Principles of Mathematical Analysis, Rudin, 3th ed, Chapter 1, Problem 3

Problem

Prove Proposition 1.15.

The axioms for multiplication imply the following statements.

(a) If $x \neq 0$ and $xy = xz$ then $y = z$.

(b) If $x \neq 0$ and $xy = x$ then $y = 1$.

(c) If $x \neq 0$ and $xy = 1$ then $y = 1/x$.

(d) If $x \neq 0$ then $1/(1/x) = x$.


Answer

(a) $xy = xz$   $\overset{(M5)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $(1/x)(xy) = (1/x)(xz)$   $\overset{(M3)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $((1/x)x)y = ((1/x)x)z$   $\overset{(M2)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $(x(1/x))y = (x(1/x))z$   $\overset{(M5)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $1y = 1z$   $\overset{(M4)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $y = z$.

(b) $xy = x$   $\overset{(M4)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $xy = 1x$   $\overset{(M2)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $xy = x1$   $\overset{(a)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $y = 1$.

(c) $xy = 1$   $\overset{(M5)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $xy = x(1/x)$   $\overset{(a)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $y=1/x$.

(d) $x(1/x)=1$   $\overset{(M2)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $(1/x)x=1$   $\overset{(c)}{\Longrightarrow}$   $x = 1/(1/x)$. In fact, we need a condition $1/x \neq 0$ to use (c), but it is not guaranteed. To prove $1/x \neq 0$, the distributive law is necessary. Hence, (d) cannot be derived only by the axioms for multiplication.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elementary Classical Analysis, Marsden, 2nd ed, Chapter 2, Problem 1

Problem Discuss whether the following sets are open or closed: (a) (1,2) in $\mathbb{R}$ (b) [2,3] in $\mathbb{R}$ (c) $\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty [-1,1/n)$ in $\mathbb{R}$ (d) $\mathbb{R}^n$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ (e) A hyperplane in $\mathbb{R}^n$ (f) $\{r \in (0,1) \;|\; \text{$r$ is rational} \}$ in $\mathbb{R}$ (g) $\{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \;|\; 0<x \leq 1\}$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ (h) $\{x \in \mathbb{R}^n \;|\; \|x\|=1\}$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Answer (a) Open: For $x \in (1,2)$, we can choose $\epsilon = \min(x-1,2-x)$ so that $D(x,\epsilon) \subset (1,2)$. (b) Closed: For $x \in [2,3]^c$, we can choose $\epsilon = \min(2-x,x-3)$ so that $D(x,\epsilon) \subset [2,3]^c$. (c) Closed: We first prove that $[-1,0] = A:=\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty [-1,1/n)$. Since $[-1,0] \subset [-1,1/n)$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, $[-1,0] \subset A$. To prove $A \subset [-1,0]$, we assume that $x \in A$. Then obviously, $x \geq -1$. If $x > 0$, then there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $x > 1/n$, which means
Read more

Principles of Mathematical Analysis, Rudin, 3th ed, Chapter 5, Problem 15

Problem Suppose $a \in \mathbb{R}^1$, $f$ is a twice-differentiable real function on $(a,\infty)$, and $M_0,M_1,M_2$ are the least upper bounds of $|f(x)|,|f'(x)|,|f''(x)|$, respectively, on $(a,\infty)$. Prove that $$ M_1^2 \leq 4M_0M_2.$$ Does $M_1^2 \leq 4M_0M_2$ hold for vector-valued functions too? Answer For $x \in (a,\infty)$ and $h>0$, $f(x+2h)=f(x)+2f'(x)h + \frac{1}{2}f''(\xi)(2h)^2$ for some $\xi$ between $x$ and $x+2h$ by Theorem 5.15. Then $|f'(x)| \leq \frac{|f(x+2h) - f(x)|}{2h} + |f''(\xi)h| \leq \frac{M_0}{h} + M_2h$. This holds for all $x$ and $h$ and $$ \inf_h(\frac{M_0}{h} + M_2h) = 2\sqrt{M_0M_2}$$ Hence, we have $M_1 \leq 2\sqrt{M_0M_2}$  $\Rightarrow$  $M_1^2 \leq 4M_0M_2.$ This inequality also holds for vector-valued functions $f=(f_1,\cdots,f_k)$. We may assume that $M_1 \neq 0$. For a fixed point $y \in (a,\infty)$, define a function $$ g(x):=f_1'(y)f_1(x) + \cdots + f_k'(y)f_k(x). $$ Then we have $$|g'(x)|^2
Read more