Re: In need for a proof from the book.



On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:45:08 -0000, ayalgelles@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Is there a proof from the book that there is a square of a rational
between any two rationals? (Preferably with no reference to real
numbers)

Presumably you meant, between any two *nonnegative* rationals.

When you say, "with no reference to real numbers", does that mean with no
reference to Dedekind cuts? That seems like a simple approach.


--
Dave Seaman
Oral Arguments in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case heard May 17
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/>
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: In need for a proof from the book.
    ... between any two *nonnegative* rationals. ... When you say, "with no reference to real numbers", does that mean with no ... reference to Dedekind cuts? ... U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: In need for a proof from the book.
    ... between any two *nonnegative* rationals. ... When you say, "with no reference to real numbers", does that mean with no ... reference to Dedekind cuts? ... cuts, proving all their properties, etc seems like a bit much in order ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: In need for a proof from the book.
    ... between any two rationals? ... (Preferably with no reference to real ... reference to Dedekind cuts? ... What would be the "simple" method using reals? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: My claim on Omegas defn
    ... > (I don't understand the reference to prefixes of Omega, ... Yes, definitely I wanted to talk about rationals, not reals. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: My claim on Omegas defn
    ... > (I don't understand the reference to prefixes of Omega, ... Yes, definitely I wanted to talk about rationals, not reals. ...
    (sci.logic)

Quantcast