What is the difference between showing evidence of irrational numbers and proving their existence?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

In the textbook "Advanced Calculus" by Patrick Fitzpatrick, on page 7 it says:

A real number is called irrational if it is not rational. At present, we have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers.

Then later on on page 9 it references the Completeness Axiom:

At first glance, it is not at all apparent that the Completeness Axiom will help our development of mathematical analysis...the Completeness Axiom guarantees that there is a number, necessarily irrational, whose square equals 2.

These two quotes seem contradicting to me. How is it possible there is "no evidence" of irrational numbers on page 7, but then on page 9 the Completeness Axiom "guarantees that there is a number, necessarily irrational.."?

Am I missing something here?

Here is the Completeness Axiom:

Suppose that $S$ is a nonempty set of real numbers that is bounded above. Then, among the set of upper bounds for $S$ there is a smallest, or least, upper bound.

real-analysis

share|cite|improve this question

edited Jul 29 at 23:11

user223391

asked Jul 21 at 16:15

user1068636

625617

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Has $sqrt2$ been proven irrational yet? If so, you may claim that you have no evidence for its irrationality yet either.
  – Alfred Yerger
  Jul 21 at 16:20
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is just semantics. The author is saying that a priori we don't know that there are irrational numbers in the reals. After some thinking about the subject, that changes. It's not meant to be a formal statement.
  – lulu
  Jul 21 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think what the author means on page 7 is that what he has presented in the book up to that point has not included any demonstration that irrationals exist.
  – DanielWainfleet
  Jul 30 at 2:15
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

In the textbook "Advanced Calculus" by Patrick Fitzpatrick, on page 7 it says:

A real number is called irrational if it is not rational. At present, we have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers.

Then later on on page 9 it references the Completeness Axiom:

At first glance, it is not at all apparent that the Completeness Axiom will help our development of mathematical analysis...the Completeness Axiom guarantees that there is a number, necessarily irrational, whose square equals 2.

These two quotes seem contradicting to me. How is it possible there is "no evidence" of irrational numbers on page 7, but then on page 9 the Completeness Axiom "guarantees that there is a number, necessarily irrational.."?

Am I missing something here?

Here is the Completeness Axiom:

Suppose that $S$ is a nonempty set of real numbers that is bounded above. Then, among the set of upper bounds for $S$ there is a smallest, or least, upper bound.

real-analysis

share|cite|improve this question

edited Jul 29 at 23:11

user223391

asked Jul 21 at 16:15

user1068636

625617

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Has $sqrt2$ been proven irrational yet? If so, you may claim that you have no evidence for its irrationality yet either.
  – Alfred Yerger
  Jul 21 at 16:20
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is just semantics. The author is saying that a priori we don't know that there are irrational numbers in the reals. After some thinking about the subject, that changes. It's not meant to be a formal statement.
  – lulu
  Jul 21 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think what the author means on page 7 is that what he has presented in the book up to that point has not included any demonstration that irrationals exist.
  – DanielWainfleet
  Jul 30 at 2:15
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

In the textbook "Advanced Calculus" by Patrick Fitzpatrick, on page 7 it says:

A real number is called irrational if it is not rational. At present, we have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers.

Then later on on page 9 it references the Completeness Axiom:

At first glance, it is not at all apparent that the Completeness Axiom will help our development of mathematical analysis...the Completeness Axiom guarantees that there is a number, necessarily irrational, whose square equals 2.

These two quotes seem contradicting to me. How is it possible there is "no evidence" of irrational numbers on page 7, but then on page 9 the Completeness Axiom "guarantees that there is a number, necessarily irrational.."?

Am I missing something here?

Here is the Completeness Axiom:

Suppose that $S$ is a nonempty set of real numbers that is bounded above. Then, among the set of upper bounds for $S$ there is a smallest, or least, upper bound.

real-analysis

share|cite|improve this question

edited Jul 29 at 23:11

user223391

asked Jul 21 at 16:15

user1068636

625617

In the textbook "Advanced Calculus" by Patrick Fitzpatrick, on page 7 it says:

A real number is called irrational if it is not rational. At present, we have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers.

Then later on on page 9 it references the Completeness Axiom:

At first glance, it is not at all apparent that the Completeness Axiom will help our development of mathematical analysis...the Completeness Axiom guarantees that there is a number, necessarily irrational, whose square equals 2.

These two quotes seem contradicting to me. How is it possible there is "no evidence" of irrational numbers on page 7, but then on page 9 the Completeness Axiom "guarantees that there is a number, necessarily irrational.."?

Am I missing something here?

