Mathematics Asked by thisguy on December 20, 2020

I know we can use cuts in real numbers but it has no effect, and hence we get nothing new. I wonder why we cannot extend real numbers with cuts and which property of cuts makes it impossible to extend it. How can we show that cuts do not extend real numbers?

You can perform the Dedekind cut construction on $mathbb{R}$, but you don't get anything new.

Specifically, here's the abstract setting. Suppose we have a linear order $L$ with no first or last point - for example, $mathbb{Q}$ or $mathbb{R}$ (ordered as usual). We can define a new linear order $Ded(L)$ as follows:

An element of $Ded(L)$ is a set $Xsubseteq L$ such that $X$ is nonempty, is downwards-closed (with respect to the ordering of $L$), is not all of $L$, and has no greatest element.

Elements of $Ded(L)$ are ordered by inclusion: $Xle_{Ded(L)}Y$ iff $Xsubseteq Y$.

There is a natural embedding $e$ of $L$ into $Ded(L)$, given by $$xmapsto {y: y< x}.$$ In this sense $hat{L}$ "extends" $L$.

Now given a particular $L$, we can ask whether $Ded(L)$ **properly** extends $L$ in the above sense; are there in fact elements of $Ded(L)$ which are not in the range of the embedding $e$, that is, not of the form ${y: y<x}$ for some $xin L$?

The answer depends on the $L$ in question. For example, if we take $L=mathbb{Q}$ (ordered as usual) then we **do indeed** get new elements: the set $${y: y^2<2}$$ is an element of $Ded(mathbb{Q})$ but is not of the form ${y: y<x}$ for any $xinmathbb{Q}$.

However, for other choices of $L$ we do **not** get anything new, that is, the corresponding embedding $e$ is actually a bijection (or more fancily, an **isomorphism**). And $mathbb{R}$ is indeed such an example: $Ded(mathbb{R})$ is "the same thing as" $mathbb{R}$, in the sense that every element of $Ded(mathbb{R})$ has the form ${y: y<x}$ for some $xinmathbb{R}$. This is a good exercise, and relies crucially on the **least upper bound** principle for $mathbb{R}$:

We can now ask, "Where did the least upper bound principle for $mathbb{R}$ come from?" Of course the answer is: from the Dedekind cut construction itself! In fact, what's really going on is this:

For any appropriate $L$, we have $Ded(L)cong Ded(Ded(L))$ (although possibly $Lnotcong Ded(L)$).

Answered by Noah Schweber on December 20, 2020

1 Asked on December 10, 2021

large deviation theory moment generating functions probability theory

1 Asked on December 10, 2021 by tavish

0 Asked on December 10, 2021 by dimash-k

1 Asked on December 10, 2021 by coderino-javarino

1 Asked on December 10, 2021

2 Asked on December 10, 2021

characteristic polynomial determinant linear algebra matrices

1 Asked on December 10, 2021 by behavingearth

2 Asked on December 10, 2021

2 Asked on December 10, 2021

1 Asked on December 10, 2021 by oziter

2 Asked on December 10, 2021 by math14

1 Asked on December 10, 2021

1 Asked on December 10, 2021

3 Asked on December 10, 2021 by tanmay-johri

1 Asked on December 8, 2021 by buttercrab

1 Asked on December 8, 2021

Get help from others!

Recent Questions

Recent Answers

- haakon.io on Why fry rice before boiling?
- Joshua Engel on Why fry rice before boiling?
- Peter Machado on Why fry rice before boiling?
- Lex on Does Google Analytics track 404 page responses as valid page views?
- Jon Church on Why fry rice before boiling?

© 2022 AnswerBun.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, MenuIva, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP