I am now reading the definition of irrational number, which we can describe by the following terms: suppose that we have divided all rational numbers into two classes, a lower class and an upper class, such that every number of the lower class is less then all numbers in the upper class. From the book, it is remarked that we may have three different cases:
1$\text{}$. The lower class can have a greatest number and the upper class no smallest number.
It is clear that if we take number 5 as a division number, in lower class we will have 4,3,2,1
so largest is 4 and in upper just 7,7,7,7,7
no smallest number right yes?
2$\text{}$. The upper class can have a smallest number and lower class no greater number.
It is clear that in case of 5, upper class can be 6,7,8,9,10, so smallest is 6, while lower 4,4,4,4,4,4,4 no greater number and third one.
3$\text{}$. The lower class can have no greatest number and the upper class no smallest number.
I did not understand the method which is used in the book for the third case, namely: if we arrange positive numbers and their squares so that each square number is underneath it's corresponding number, then since the square of a fraction in it's lowest terms is a fraction whose numerator and denominator are perfect squares, we see that there are not rational numbers whose squares are 2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11
and so on. Then the author used an approximation method to show that there are rational numbers which are as near to these numbers as we please and finally he divided so that all negative numbers, 0, and positive numbers whose square is less then 2, and all numbers whose square are more than 2. For rational numbers which are near to numbers which I mentioned are looking like this:
2, 1.5, 1.42, 1.415, 1.4143 1, 1.4, 1.41, 1.414, 1.4142
I did not understand why author used these numbers, so please help me, sorry if text is too much big, I couldn't express my question otherwise.