0
$\begingroup$

Prove that, if $S = \{$real numbers $x > 0 : x^2 < 2\}$, then for every real number $\epsilon > 0$, there is an element $x \in S$ such that $x^2 > 2 − \epsilon$.


My Proof

Proposition: If $S = \{$real numbers $x > 0 : x^2 < 2\}$, then for every real number $\epsilon > 0$, there is an element $x \in S$ such that $x^2 > 2 − \epsilon$.

A (Hypothesis): $S = \{$real numbers $x > 0 : x^2 < 2\}$.

B (Conclusion): For every real number $\epsilon > 0$, there is an element $x \in S$ such that $x^2 > 2 − \epsilon$.

A1: Let $\epsilon > 0$ be a real number.

B1: There is an element $x \in S$ such that $x^2 > 2 - \epsilon$.

A2: Let $x \in S$.

B2: $x^2 > 2 - \epsilon$

$\implies x > \sqrt{2 - \epsilon} > 0$ and $x > 0 > -\sqrt{2 - \epsilon}$

A3: $ 2 > x^2 > 0$

$\implies 2 > x > 0$ since $x > 0$

A4: $2 > \epsilon^2 > 0$

$\implies 2 > \epsilon > 0$ since $\epsilon > 0$

$\implies 2 - \epsilon > 0 > -\epsilon$

$\implies \sqrt{2 - \epsilon} > 0 > -\epsilon$

$\implies -\sqrt{2 - \epsilon} < 0 < \epsilon$

A5: $2 > x > 0 > -\sqrt{2 - \epsilon}$

$\implies 4 > x^2 > 0 > 2 - \epsilon$

$\therefore x^2 > 2 - \epsilon$ $Q.E.D.$

$\implies x > \sqrt{2 - \epsilon}$


I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to review my proof to ensure that it is correct.


EDIT

After reading the responses, I have attempted to fix my proof.

A (Hypothesis): $S = \{$real numbers $x > 0 : x^2 < 2\}$.

B (Conclusion): For every real number $\epsilon > 0$, there is an element $x \in S$ such that $x^2 > 2 − \epsilon$.

A1: Let $\epsilon > 0$ be a real number.

B1: There is an element $x \in S$ such that $x^2 > 2 - \epsilon$.

A2: Let $x \in S$.

B2: $x^2 > 2 - \epsilon$

$\Leftarrow x > \sqrt{2 - \epsilon} > 0$ where $2 > \epsilon > 0$

A3: $2 > x^2 > 0$

$\implies 2 > \sqrt{2} > x > 0$ since $x > 0$.

A4: $2 > \epsilon^2 > 0$

$\implies 2 > \sqrt{2} > \epsilon > 0$ since $\epsilon > 0$.

$\implies 2 > 2 - \epsilon > 0$

$\implies \sqrt{2} > \sqrt{2 - \epsilon} > 0$

A5: Let $\sqrt{2} > x > \sqrt{2 - \epsilon} > 0$

Now we have to show that $x^2 > 2 - \epsilon$ (B2).

$\implies 2 > x^2 > 2 - \epsilon > 0$

$\therefore x^2 > 2 - \epsilon$ $Q.E.D.$

  • 1
    Just a little comment: a good notation to says "reals bigger o lesser than" or similar things is this: $\Bbb R_{> a}$ for some $a$.2017-02-04
  • 0
    @Masacroso thanks for the advice. Is this common notation?2017-02-04
  • 1
    Yes, it is common. I no see more universal notation and compact than this to note a subset of a big set as $\Bbb R, \Bbb Q$ and similar things. It is very useful also to note what kind of the naturals you are using: $\Bbb N_{>0}$ or $\Bbb N_{\ge 0}$.2017-02-04
  • 0
    Your proof seems very convoluted. Why do you feel the need to introduce so much notation? How about something like this: Since $\epsilon > 0$, we have $2-\epsilon< 2$. There necessarily exists a positive number $y$ between these two (for example, $y = \max(1,2-\epsilon/2)$). But then $x = \sqrt y$ has the required properties.2017-02-06
  • 0
    @AlexProvost Thanks for the response. I was just using as much notation as I required to go through each step of my reasoning. As you said, there are certainly more condensed ways of displaying the proof. My concern is more so with the correctness of my proof.2017-02-06
  • 0
    To be honest, I do not see any proof here. There are several statements A1, B1, A2, B2, ..., but it is unclear (to me) how they are related. In particular, B1 is the desired conclusion, so that should be at the end of the proof chain, not at the beginning.2017-02-07
  • 0
    @MartinR Thanks for the response. I've used the forwards and backwards method to work forwards from the hypothesis (A) and backwards from the conclusion (B), till I reach the conclusion using statements from A.2017-02-07
  • 1
    B2 makes no sense. You can't start at the conclusion and work that it would imply a pre-conclusion. If you want to do that you must show the conclusion can *only* come *from* the pre-conclusion. i.e. You $\implies$ arrow goes the wrong way. $x^2 > 2 - \epsilon \implies x > \sqrt{2-\epsilon}$ is useless to us and $x^2 > 2-\epsilon$ is what we are trying to prove. We need $x > \sqrt{2-\epsilon} \implies x^2 > 2 - \epsilon$. i.e. It is *sufficient* to show $x > \sqrt{2-\epsilon} $.2017-02-07
  • 1
    Whoa! in A5 you have $0 > 2-\epsilon$!!!!! Do you *really* believe that? What if $\epsilon \le 2$? Which is almost certainly the case. Do you see your error?2017-02-07
  • 1
    I don't get $2 > x^2 >0 \implies 2>x > 0$ because $x > 0$. $\frac 14 > x^2 > 0 \not \implies \frac 14 > x > 0$ (Take $x =\frac 13$ for instance. You need $x > 0$ and $2 > 1$.2017-02-07
  • 1
    Let $y = - \sqrt{2 - \epsilon} < 0$. So you are concluding that because $y < 0$ than $y^2 < 0$. Is that actually true?2017-02-07
  • 0
    @fleablood Thanks for the responses. I seem to have made significant errors. I will try to fix them and post a new question.2017-02-07
  • 0
    @fleablood can you please elaborate on why it is unreasonable to think that $2 > x^2 > 0 \implies 2 > x > 0$ if we already know that $x > 0$? We are already told to assume that $x > 0$, so what would be invalid about this?2017-02-07
  • 0
    I gave you a counter example. If $0 < k < 1$ and $0 < x^2 < k$ then you can not conclude $02017-02-07
  • 0
    What you *can* conclude thous is if $0 < x^2 < 2$ then $0 < x < \sqrt{2}$ and as $2 > 1$ we know $\sqrt{2} < 2$. So $0 < x <\sqrt{2} < 2$. But that requires knowing that $2 > 1$. If we know $0 < x^2 < 1/4$ then we know $0 < x < \sqrt{1/4} = 1/2$. But $1/2 > 1/4$ so we can not conclude $0 < x < 1/4$.2017-02-07
  • 0
    @fleablood I see what you mean. I was actually implicitly using the fact that $0 < x <\sqrt{2} < 2$ to conclude that $2 > x^2 > 0 \implies 2 > x > 0$. This would make my original calculation correct, right?2017-02-07
  • 0
    I'd suggest to look at this similar question http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2069310/need-help-with-proof-for-dedekind-cuts-on-mathbbq/2017-02-07
  • 0
    OP: After this choice of answer to accept (which is entirely your prerogative, of course), I frankly do not understand anymore what your question really was. FWIW, I concur entirely with the second sentence of user @fleablood, to the effect that (an answer to this question) "can't really assume that the numbers $\sqrt{2}$ and $\sqrt{2 - \epsilon}$ exist." Anyway, let me suggest to be much clearer next time about what you really mean to ask so that people do not lose their time answering you.2017-02-08
  • 0
    @Did Yes, I think this question became quite muddled. I do apologise if I failed in adequately specifying the question.2017-02-08
  • 0
    What was the question in the end? To be honest, given the answer that you accepted, I find difficult to describe it... Reading my answer, you can get an idea of what I thought you were asking -- except that apparently I was completely wrong in my analysis. Please explain.2017-02-08
  • 0
    @Did I should have specified that this question was asked in the context of an elementary textbook in proof reading and writing. fleablood's answer seems to be within the context of what I'm asking; yours (although, perhaps, correct) seems to use advanced techniques that are beyond the scope of an elementary problem such as this.2017-02-08
  • 0
    Funny, I would have said exactly the opposite. Anyway, there is not much sense in trying to understand the position of somebody who sees fit to include the derogatory mention "although, perhaps, correct" in their comment. Do as you wish but be aware that several users were stunned by the sequence of events on this page (and that some of them might remember it in the future).2017-02-08
  • 0
    @Did I honestly didn't mean that in a derogatory way; I meant it quite literally and was being genuine. I am a novice and do not have the math skills to fully understand your answer, which is why I made such a comment. As for these other users, I'm not sure what sequence of events they are referring to. I was just genuinely asking for help with a proof problem that came straight out of my elementary proof textbook. Again, I do apologise I somehow upset people, but that absolutely was not my intention. Perhaps my low-level math skills have inadvertently offended people? I'm not sure. :(2017-02-08
  • 0
    Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/53237/discussion-between-the-pointer-and-did).2017-02-08
  • 0
    @Did And It is difficult for me to convey how much I appreciate the members of this site. They've helped me tremendously in my mathematics education, and I appreciate every second they've put into their answers, whether I have the ability to understand them or not. I really do not want users to think that I do not appreciate them, because I **really** do. Again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but at the moment I am totally oblivious to anything I did to cause offence.2017-02-08

4 Answers 4

1

Such questions arise when we prove from the axioms that $\sqrt{2}$ exists. So I would avoid using the existence of square root.

We need some $x>0$ with $2-\varepsilon

Construct a sequence of intervals $I_n=[a_n,b_n]$ by $$ I_0=[1,2]; \quad I_{n+1}=\begin{cases} \left[a_n,\frac{a_n+b_n}2\right] & \text{if } \left(\frac{a_n+b_n}2\right)^2\ge2 \\ \left[\frac{a_n+b_n}2,b_n\right] & \text{if } \left(\frac{a_n+b_n}2\right)^2<2. \\ \end{cases} $$ Then we have $a_n^2<2\le b_n$ for every $n$.

Since $b_n-a_n=\frac1{2^n}<\frac1n$, by the Archimedean axiom there is an index $n$ with $n>\frac3\varepsilon$, so $b_n-a_n<\frac\varepsilon3$. Then $$ 0 < 2-a_n^2 \le b_n^2-a_n^2 = (b_n+a_n)(b_n-a_n) < 3\cdot \frac\varepsilon3 = \varepsilon. $$ So, $x=a_n$ is an appropriate choice.

$\textbf{Remark.}$ This proof works in every Archimedean (ordered) field. In non-Archimedean fields the statement is not necessarily true. For example, extend $\mathbb{Q}$ with a new element $X$ which is greater than all rationals. The resulting field $\mathbb{Q}(X)$ consists of (equivalence classes) of rational functions with rational coefficients. That field does contain any element $r$ with $2-\frac1X

  • 0
    " So I would avoid using the existence of square root. " I debated that a lot when I composed my answer. I decided it was okay because I figured this was a lower level class than real analysis. But I like your answer for it's thoroughness and recognition as to whar precisely needs to be defined.2017-02-07
  • 0
    Actually, the more I think if it the more I think you are right. I think I'm going to delete my answer.2017-02-07
  • 0
    Why can't we assume that square roots exist?2017-02-07
  • 0
    @ThePointer "Why can't we assume that square roots exist?" You see? This is kind of the whole point and why your behaviour sent several users into the wall, so to speak. If square roots are allowed, then your question becomes idiotic, which is why some answers avoid them, and explains the surprise when, in the end, you declare that in fact they are all right.2017-02-08
  • 0
    @Did I apologise. I only rewrote the same information that the textbook problem stated. In my textbook, there is no mention of allowing or disallowing square roots. Again, I do apologise.2017-02-08
  • 1
    "If square roots are allowed, then your question becomes idiotic" Well... I was viewing this as an exercise in retroactively selecting values to reach a conclusion; an indespensible skill when it comes to delta epsilon proofs. My entire point was to illustrate the logic of $conclusion \Leftarrow pre-conclusion$ indicates that is sufficient to only prove pre-conclusion Somhow that was completely missed and my entire answer got into a hamfisted discussion of what should be banal. And it missed the entire larger point of what the exercise was meant to show.2017-02-08
6

The idea lurking behind this question might be to use an iteration procedure $x\to A(x)$ converging monotonically to $\sqrt2$, for example,

$$A(x)=\frac{4x}{2+x^2}$$

That is, define $x_0=1$ and, for every $n$, $$x_{n+1}=A(x_n)$$ Since every $x_n$ is positive, the goal becomes to show that, for every $\epsilon>0$, there exists some $n$ such that $$2-\epsilonx$ for every $x$ in $[1,\sqrt2)$ and $A(\sqrt2)=\sqrt2$.

Thus, $x_n<\sqrt2$ for every $n$ and $x_n\to\sqrt2$ when $n\to\infty$. In particular, for every $\epsilon>0$, choosing $n$ large enough yields $x_n$ such that $2-\epsilon


More quantitatively, note that $2-x_0^2=1$ and that, for every $x<\sqrt2$, $$2-A(x)^2=\frac{2(2-x^2)^2}{(2+x^2)^2}<\frac12(2-x^2)$$ Thus, for every positive $n$, $$2-x_n^2<\frac1{2^n}$$ which indicates that every $n\geqslant1-\log_2\epsilon$ yields $x_n$ such that $2-\epsilon


Remarks: (1) Every $x_n$ is a rational number hence this actually proves the result for the smaller set $S'=\{x\in\mathbb Q\mid x>0,x^2<2\}$.

(2) No square root is involved in the procedure or in the proof, only rational numbers and rational functions.

(3) The convergence $x_n\to\sqrt2$ is much faster than geometric, since $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{2-x_{n+1}^2}{(2-x_n^2)^2}=\frac18$$ hence each iteration roughly doubles the number of exact digits of $\sqrt2$ in $x_n$.

(4) Other iteration schemes are available, for example, the function $$\bar A(x)=\frac{3x+4}{2x+3}$$ starting from $\bar x_0=1$, yields an increasing sequence $(\bar x_n)$ converging to $\sqrt2$, but "only" at a geometric rate since $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\sqrt2-\bar x_{n+1}}{\sqrt2-\bar x_n}=(3-2\sqrt2)^2$$ For example, $$x_4=\frac{941664}{665857}\approx\mathbf{1.41421356237}15\qquad\bar x_4=\frac{1393}{985}\approx\mathbf{1.414213}1979695$$ and $$\sqrt2\approx1.4142135623731$$

  • 0
    Great proof. I like it2017-02-08
  • 0
    @S.Y Thanks. The first idea that comes to mind is to use the well known Babylonian/Newton algorithm $$x\to B(x)=\frac{x}2+\frac1x$$ which indeed approximates $\sqrt2$ but does not produce an increasing sequence, hence the tweaked version above. Exercise: Guess how $x\to A(x)$ in the post is deduced from $x\to B(x)$.2017-02-08
2

A5 is definitely wrong.