Here is the Completeness Axiom:

Suppose that $S$ is a nonempty set of real numbers that is bounded above. Then, among the set of upper bounds for $S$ there is a smallest, or least, upper bound.

real-analysis

share|cite|improve this question

edited Jul 29 at 23:11

user223391

asked Jul 21 at 16:15

user1068636

625617

share|cite|improve this question

share|cite|improve this question

edited Jul 29 at 23:11

user223391

edited Jul 29 at 23:11

user223391

edited Jul 29 at 23:11

user223391

asked Jul 21 at 16:15

user1068636

625617

asked Jul 21 at 16:15

user1068636

625617

asked Jul 21 at 16:15

user1068636

625617

625617

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Has $sqrt2$ been proven irrational yet? If so, you may claim that you have no evidence for its irrationality yet either.
  – Alfred Yerger
  Jul 21 at 16:20
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is just semantics. The author is saying that a priori we don't know that there are irrational numbers in the reals. After some thinking about the subject, that changes. It's not meant to be a formal statement.
  – lulu
  Jul 21 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think what the author means on page 7 is that what he has presented in the book up to that point has not included any demonstration that irrationals exist.
  – DanielWainfleet
  Jul 30 at 2:15
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Has $sqrt2$ been proven irrational yet? If so, you may claim that you have no evidence for its irrationality yet either.
  – Alfred Yerger
  Jul 21 at 16:20
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is just semantics. The author is saying that a priori we don't know that there are irrational numbers in the reals. After some thinking about the subject, that changes. It's not meant to be a formal statement.
  – lulu
  Jul 21 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think what the author means on page 7 is that what he has presented in the book up to that point has not included any demonstration that irrationals exist.
  – DanielWainfleet
  Jul 30 at 2:15
  

  
  
  
  

Has $sqrt2$ been proven irrational yet? If so, you may claim that you have no evidence for its irrationality yet either.
– Alfred Yerger
Jul 21 at 16:20

Has $sqrt2$ been proven irrational yet? If so, you may claim that you have no evidence for its irrationality yet either.
– Alfred Yerger
Jul 21 at 16:20

2

2

This is just semantics. The author is saying that a priori we don't know that there are irrational numbers in the reals. After some thinking about the subject, that changes. It's not meant to be a formal statement.
– lulu
Jul 21 at 16:22

This is just semantics. The author is saying that a priori we don't know that there are irrational numbers in the reals. After some thinking about the subject, that changes. It's not meant to be a formal statement.
– lulu
Jul 21 at 16:22

I think what the author means on page 7 is that what he has presented in the book up to that point has not included any demonstration that irrationals exist.
– DanielWainfleet
Jul 30 at 2:15

I think what the author means on page 7 is that what he has presented in the book up to that point has not included any demonstration that irrationals exist.
– DanielWainfleet
Jul 30 at 2:15

add a comment | 

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

up vote
4
down vote



accepted

At present, we have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers.

At the present time, there was no evidence for irrational numbers. However two pages later when you have the completeness axiom, THEN you get the existence of irrational numbers.

At present refers to the place in the text.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered Jul 21 at 16:17

user223391

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Are you suggesting there is no difference between showing evidence and proving existence of irrational numbers?
  – user1068636
  Jul 21 at 16:19
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 you're wildly misinterpreting the passages. He's being a bit cheeky. "We have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers" is supposed to be read as, basically a joke.
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 The point is without the completeness axiom you can't prove the existence of irrational numbers. That's the whole point. "showing evidence" is not a formal state and in context, is basically a joke
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I was actually thinking he might be referring to the sciences (i.e. is there any evidence of the square root of 2 in physics/chem etc.?)
  – user1068636
  Jul 21 at 16:26
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 No it has nothing to do with that
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:26
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2858630%2fwhat-is-the-difference-between-showing-evidence-of-irrational-numbers-and-provin%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
4
down vote



accepted

At present, we have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers.

At the present time, there was no evidence for irrational numbers. However two pages later when you have the completeness axiom, THEN you get the existence of irrational numbers.

At present refers to the place in the text.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered Jul 21 at 16:17

user223391

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Are you suggesting there is no difference between showing evidence and proving existence of irrational numbers?
  – user1068636
  Jul 21 at 16:19
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 you're wildly misinterpreting the passages. He's being a bit cheeky. "We have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers" is supposed to be read as, basically a joke.
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 The point is without the completeness axiom you can't prove the existence of irrational numbers. That's the whole point. "showing evidence" is not a formal state and in context, is basically a joke
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I was actually thinking he might be referring to the sciences (i.e. is there any evidence of the square root of 2 in physics/chem etc.?)
  – user1068636
  Jul 21 at 16:26
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 No it has nothing to do with that
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:26
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
4
down vote



accepted

At present, we have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers.

