Homepage › Solution manuals › Walter Rudin › Principles of Mathematical Analysis › Exercise 1.2
Exercise 1.2
Exercise 2: Prove that there is no rational number whose square is .
Answers
We will assume without proof that has unique prime factorizations. (This follows from being a primary ideal domain, and is covered in an abstract algebra course.) This implies that is a prime iff or .
Assume there are coprime such that . This implies that . Consequently, , and since is prime, . This means that there is a such that , so that , and consequently . Using the primality of , we can conclude that since , , and therefore . This contradicts the coprimality of and . Therefore there cannot be any such .
Comments
(This is the same without assuming any algebra)
If
is a rational number whose square is 12, then
, so this is equivalent to showing there is no rational number whose square is 3. So suppose
where
are integers with no common factors. Then
. Either
, or
, and since
,
must be a multiple of 3. But then we have
, or
. Hence
is also a multiple of 3, contradicting the assumption that
and
have no common factors.
Comments
-
This is a good proof, and reducing it to the existence of a square root of 3 is great. It is debatable if the solution does not assume any algebra. The main fact that was needed above is one which is assumed here, namely that if $3p^2 = n^2$, then $n$ is a multiple of $3$. To understand why that is not a a priori given, take the ring $\mathbb Z[\sqrt 5]$, consisting of numbers of the form $ a + \sqrt 5 b$, where $a$ and $b$ are integers, and the operations ordinary addition and multiplication. Then $3$ divides $(1+\sqrt 5)(1 - \sqrt 5)$, but $3$ neither divides $1 + \sqrt 5$ or $1 - \sqrt 5$. The assumption that the irreducibility of $3$ allows us to conclude that $3$ divides at least one of the factors in a product in which it occurs is an algebraic result that is called upon in this proof as well. Of course, it is a well known result, and it is implicitly assumed by Rudin, but it is always good to be aware of which presuppositions we are relying on.ghostofgarborg • 2023-08-08
Proof. Assume . Then, for , by the definition of rationals, where are not both divisible by 3. So, , and . Since , , and so . So let . Then, , and . Since , . This is a contradiction since are not both divisible by 3. □