You begin with:

$$2 \gt x \gt 0 \gt -\sqrt{2 - \epsilon}$$

and then claim that this implies:

$$4 \gt x^2 \gt 0 \gt 2 - \epsilon$$

and so:

$$x^2 \gt 2-\epsilon$$

However, $0\gt -\sqrt{2-\epsilon}$ doesn't imply $0\gt 2-\epsilon$, because when we multiply an inequality by a negative number, the inequality reverses direction.

1

Most of this post was a discussion about how to properly go from a solution to a sufficient condition that will prove a result, and how not to assume the conclusion to verify a hypothesis. And the result was how to back track from a conclusion to find a correct range of values to test.

But none of my previous answer was address the gyst of the question.

The question is asking to show for any positive value $\epsilon > 0$ we can find an $x$ so that $2 - \epsilon < x^2 < 2$ or in other worde there is always an $x$ so that $0 < 2-x^2 < \epsilon$.

This is really a fundamental idea of continuity and/or the archimedian property of reals so that we can always find "arbitrarily small" values, which is an idea that will become indispenible. For example, we will need to be able to show we can always find $n \in \mathbb Z$ so that $0 < 1/n < \epsilon$ or $1/n^2 < \epsilon$ or in this case $0 < 2- x^2 < \epsilon$.

$0 < 2 - x^2 < \epsilon \implies -\epsilon < x^2 - 2 < 0 \implies 2-\epsilon < x^2 < 2 \implies \max(2-\epsilon) < x^2 < 2 \implies \sqrt{\max(2-\epsilon,0)} < x < \sqrt{2}$ which makes the conclusion easy. All we have to do is pick an $x$ that is between $\sqrt{\max(2-\epsilon,0)}$ and $\sqrt{2}$.

And we are done. Nothing left to show.

But this is actually a cop-out. To assume that there are numbers $k$ and $m$ so that $k^2 = \max(2-\epsilon,0)$ and $m^2 = 2$ and to assume that $k < m$ and to assume that we can pick $x| k < x < m$ are all assumptions that rely upon the very idea that the reals have continuity and the archimedean principal applies, which is what this exercise is trying to illustrate.

So how can we show that the is an $x$ so that $0 < 2 - x^2 < \epsilon$ directly?

I'll get to that later.

=======

I'm going to actually delete this whole thing in a few hours because: We can't really assume that the numbers $\sqrt{2}$ and $\sqrt{2 - \epsilon}$ exist.

I really wanted this be be a quick excercise in picking values. [If $\sqrt{2 - \epsilon} < x < \sqrt2$ than $2-\epsilon < x^2 < 2$] But it obviously failed.

I'll leave it up for a for hours to finish the discussion.

======

Its important when we are working back from a conclusion that our implications go back from our statement to our conclusions. We can't go from our conclusion to prior statements.

For example we can't say $y^2 > x^2 > 0 \implies y > x > 0$ but we can say $y^2 > x^2 > 0 \Leftarrow y> x > 0$

That way we can do a proof starting at the conclusion and work back but: In a "forward" proof each step implies the next. In a backwords proof each step is implied by the next.

So Conclusion $x^2 + \epsilon > 2$

$\Leftarrow x^2 > 2- \epsilon \Leftarrow$ (this is actually an $\iff$ statment)

$2 > x^2 > 2-\epsilon \Leftarrow$

$2 > x > \sqrt{2-\epsilon} > 1$ (this is the first step that absolutely can not go the other way)

$\Leftarrow \exists x| 2> x \sqrt{2-\epsilon} > 1$

$\Leftarrow 2 > \sqrt{2-\epsilon} > 1$

$\Leftarrow 2 > 2-\epsilon > 1$

$\Leftarrow 0 < \epsilon < 1$

However this isn't our Hypothesis. Our hypothesis is $0 < \epsilon$. What if $\epsilon \ge 1$.

So we do it again with $\epsilon \ge 1$ in mind

$x^2 + \epsilon > 2 \Leftarrow \epsilon \ge 1$ and $x^2 > 1$

$\Leftarrow \epsilon \ge 1$ and $2 > x^2 > 1$

$\Leftarrow \epsilon \ge 1$ and $\sqrt{2} > x > 1$.

