1.2.7 - Solutions to Week 1 Homework problems from Abbott...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Solutions to Week 1 Homework problems from Abbott Problems (section 1.2) 1.2.1, 1.2.4, 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.11 1.2.1 (a) Prove that √ 3 is irrational. Does a similar argument work to show √ 6 is irrational? (b) Where does the proof of Theorem 1.1.1 break down if we try to use it to prove √ 4 is irrational? (a) Proof: Suppose √ 3 is rational. Then √ 3 = p q where p and q are positive integers with no common factor. It follows that 3 = p 2 q 2 and hence 3 q 2 = p 2 . Since 3 divides p 2 , 3 must divide p itself, and hence in fact 9 divides p 2 . But in that case, 9 must divided the LHS (left hand side) of the equation 3 q 2 = p 2 also, which means that 3 divides q 2 . This tells us that 3 divides q , and we have arrived at a contradiciton: 3 divides both q and p , even though we assumed that q and p have no common factors. Thus, √ 3 must be irrational. Essentially the same argument will work for √ 6. (b) If we start the same procedure with √ 4, we find that the argument breaks down at the point where we concluded (above) that if 3 divides p 2 then 3 must divide...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/01/2011 for the course MATH 208 taught by Professor Brown during the Spring '10 term at Mt. SAC.

Page1 / 2

1.2.7 - Solutions to Week 1 Homework problems from Abbott...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online