The field of rational numbers are problematic.
As for construction, one can do it by defining equivalence classes on , where if . If we let denote the equivalence class of under the above relation, addition is defined as , multiplication as (both stand on addition and multiplication of integers), then It's not difficult to check that this is the familiar field of the rational numbers.
But we won't do this rational numbers as equivalence classes of nonsense here.
is irrational
There is no such that .
For the sake of contradiction, suppose there is a rational number for which . Now, where . Then, we have , which means hence . writing as , we have hence as well. Therefore, . Arriving at the desired contradiction.
The gap at in the rationals
Let , . Then has no largest element, and has no smallest element.
Allow . Then, .
Now Suppose is the maximal element of . Using the rightmost equation, given that , we see that Hence . However, using, the left most equation, we have that , hence we arrive at a contradiction.
Now suppose is the minimal element of . Again, using the rightmost equation, given that , indeed, Hence .
However, using the leftmost equation, we have , arriving at a contradiction.
Holes in the rational numbers
Even though the rational numbers are "dense" in the sense that between any two , we have , it seems that there are holes, certain equations have no solutions in , moreover, it seems like we can get arbitrarily close to these holes from the left and from the right, as illustrated for the hole at "".
Ordered sets
A set with a relation on is called an orderd set if:
For each exactly one of is true. This is often called the Trichotomy law.
If and for some , then , meaning that order is transitive.
Sometimes, we write instead of , and is used to denote or .
Upper and Lower bounds
For the following discussion, let denote an ordered set.
A subset of is said to be bounded above if there exists such that for all . In such a case is called an upper bound for .
If is an upper bound for such that for any upper bound of , , then is known as the least upper bound or supremum of . Often denoted .
A subset of is said to be bounded below, if there exits such that for all . In such a case, is called a lower bound of .
if is a lower bound of such that for any lower bound of , , then is known as the greatest lower bound or infimum of . Often denoted .
A subset of is said to be bounded, if it is both: bounded above and below.
More on the gap at in the rationals
Let , . Then has no supremum in and has no infimum in .
Firstly, its clear that all upper bounds of are in . and that all lower bounds of are in . But form this proposition, it is clear that has to smallest element, hence has no supremum, and that has to largest element, hence has on infimum.
The least upper bound property
An ordered set has the least upper bound property, or the suprema property, if for any , if is bounded above, then has a supremum in .
Analogously, has the infima property if bounded bounded below implies has an infimum in .
Suprema property implies infima property
Let be an ordered set with the suprema property. Then has the infima property.
Let be bounded below. Collect all the lower bounds of into a set . then, for each , is an upper bound for . meaning that is bounded above, now let . Then, any lower bound of is at most . Hence .
The real numbers
There exists an ordered field with the least upper bound property, moreover is a subfield of .
Informal
Of course, we don't exactly know what an ordered field is yet, and we will not prove this theorem, although one can construct the real numbers in many ways, we will not dive into the details of this here.