(No, these will not turn into a daily occurrence, but if you all like hearing about vaguely CP-related things then I'll keep writing them occasionally. Anyway.)
You've probably heard a "proof" that $$$0.99\overline{9} = 1$$$ that looks something like this:
- $$$\frac{1}{3} = 0.33\overline{3},$$$ (This first step is already non-rigorous, because you're already using circular reasoning to say "yeah, if a repeating decimal is not an approximation, then it is not an approximation")
- $$$1 = \frac{3}{3} = 0.99\overline{9}.$$$
Or this:
- $$$x = 0.99\overline{9},$$$ (Okay, this is fine so far...)
- $$$10x = 9.99\overline{9},$$$ (How are you allowed to multiply these?)
- $$$9x = 9.99\overline{9} - 0.99\overline{9} = 9,$$$ (Is this true? Sure, the limiting behavior does approach $$$9$$$, but that's different from being identically equal.)
- $$$x = 1$$$.
So let's formalize this, starting with:
What is a real number?
Before we do this, let's lay out what we're allowed to take for granted. Everything else we have to prove from first principles.
- Integers and rational numbers exist.
- We can perform basic arithmetic (addition, multiplication, division, etc.) on integers and rationals.
There are two equivalent definitions.
Dedekind Cut
A real number $$$r$$$ is defined by its set $$$A$$$ of rationals, where:
- $$$A$$$ consists of all rational numbers strictly less than $$$r$$$.
- The above implies that $$$A$$$ has to be "closed downwards": if $$$x \in A$$$, and $$$y \lt x$$$, then $$$y$$$ must also be in $$$A$$$.
- There's a bonus requirement that $$$A$$$ does not contain a maximum element (it's to prevent there from being 2 representations for a rational number), but that's not important to us here.
Two real numbers $$$x$$$ and $$$y$$$ are equal if and only if their $$$A$$$-sets $$$A_x$$$ and $$$A_y$$$ are the same.
For example, $$$\sqrt{2}$$$ can be defined as $$$A_{\sqrt{2}}$$$ containing every rational number $$$q$$$ s.t. $$$q^2 \lt 2$$$.
Infinite Cauchy Sequences
We define a real number as the number that an infinite Cauchy sequence of rationals approximates.
Loosely speaking, a sequence $$$a_1, a_2, ...$$$ is Cauchy if it converges. More formally speaking, given any $$$\epsilon \gt 0$$$, we can find a critical point $$$c$$$ such that for all $$$i \gt c, j \gt c$$$, we have $$$|a_i - a_j| \lt \epsilon$$$. In words, given any $$$\epsilon$$$, past a certain point $$$c$$$, all the elements of the sequence are close to each other within $$$\epsilon$$$.
Then, a real number can be identified by a Cauchy sequence.
The same real number can be identified by multiple Cauchy sequences — two Cauchy sequences $$$a_1, a_2, ...$$$ and $$$b_1, b_2, ...$$$ identify the same real number if and only if $$$\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} a_i - b_i = 0$$$.
For example, $$$\sqrt{2}$$$ can be defined by a Cauchy sequence of its decimal approximation: $$$1.4, 1.41, 1.414, 1.4142, ...$$$ (Technically, a decimal approximation is a nebulous term. More formally, we'll say that $$$a_i = \frac{k}{10^i}$$$, where $$$k$$$ is the highest number where $$$a_i^2 \lt 2$$$ still holds,)
You can notice that $$$1.45, 1.415, 1.4145, 1.41425, ...$$$ is a different Cauchy sequence but it intuitively identifies the same $$$\sqrt{2}$$$, and formally you can see that the limit $$$a_i - b_i$$$ becomes arbitrarily small.
Defining a repeating decimal
Let's formally define a repeating decimal $$$0.\overline{d_1 d_2 d_3 ... d_k}$$$.
Let's also define the sequence $$$a$$$ as $$$0.d_1, 0.d_1 d_2, 0.d_1 d_2 d_3, ...$$$
Under Dedekind cuts
We will construct the set $$$A$$$ as follows: $$$q$$$ is in $$$A$$$ if and only if there exists some $$$i$$$ where $$$q \lt a_i$$$. In other words, there must exist a certain point where the successive finite decimal representations outnumber us.
Let's take $$$2/3 = 0.\overline{6}$$$. The rational number $$$0.662$$$ is in $$$A$$$ because $$$0.662 \lt a_3 = 0.666$$$.
Under Cauchy sequences
This one is easier. It's literally just the sequence $$$a$$$ of the successive finite decimal representations.
Finally showing $$$0.\overline{9} = 1$$$
Dedekind cuts
We'll show that $$$A_{0.\overline{9}}$$$ and $$$A_{1}$$$ are the same set by showing both are subsets of each other.
$$$q \in A_{0.\overline{9}} \rightarrow q \in A_{1}$$$
- $$$a_i \lt 1$$$ for all $$$a_i$$$ in the finite representations of $$$0.\overline{9}$$$, so if $$$q \in A_{0.\overline{9}}$$$, then for some $$$i$$$, we have $$$q \lt a_i \lt 1$$$ and $$$q \in A_{1}$$$.
$$$q \in A_{1} \rightarrow q \in A_{0.\overline{9}}$$$
- Take any $$$q \lt 1$$$. It must have a difference $$$d = 1 - q \gt 0$$$. Then, $$$q \lt a_i$$$ is equivalent to $$$d \gt 1 - a_i$$$. We have $$$a_i = 0.999...9_{\textit{i nines}}$$$, or $$$1 - a_i = 10^{-i}$$$, so we only need to show that there exists some $$$i$$$ where $$$d \gt 10^{-i}$$$. Clearly, $$$10^{-i}$$$ can be arbitrarily small, so choosing a high enough $$$i$$$ proves that $$$q \in A_{0.\overline{9}}$$$.
