m
Example
e
If S is the set of rational numbers with the usual order, and
er
A = {p ∈ S | p 2 < 2}, B = {p ∈ S | p 2 > 2}
th
and

Then A is bounded above, but has no least upper bound, and B is

ft:

bounded below, but has no greatest lower bound.

ra
 rs
Ordered Sets (contd)

ro
er
Example

be
Let S = Q with the usual order. Let E = {1/n | n = 1, 2, 3, . . . }.
Then sup E = 1 and inf E = 0 (exercise). Observe that sup E ∈ E

ay
but inf E ∈
/ E.

m
Definition
An ordered set S is said to have the least-upper-bound property if
e
the following is true: If E ⊆ S, E ̸= ∅, and E is bounded above,
er
then sup E exists (in S).
th

We have seen that Q does not have the least upper bound
property.
ft:
ra
 rs
Ordered Sets (contd)

ro
er
Theorem

be
Suppose S is an ordered set with the lub property, B ⊆ S, B ̸= ∅,
and B is bounded below. Let L be the set of all lower bounds of B.

ay
Then

m
α = sup L
exists (in S), and α = inf B. In particular inf B exists (in S).
e
er
Proof.
th
Not difficult, but somewhat complicated. Omitted for now.
ft:
ra
 rs
Fields

ro
er
Definition. A field is a set F with two operations, called addition
and multiplication, which satisfy the so-called “field axioms” (A),

be
(M), and (D):
(A) Axioms for addition

ay
(A1) If x ∈ F and y ∈ F , then their sum x + y ∈ F .
(A2) Addition is commutative: x + y = y + x for all x, y ∈ F .

m
(A3) Addition is associative: (x + y ) + z = x + (y + z) for all
x, y , z ∈ F .
e
er
(A4) F contains an element 0 such that 0 + x = x for all x ∈ F .
(A5) To every x ∈ F corresponds an element −x ∈ F such that
th

x + (−x) = 0.
ft:
ra
 rs
Fields

ro
er
(M) Axioms for multiplication
(M1) If x ∈ F and y ∈ F then their product xy ∈ F .

be
(M2) Multiplication is commutative: xy = yx for all x, y ∈ F .
(M3) Multiplication is associative: (xy )z = x(yz) for all

ay
x, y , z ∈ F .
(M4) F contains an element 1 ̸= 0 such that 1x = x for all x ∈ F .

m
(M5) If x ∈ F and x ̸= 0 then there exists an element 1/x ∈ F
such that x(1/x) = 1. e
er
(D) The distributive law
th

x(y + z) = xy + xz

holds for all x, y , z ∈ F .

ft:
ra
 rs
Fields

ro
Theorem
Q is a field.

er
Proof.

be
We will not check all the axioms here, but you should do it in the
privacy of your boudoir. Let us check (A2) and (M5).
p
(A2) Let x, y ∈ Q, and write x = m

ay
n and y = q . Then

m
qm + np np + qm
x +y = , and y + x = ,
nq qn
e
er
are equal by commutativity of addition and multiplication in Z.
(M5) Let x ∈ Q, x ̸= 0. Write x = pq . Then p ̸= 0. Put 1/x = qp .
th

Then 1/x ∈ Q (you check that it is well defined) and

pq
ft:

x(1/x) = =1
qp
ra

by commutaitvity of multiplication in Z.
 rs
Fields (contd)

ro
Proposition

er
The axioms for addition imply

be
(a). If x + y = x + z then y = z (cancellation law)
(b). If x + y = x then y = 0

ay
(c). If x + y = 0 then y = −x
(d). −(−x) = x

m
Proof. e
er
Let’s prove (a). You can do the rest yourself. Assume
x + y = x + z. Then
th

y = 0 + y = (−x + x) + y = − x + (x + y )
ft:

= −x + (x + z) = (−x + x) + z = 0 + z = z.
ra
 rs
Fields (contd)

ro
er
Proposition

be
The axioms for multiplication imply
(a). If x ̸= 0 and xy = xz then y = z (cancellation law)

ay
(b). If x ̸= 0 and xy = x then y = 1

m
(c). If x ̸= 0 and xy = 1 then y = 1/x
1
e
(d). If x ̸= 0 then 1/x ̸= 0 and 1/x =x
er
th
Proof.
Left to reader.
ft:
ra
 rs
Fields (contd)

ro
er
The field axioms imply that for all x, y , z ∈ F
(a). 0x = 0

be
(b). If x ̸= 0 and y ̸= 0 then xy ̸= 0

ay
(c). (−x)y = −(xy ) = x(−y )
(d). (−x)(−y ) = xy

m
Proof.
Let’s prove (a) and (b). e
er
(a) 0x + 0x = (0 + 0)x = 0x. The additive cancellation law implies
th
0x = 0.
(b) Assume xy = 0. If x ̸= 0, then since xy = x0 it follows that
y = 0 by the multiplicative cancellation law.
ft:
ra