Solutions to Rudin Principles of Mathematical Analysis

134 pages

 
Solutions to Principles of Mathematical Analysis (Walter Rudin)
Jason Rosendale jason.rosendale@gmail.comDecember 19, 2011
This work was done as an undergraduate student: if you really don’t understand something in one of theseproofs, it is very possible that it doesn’t make sense because it’s wrong. Any questions or corrections can bedirected to jason.rosendale@gmail.com.
Exercise 1.1a
Let
r
be a nonzero rational number. We’re asked to show that
x
Q
implies that (
r
+
x
)
Q
. Proof of thecontrapositive:
r
+
x
is rational assumed
(
 p
Q
)(
r
+
x
=
p
) denition of rational
(
 p,q
Q
)(
q
+
x
=
p
) we’re told that
r
is rational
(
 p,q
Q
)(
x
=
q
+
 p
) existence of additive inverses in
Q
Because
p
and
q
are members of the closed additive group of 
Q
, we know that their sum is amember of 
Q
.
(
u
Q
)(
x
=
u
)
x
is rational denition of rationalBy assuming that
r
+
x
is rational, we prove that
x
must be rational. By contrapositive, then, if 
x
is irrationalthen
r
+
x
is irrational, which is what we were asked to prove.
Exercise 1.1b
Let
r
be a nonzero rational number. We’re asked to show that
x
Q
implies that
rx
Q
. Proof of thecontrapositive:
rx
is rational assumed
(
 p
Q
)(
rx
=
p
) definition of rational
(
 p
Q
)(
x
=
r
1
 p
) existence of multiplicative inverses in
Q
(Note that we can assume that
r
1
exists only because we are told that
r
is nonzero.) Because
r
1
and
p
are members of the closed multiplicative group of 
Q
, we know that their product is also amember of 
Q
.
(
u
Q
)(
x
=
u
)
x
is rational denition of rationalBy assuming that
rx
is rational, we prove that
x
must be rational. By contrapositive, then, if 
x
is irrationalthen
rx
is irrational, which is what we were asked to prove.1
 
Exercise 1.2
Proof by contradiction. If 
12 were rational, then we could write it as a reduced-form fraction in the form of 
 p/q
where
p
and
q
are nonzero integers with no common divisors.
pq
=
12 assumed
(
 p
2
q
2
= 12)
(
 p
2
= 12
q
2
)It’s clear that 3
|
12
q
2
, which means that 3
|
 p
2
. By some theorem I can’t remember (possibly thedefinition of ‘prime’ itself), if 
a
is a prime number and
a
|
mn
, then
a
|
m
a
|
n
. Therefore, since 3
|
 pp
and 3 is prime,
3
|
 p
9
|
 p
2
(
m
N
)(
 p
2
= 9
m
) definition of divisibility
(
m
N
)(12
q
2
= 9
m
) substitution from
p
2
= 12
q
2
(
m
N
)(4
q
2
= 3
m
) divide both sides by 3
(3
|
4
q
2
) denition of divisibilityFrom the same property of prime divisors that we used previously, we know that 3
|
4
3
|
q
2
: itclearly doesn’t divide 4, so it must be the case that 3
|
q
2
. But if 3
|
qq
, then 3
|
q
3
|
q
. Therefore:
(3
|
q
)And this establishes a contradiction. We began by assuming that
p
and
q
had no common divisors, but wehave shown that 3
|
 p
and 3
|
q
. So our assumption must be wrong: there is no reduced-form rational number suchthat
pq
=
12.
Exercise 1.3 a
If 
x
= 0 and
xy
=
xz
, then
y
= 1
y
= (
x
1
x
)
y
=
x
1
(
xy
) =
x
1
(
xz
) = (
x
1
x
)
z
= 1
z
=
z
Exercise 1.3 b
If 
x
= 0 and
xy
=
x
, then
y
= 1
y
= (
x
1
x
)
y
=
x
1
(
xy
) =
x
1
x
= 1
Exercise 1.3 c
If 
x
= 0 and
xy
= 1, then
y
= 1
y
= (
x
1
x
)
y
=
x
1
(
xy
) =
x
1
1 =
x
1
= 1
/x
Exercise 1.3 d
If 
x
= 0, then the fact that
x
1
x
=1 means that
x
is the inverse of 
x
1
: that is,
x
= (
x
1
)
1
= 1
/
(1
/x
).
Exercise 1.4
We are told that
is nonempty, so there exists some
e
. By the definition of lower bound, (
x
)(
α
x
):so
α
e
. By the definition of upper bound, (
x
)(
x
β
): so
e
β
. Together, these two inequalities tell usthat
α
e
β
. We’re told that
is ordered, so by the transitivity of order relations this implies
α
β
.2
 
Exercise 1.5
We’re told that
A
is bounded below. The field of real numbers has the greatest lower bound property, so we’reguaranteed to have a greatest lower bound for
A
. Let
β
be this greatest lower bound. To prove that
β
isthe least upper bound of 
A
, we must first show that it’s an upper bound. Let
x
be an arbitrary element in
A
:
→ −
x
∈ −
A
assumed
x
A
definition of membership in
A
β
x β
= inf(
A
)
→ −
β
≥ −
x
consequence of 1.18(a)We began with an arbitrary choice of 
x
, so this proves that (
x
∈ −
A
)(
β
≥ −
x
), which by definitiontells us that
β
is an upper bound for
A
. To show that
β
is the least such upper bound for
A
, we choosesome arbitrary element less than
β
:
α <
β
assumed
→ −
α > β
consequence of 1.18(a)Remember that
β
is the greatest lower bound of 
A
. If 
α
is larger than inf(
A
), there must be someelement of 
A
that is smaller than
α
.
(
x
A
)(
x <
α
) (see above)
(
x
∈ −
A
)(
x > α
) consequence of 1.18(a)
!(
x
∈ −
A
)(
x
α
)
α
is not an upper bound of 
A
definition of upper boundThis proves that any element less than
β
is not an upper bound of 
A
. Together with the earlier proof that
β
is an upper bound of 
A
, this proves that
β
is the least upper bound of 
A
.
Exercise 1.6a
The difficult part of this proof is deciding which, if any, of the familiar properties of exponents are consideredaxioms and which properties we need to prove. It seems impossible to make any progress on this proof unless wecan assume that (
b
m
)
n
=
b
mn
. On the other hand, it seems clear that we can’t simply assume that (
b
m
)
1
n
=
b
m/n
:this would make the proof trivial (and is essentially assuming what we’re trying to prove).As I understand this problem, we have defined
x
n
in such a way that it is trivial to prove that (
x
a
)
b
=
x
ab
when
a
and
b
are integers. And we’ve declared in theorem 1.21 that,
by definitio
, the symbol
x
1
n
is the elementsuch that (
x
n
)
1
n
=
x
. But we haven’t defined exactly what it might mean to combine an integer power like
n
and some arbitrary inverse like 1
/r
. We are asked to prove that these two elements do, in fact, combine in theway we would expect them to: (
x
n
)
1
/r
=
x
n/r
.Unless otherwise noted, every step of the following proof is justified by theorem 1.21.3