Therefore, both $$$A$$$-sets are the same, and these are the same real number.
Cauchy sequences
The sequence for $$$0.\overline{9}$$$ is $$$a_i = 1 - 10^{-i}$$$: $$$0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...$$$
The sequence for $$$1$$$ is $$$b_i = 1$$$: $$$1, 1, 1, ...$$$
So we have $$$|a_i - b_i| = 10^{-i}$$$, and this clearly approaches $$$0$$$ as $$$i \rightarrow \infty$$$.
Therefore, these are the same real number.
Bonus: defining arithmetic with real numbers
Dedekind cuts
Given $$$x: A_a$$$ and $$$y: A_b$$$, define $$$A_{x+y}$$$ as the set containing all $$$q$$$ where $$$q \le cd, c \in A_a, d \in A_b$$$.
Multiplication can be defined the same way.
Cauchy sequences
Given $$$x: [x_1, x_2, ...]$$$ and $$$y: [y_1, y_2, ...]$$$, define $$$z = x+y$$$ as $$$[z_i = x_i + y_i]$$$.
Multiplication can again be defined the same way.









Auto comment: topic has been updated by greateric (previous revision, new revision, compare).
Please continue this series
:yayy: ok!
shouldn't the bonus for Dedekind cuts be:
Given $$$x : A_x$$$ and $$$y : A_y$$$, define $$$A_{x+y}$$$ as the set containing all $$$q$$$ where $$$q \le c+d, c \in A_x, d \in A_y$$$.
yeah it should be that oops
Strictly speaking, this definition is circular. We haven't defined what real numbers are yet, let alone how to compare rationals and reals, so the set $$$A$$$ is ill-defined.
A better way of wording it would be something like
Furthermore, considering the following sentence:
This doesn't really make sense either, because we defined the real number to be the $$$A$$$-set itself; i.e. $$$x$$$ is just a symbol that means $$$A_x$$$. I guess it's technically true, but only because it's obviously tautologically true; two things are equal iff they are equal. Incidentally, this doesn't require being stated anyways, since it immediately follows from the axiom of extensionality.
Overall, I think it's an interesting blog though, keep it up.
I guess I could have worded the first one better. I think what we mean to say is $$$A$$$ "is" the object that represents this real number and we're constructing the meaning of $$$ \lt $$$ from it. I think rational comparisons are easy (if we take the existence of integers for granted, then comparing $$$\frac{a}{b}$$$ and $$$\frac{c}{d}$$$ involves comparing $$$ad$$$ vs $$$bc$$$. I'm guessing you can also prove that formally by some argument about how multiplying by positive integers preserves the well ordering so you can then multiply on both sides while preserving equality/inequality.
But yeah thanks for the thoughts and support!
Yes, I agree that rational comparisons are easy lmao. I meant to say that it's not well-defined how to compare a rational to a real, since reals aren't even defined yet. That is, you can't construct a set of rationals less than the real number $$$r$$$ since the real number $$$r$$$ isn't defined, so you can't compare rationals to it.
If my understanding is correct, isn't this construction literally defining what it means to compare a real and rational? Like we're defining the concept of $$$\sqrt{2}$$$ as "a number that is > all q where $$$q^2 \lt 2$$$ and <= all other q"
Eh, well, this construction works for the very convenient case of trying to define $$$\sqrt{2}$$$, where you can define it in terms of $$$q^2 \lt 2$$$. But what if you want to define $$$\pi$$$? The set of rationals that are smaller than the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle? What if you want to define some random real number with no interesting properties? Now, constructing it in this nice way doesn't really work.
The point is that you have to define reals first, then you define how to compare reals (or compare reals with rationals). Otherwise, you have nothing to compare — without a notion of what reals are, there is no notion of comparison. Incidentally, if you define reals with Dedekind cuts, then it becomes quite easy; a rational $$$q$$$ is smaller than a real $$$r$$$ whenever $$$q\in r$$$. But you can't use this in the definition, because then it would be circular.
A while ago I was arguing with some cranks ("New Calculus" people), who claimed transcendental numbers like $$$\pi$$$ doesn't exist. Then I wondered to myself, how do I know $$$\pi$$$ exists? Wasn't as trivial as I thought it'd be.
In the end I figured out that if you can limit to $$$\pi$$$ from below, with the infinite sequence of perimeters of unit circle's interior regular $$$n$$$-gons for growing $$$n \geq 3$$$ (not Cauchy sequence since they're irrational, also can be constructed explicitly), you can think of all the perimeters as Dedekind cuts, and if you take union over all of them you get $$$\pi$$$ as a Dedekind cut.
orz