At the present time, there was no evidence for irrational numbers. However two pages later when you have the completeness axiom, THEN you get the existence of irrational numbers.

At present refers to the place in the text.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered Jul 21 at 16:17

user223391

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Are you suggesting there is no difference between showing evidence and proving existence of irrational numbers?
  – user1068636
  Jul 21 at 16:19
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 you're wildly misinterpreting the passages. He's being a bit cheeky. "We have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers" is supposed to be read as, basically a joke.
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 The point is without the completeness axiom you can't prove the existence of irrational numbers. That's the whole point. "showing evidence" is not a formal state and in context, is basically a joke
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I was actually thinking he might be referring to the sciences (i.e. is there any evidence of the square root of 2 in physics/chem etc.?)
  – user1068636
  Jul 21 at 16:26
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 No it has nothing to do with that
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:26
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
4
down vote



accepted

up vote
4
down vote



accepted

At present, we have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers.

At the present time, there was no evidence for irrational numbers. However two pages later when you have the completeness axiom, THEN you get the existence of irrational numbers.

At present refers to the place in the text.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered Jul 21 at 16:17

user223391

At present, we have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers.

At the present time, there was no evidence for irrational numbers. However two pages later when you have the completeness axiom, THEN you get the existence of irrational numbers.

At present refers to the place in the text.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered Jul 21 at 16:17

user223391

share|cite|improve this answer

share|cite|improve this answer

answered Jul 21 at 16:17

user223391

answered Jul 21 at 16:17

user223391

answered Jul 21 at 16:17

user223391

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Are you suggesting there is no difference between showing evidence and proving existence of irrational numbers?
  – user1068636
  Jul 21 at 16:19
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 you're wildly misinterpreting the passages. He's being a bit cheeky. "We have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers" is supposed to be read as, basically a joke.
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 The point is without the completeness axiom you can't prove the existence of irrational numbers. That's the whole point. "showing evidence" is not a formal state and in context, is basically a joke
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I was actually thinking he might be referring to the sciences (i.e. is there any evidence of the square root of 2 in physics/chem etc.?)
  – user1068636
  Jul 21 at 16:26
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 No it has nothing to do with that
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:26
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Are you suggesting there is no difference between showing evidence and proving existence of irrational numbers?
  – user1068636
  Jul 21 at 16:19
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 you're wildly misinterpreting the passages. He's being a bit cheeky. "We have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers" is supposed to be read as, basically a joke.
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 The point is without the completeness axiom you can't prove the existence of irrational numbers. That's the whole point. "showing evidence" is not a formal state and in context, is basically a joke
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I was actually thinking he might be referring to the sciences (i.e. is there any evidence of the square root of 2 in physics/chem etc.?)
  – user1068636
  Jul 21 at 16:26
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @user1068636 No it has nothing to do with that
  – user223391
  Jul 21 at 16:26
  

  
  
  
  

Are you suggesting there is no difference between showing evidence and proving existence of irrational numbers?
– user1068636
Jul 21 at 16:19

Are you suggesting there is no difference between showing evidence and proving existence of irrational numbers?
– user1068636
Jul 21 at 16:19

@user1068636 you're wildly misinterpreting the passages. He's being a bit cheeky. "We have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers" is supposed to be read as, basically a joke.
– user223391
Jul 21 at 16:22

@user1068636 you're wildly misinterpreting the passages. He's being a bit cheeky. "We have no evidence that there are any irrational numbers" is supposed to be read as, basically a joke.
– user223391
Jul 21 at 16:22

@user1068636 The point is without the completeness axiom you can't prove the existence of irrational numbers. That's the whole point. "showing evidence" is not a formal state and in context, is basically a joke
– user223391
Jul 21 at 16:25

@user1068636 The point is without the completeness axiom you can't prove the existence of irrational numbers. That's the whole point. "showing evidence" is not a formal state and in context, is basically a joke
– user223391
Jul 21 at 16:25

I was actually thinking he might be referring to the sciences (i.e. is there any evidence of the square root of 2 in physics/chem etc.?)
– user1068636
Jul 21 at 16:26

I was actually thinking he might be referring to the sciences (i.e. is there any evidence of the square root of 2 in physics/chem etc.?)
– user1068636
Jul 21 at 16:26

1

1

@user1068636 No it has nothing to do with that
– user223391
Jul 21 at 16:26

@user1068636 No it has nothing to do with that
– user223391
Jul 21 at 16:26

add a comment | 

 

draft saved

draft discarded

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2858630%2fwhat-is-the-difference-between-showing-evidence-of-irrational-numbers-and-provin%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email