This assignment accompanies our rigorous investigation of analysis, and we focus on building up known and useful facts from algebra / precalculus directly from our concise axiom system. Throughout this assignment you are allowed to use the axioms, definitions and shorthand notations we have developed, as well as the theorems proven directly from them in class:
Arithmetic
Exercise 1 (Multiplying it Out) Let be elements of a field. Prove the familiar “foiling identities” of elementary algebra:
Solution. Both cases use very similar logic, so we just do the second. Beginning with the expression , and can use the distributive property of multiplication to distribute terms. Note that the symbol denotes the additive inverse of , so . Note also that since 0 is the additive identity, for all . We can use these facts by noting that multiplication is commutative, and factoring out from this middle two terms: From a proof proved in the notes, we know that for any . We can use this in combination with the definition and the multiplication operators commutativity to simplify:
Exercise 2 (Fractions) Let , and prove the following laws of fraction arithmetic:
(For the second, you may wish to first prove that for a nonzero element of a field).
Solution (Part I). We can rewrite and (by the definition of the fraction bar as a short hand for multiplying by the inverse) so
Similarly, we can rewrite the other side without this shorthand as
Thus, our goal is to prove the equality of and as elements of . Our strategy will be to start with this latter term and reduce it by field operations to the former. Distributing the element gives
Taking the first term of this sum and re-arranging using commutativity and associativity of multiplication
Then using the definition of as the multiplicative inverse of and as the multiplicative identity we see
An analogous computation run on the second term reveals
Adding these two back together shows
Which is exactly what we wanted.
Solution (Part II). We start by proving that for any nonzero by showing it satisfies the definition. The multiplicative inverse of is the field element such that . But the definition of itself says that satisfies this! So is the multiplicative inverse of , or in our notational shorthand.
It will also be useful to note (as a lemma) that the multiplicative inverse of is , as using commutativitiy and associativity
Now we are ready to begin the main proof. We start with unpacking the shorthand of the left side, and show through field operations it equals the right.
Using our lemma we can distribute the inverse in the second term to give , and then then lemma above that ensures the second factor here is just . Thus we have
Which is exactly what we were after.
Exercise 3 Let be an element of a field. Prove by induction that
Hint: multiply both sides by
Solution. Following the hint, we multiply through by to get an equivalent expression we may hope to prove.
We will proceed by induction, and show that for each the left side simplifies to the right side. For the left side product is which multiplies out by our previous homework exercise to : thus the base case is proven. For the inductive step, assume that we know for some that , and consider the product
We may use the distributive law to distribute across the two terms and , giving
Our inductive hypothesis tells us that the first term here is precisely ! So, substituting that in
Continuing to simplify, we distribute across and simplify:
This is precisely what we were hoping to prove, so our induction is done and the result holds for all .
Inequality
Exercise 4 (Powers Inequalities) Recall that natural number powers are a shorthand for repeated multiplication and for a positive we define the root to be a positive element of the field such that , if such a exists, and we define when has a root.
Let be two positive elements of an ordered field and assume that . Prove that
- for all
- (if their th roots exist)
- for any positive rational number (assuming and exist).
Solution (Part I). Assume , , , and . We will prove by induction. Base Case: . This is just our assumption! So, we move onto the Inductive Step. Here we assume for some we already know , and try to prove the corresponding statement for the power. Since we can multiply our inequality through by to get . But also we can multiply our starting assumption through by (which is positive, since , by closure) to get . By commutativity of multiplication and transitivity of inequality, we can string these together to
But by definition, and similarly for . Thus we’ve proven as required to complete the induction, so the result holds for all .
Solution (Part II). Assume for the sake of contradiction that this is false, so there exists some positive with but yet their th roots exist in and . We separate out two cases: first, if is strictly greater, since roots are by definition positive, we are all set to apply part I of this problem and conclude that after raising to the power we have But the definition of the root of is precisely the number such that raising to the power returns . Thus this inequality says , contradicting what we know to start.
A similar problem occurs if we assume equality: then raising to the power gives (again, by definition of the root) that , contradicting that we know .
Solution (Part III). If is a positive rational number we can represent as a fraction for and . (Note we could also represent it as a quotient of two negative numbers). Since rational powers are defined as , we apply Parts I and II in succession. Given any positive Part I ensures that , and now since these are both still positive, part II implies that , which is precisely what we want: .
Exercise 5 (Exponentials and Factorials) Given an natural number , the is the function . The factorial is defined as .
Prove that the factorial function is eventually larger than the exponential function . That is, show there is some where for all larger we have .
Hint: find a good base case, then use induction!
Solution. We prove this by induction. But note that we are not trying to prove the statement for all , but rather just that its eventually always true for large enough . This is good because of course its false for small : but , and 2 is certainly not greater than 100. So there’s some work to be done in selecting the right base case: we need to find an where it actually is true! (Note also we’re just asked to prove that it holds for large enough n so we don’t need to be super careful and have base case being the first time its true or anything.)
Let’s take the base case be ; we have and , so . Given this base case, the induction is actually pretty straightforward. Let’s assume that . Now taking a look at the case, we have . On the RHS, we have . Now because the base case is we know is greater than 10 (its actually 26 or more!) so since we see that and . Stringing these together gives , or as required.
Exercise 6 (Bernoulli’s inequality) Prove the following inequality for any positive and positive integer : This will be useful to us in studying exponentials, powers, and limits later on in the course! Hint: induction!
Solution. For the base case we just plug in This is true because they’re just equal! Then the inductive hypothesis is as follows: we assume
holds for some . Since is a positive number, we can mutltiply the inductive hypothesis by this to get
The left side is by definition. Multiplying out the right, gives , so we have
And finally, since is positive and is positive (its a square), we know is positive and
(You can get this by starting from and adding to both sides). Now by the transitivity of inequality we may string these together and conclude
Thus our proof actually concludes that for the two are equal and for all we have a strict inequality! In any case, this implies the weaker statement we were after, that for all , .
Exercise 7 (The Inequality ) Let be arbitrary elements of an ordered field and a positive element. Show that is true if and only if
Exercise 8 (Reverse Triangle Inequality) Prove that for in an ordered field,
Solution. By the triangle inequality, we have Simplifying and subtracting from both sides gives We can run a similar calculation: After moving some terms around with algebra yields Thus we have two inequalities involving : But is equivalent to by the previous problem! So we have