$\Leftarrow \epsilon \ge 1$ and $\exists x| 1 < x <\sqrt{2}$.

=====

Of course that is taking working backwards to an absurd and really hard to follow degree.

It be better to present to stop at the first few steps, like so:

To conclude there is an $x^2 + \epsilon > 2$ it is sufficient to show $2>x^2 > 2 - \epsilon$ and if we can assume $2-\epsilon > 1$ (or $0 < \epsilon < 1$) it is sufficient to show $\sqrt 2 > x > \sqrt{2-\epsilon} > 1$.

So if $0 < \epsilon < 1$ then $1< \sqrt{2-\epsilon} < \sqrt{2}$ it is enough to select any $x$ so that $1< x< \sqrt{2-\epsilon} < \sqrt{2}$. As $0 < x < \sqrt{2}$ we know $x^2 < 2$ so $x \in S$ and we know from the first paragraph that $x^2 + \epsilon > 2$, and we are done.

If $\epsilon \ge 1$ then $x^2 + \epsilon > 2 \Leftarrow x^2 + 1 > 2 \Leftarrow x^2 > 1$ so pick any $x$ so that $1 < x < \sqrt2$. Then $x^2 < 2$ so $x \in S$ and $x^2 + \epsilon > 2$.

====

But to be more efficient (an much easier to follow) an effective prove would go like this:

$0 < \epsilon$. If $\epsilon < 1$ then $1 < 2-\epsilon < 2$ so $1 < \sqrt{2-\epsilon} < \sqrt{2}$.

Select $x$ so that $1 < x <\sqrt{2-\epsilon}$. Then $x^2 < 2-\epsilon < 2$ so $x \in S$ and $x^2 + \epsilon > 2$. So the statement is true for any real $\epsilon$ so that $0 < \epsilon < 1$.

If $\epsilon \ge 1$ then we can just pick another $\delta$ so that $0 < \delta < 1 \le \epsilon$. Thus there is an $x\in S$ so that $ x^2 + \delta > 2$. And as $\delta < \epsilon$, $x^2 + \epsilon > x^2 + \delta > 2$. So we are done.

  • 0
    Thanks for the elaborate response. I don't understand why there are different values of $\epsilon$? In the hypothesis, we only have $\epsilon > 0$?2017-02-07
  • 0
    I've edited my post with an edited proof. Can you please check? If I am not mistaken, the only possible $\epsilon$ is $2 > \epsilon > 0$. $\epsilon \ge 2$ results in a negative number within the square root, which would be undefined.2017-02-07
  • 0
    It's a very minor point. The hypothesis is for *any* $\epsilon > 0$ but our proof only works for $0 < \epsilon < 1$ (if $\epsilon \ge 1$ we can't be any $x$ so that $1 < x < \sqrt{2-\epsilon}$). But that's not a big deal as we can just pick a smaller epsilon that *IS* less than 1. If it's true for epsilon < 1 it must also be true for epsilon \ge 1. I'll rewrite it.2017-02-07
  • 0
    Right. But if $\epsilon \ge 2$ then $x^2 + \epsilon > \epsilon > 2$ for all $x \in S$ so it is true. If $1 \le \epsilon < 2$ then Our proof won't work either because $1 \le x < \sqrt{2 - \epsilon}$ wouldn't make sense. But in that case we just pick $1 < x < \sqrt 2$ and so $2 \le 1 + \epsilon < x^2 + \epsilon$ So we only have to prove it for $0< \epsilon < 1$ but it is still true (for *different* reasons) for $\epsilon \ge 1$. And if we have $\delta = \min (\epsilon, 1)$ we now $x^2 + \epsilon \ge x^2 + \delta > 2$.2017-02-07
  • 0
    Using $\sqrt{2-\epsilon}$ in our proof shows it works for $epsilon \le 2$ but is does *NOT* show that $epsilon > 2$ does NOT work. We just have to come up with a different reason. The reason is obvious though.2017-02-07
  • 0
    I don't understand what more could be shown. Isn't it enough to show that the square root results in an undefined value for $\epsilon \ge 2$?2017-02-07
  • 0
    But the value $\sqrt{2 -e}$ is something we made up for the purpose of the proof. Nowhere was it ever stated that $\sqrt{2 - e}$ actually exists and is a legitimate value. Suppose someone told you the were 27 years old and you said "That's impossible. If $x = 27$ then $\sqrt{20 - x}$ is undefined, therefore $x =27$ is impossible" that wouldn't be a valid argument. $\sqrt{2- e}$ existing or not has absolutely nothing to do with $x^2 + e > 2$. We just know that *IF* $\sqrt{2-e}$ *does* exist and $\sqrt{2-e} > 1$ *THEN* $1 < x< \sqrt{2-e}\implies x^2 + e > 2$.2017-02-07
  • 0
    Please don't delete this. This information contained in this answer and the proceeding discussion were the most illuminating. I'm sure the other answer my be "more correct", but It uses concepts that are outside of the scope of my elementary question. Feel free to up-vote the other answer.2017-02-08
  • 0
    @ThePointer In case "the other answer" refers to my post (so sweet...), and since you saw fit to wax several times on how this "other answer" uses extremely sophisticated concepts of such a high level that for the sake of you, you would not be able to grasp them, please point at even one single such notion. Surely you read this "other answer" far enough to note that the part before "More quantitatively" is already a full answer so please stay focussed on this part (which involves such XXI century mathematics as polynomials, rational fractions, and increasing functions...).2017-02-08
  • 0
    @Did It was my fault for not specifying that this is a low-level, elementary math problem. Your answer seems elegant and rigorous, but It uses concepts beyond algebra, which seems to be what this elementary proof was asking for. fleablood's answer is much closer to the type of elementary mathematics that the textbook explores. Again, I do apologise if I offended you and anyone else.2017-02-08
  • 0
    @ThePointer "low-level, elementary math problem" Again? How many times are you going to brandish this as a justification? It is not (and, again, I find "charming" that you routinely take for granted that at least two users would have disregarded the level of the question when they composed their answer). Note that to ask for an answer with no "concepts beyond algebra" is idiotic since this is an analysis question but that, ironically, the less "algebraic" answer, so far, is the one you accepted... Finally, again, what is not "low-level, elementary math" in user141614's answer and in mine?2017-02-08
  • 0
    @Did You're right. I should have known better. I simply chose the answer that was most easily understandable with my poor mathematics skills. I wish I had the mathematics skills to fully and easily understand the answers given by yourself and user141614. Again, I apologise.2017-02-08
  • 0
    @ThePointer "understandable with my poor mathematics skills" Again?? You are hopeless.2017-02-08
  • 1
    Except my proof doesn't really answer the "point" of the question. It's just to elaborate the to ideas of when you can and can not do a proof "backwards" and and how to work backwards to select needed values. And how after working "backwards" to rewrite a proof properly forward. And I don't think I succeeded at that.2017-02-08
  • 0
    If $e \ge 2$ and $x^2 < 2$ then $x^2 + e > 2$ obviously so any $x$ in S will do. And if $0 \le e < 2$ then for any $\sqrt{2-e} 2$. So that really is very trivial But that makes the assumption that i) if $z > 0$ then $\sqrt{z}$ has a meaningful value. ii) if 0 < y < z then $0 < \sqrt{y} < \sqrt{z}$ and iii) if $a < b$ then there is a number $x$ so that $a < x < b$. All of those are true but none of them can/should be taken for granted. So a proper proof (which my post isn't really) needs to specify which of those states can be assumed.2017-02-08
  • 1
    "You can not delete the accepted answer". *sigh* ... well, I tried.2017-02-08