Proof of Inequality for Real Analysis Course
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have to show that $$left|sqrt 2 - frac m nright| ge frac 1 (2sqrt 2 + 1)n^2$$ given $m,n$ integers with $m,n$ greater than or equal to 1. I have shown it for the case where $|sqrt 2 - frac m n | ge 1|$, but I need to show it when $|sqrt 2 - frac mn < 1|$. I am trying to use the minimum of $$n^2left|fracm^2n^2-2right|$$ but I am stuck. Does anybody have any advice?
real-analysis
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have to show that $$left|sqrt 2 - frac m nright| ge frac 1 (2sqrt 2 + 1)n^2$$ given $m,n$ integers with $m,n$ greater than or equal to 1. I have shown it for the case where $|sqrt 2 - frac m n | ge 1|$, but I need to show it when $|sqrt 2 - frac mn < 1|$. I am trying to use the minimum of $$n^2left|fracm^2n^2-2right|$$ but I am stuck. Does anybody have any advice?
real-analysis
1
Perhaps an absolute value is intended on the left side?
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:10
Thank you. I did intend the absolute value on the left.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:15
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have to show that $$left|sqrt 2 - frac m nright| ge frac 1 (2sqrt 2 + 1)n^2$$ given $m,n$ integers with $m,n$ greater than or equal to 1. I have shown it for the case where $|sqrt 2 - frac m n | ge 1|$, but I need to show it when $|sqrt 2 - frac mn < 1|$. I am trying to use the minimum of $$n^2left|fracm^2n^2-2right|$$ but I am stuck. Does anybody have any advice?
real-analysis
I have to show that $$left|sqrt 2 - frac m nright| ge frac 1 (2sqrt 2 + 1)n^2$$ given $m,n$ integers with $m,n$ greater than or equal to 1. I have shown it for the case where $|sqrt 2 - frac m n | ge 1|$, but I need to show it when $|sqrt 2 - frac mn < 1|$. I am trying to use the minimum of $$n^2left|fracm^2n^2-2right|$$ but I am stuck. Does anybody have any advice?
real-analysis
edited Sep 24 '15 at 15:15
asked Sep 24 '15 at 15:00
eeg710
62
62
1
Perhaps an absolute value is intended on the left side?
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:10
Thank you. I did intend the absolute value on the left.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:15
add a comment |Â
1
Perhaps an absolute value is intended on the left side?
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:10
Thank you. I did intend the absolute value on the left.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:15
1
1
Perhaps an absolute value is intended on the left side?
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:10
Perhaps an absolute value is intended on the left side?
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:10
Thank you. I did intend the absolute value on the left.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:15
Thank you. I did intend the absolute value on the left.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:15
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
We have $|m^2-2n^2|ge 1$ (as $m^2-2n^2$ is never zero) so $left|fracm^2n^2-2right|ge frac1n^2$. Now $|sqrt2-frac mn|,|sqrt2+frac mn|ge frac1n^2$. We also have (as $sqrt2-1le frac mn le sqrt2+1$) and by the triangle inequality that $|sqrt2+frac mn|le sqrt2+frac mnle 2sqrt2+1$. Hence
$$|sqrt2-frac mn| ge frac1n^2 frac1ge frac1(2sqrt2+1)n^2
$$
as required.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Hint(s): The best rational approximation for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of its continued fraction:
$$ sqrt2=[1;2,2,2,ldots]tag1$$
If $fracp_nq_n$ and $fracp_n+1q_n+1$ are two consecutive convergents, $sqrt2$ is between them and:
$$ left|fracp_nq_n-fracp_n+1q_n+1right|=frac1q_nq_n+1.tag2$$
The claim then follows by studying the rate of growth of Pell numbers.
Thanks, but I'm trying to use a method using the minimum of the expression given second in the question.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:18
@eeg710: How do you plan to find such a minimum? As I said, the best rational approximations for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of the continued fraction.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Sep 24 '15 at 15:21
1
@eeg710 A minimum over what, exactly? If you take the infimum over all of $mathbbN times mathbbN$ you get zero (the positive rationals are dense in the positive reals). Do you want to take the infimum over $m$ for each fixed $n$? You will find that this infimum oscillates, coming to minima at the values of $n$ corresponding to the convergents of the continued fractions.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:27
Even with the constraint $|sqrt 2 -frac mn| <1$ I would get 0 for the minimum?
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:44
Again, which minimum? If you minimize over both $m$ and $n$, then yes, you will get zero, since otherwise you would have a positive real that could not be approximated by positive rationals. But if you hold either $m$ or $n$ fixed then the infimum over the other one will be some positive number. Since the RHS of your inequality involves $n$, it is natural to try to take the infimum over $m$. This turns out to be hard, which is part of why we developed continued fractions, but at least at first it seems natural.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
We have $|m^2-2n^2|ge 1$ (as $m^2-2n^2$ is never zero) so $left|fracm^2n^2-2right|ge frac1n^2$. Now $|sqrt2-frac mn|,|sqrt2+frac mn|ge frac1n^2$. We also have (as $sqrt2-1le frac mn le sqrt2+1$) and by the triangle inequality that $|sqrt2+frac mn|le sqrt2+frac mnle 2sqrt2+1$. Hence
$$|sqrt2-frac mn| ge frac1n^2 frac1ge frac1(2sqrt2+1)n^2
$$
as required.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
We have $|m^2-2n^2|ge 1$ (as $m^2-2n^2$ is never zero) so $left|fracm^2n^2-2right|ge frac1n^2$. Now $|sqrt2-frac mn|,|sqrt2+frac mn|ge frac1n^2$. We also have (as $sqrt2-1le frac mn le sqrt2+1$) and by the triangle inequality that $|sqrt2+frac mn|le sqrt2+frac mnle 2sqrt2+1$. Hence
$$|sqrt2-frac mn| ge frac1n^2 frac1ge frac1(2sqrt2+1)n^2
$$
as required.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
We have $|m^2-2n^2|ge 1$ (as $m^2-2n^2$ is never zero) so $left|fracm^2n^2-2right|ge frac1n^2$. Now $|sqrt2-frac mn|,|sqrt2+frac mn|ge frac1n^2$. We also have (as $sqrt2-1le frac mn le sqrt2+1$) and by the triangle inequality that $|sqrt2+frac mn|le sqrt2+frac mnle 2sqrt2+1$. Hence
$$|sqrt2-frac mn| ge frac1n^2 frac1ge frac1(2sqrt2+1)n^2
$$
as required.
We have $|m^2-2n^2|ge 1$ (as $m^2-2n^2$ is never zero) so $left|fracm^2n^2-2right|ge frac1n^2$. Now $|sqrt2-frac mn|,|sqrt2+frac mn|ge frac1n^2$. We also have (as $sqrt2-1le frac mn le sqrt2+1$) and by the triangle inequality that $|sqrt2+frac mn|le sqrt2+frac mnle 2sqrt2+1$. Hence
$$|sqrt2-frac mn| ge frac1n^2 frac1ge frac1(2sqrt2+1)n^2
$$
as required.
answered Aug 7 at 19:46
Kusma
1,212212
1,212212
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Hint(s): The best rational approximation for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of its continued fraction:
$$ sqrt2=[1;2,2,2,ldots]tag1$$
If $fracp_nq_n$ and $fracp_n+1q_n+1$ are two consecutive convergents, $sqrt2$ is between them and:
$$ left|fracp_nq_n-fracp_n+1q_n+1right|=frac1q_nq_n+1.tag2$$
The claim then follows by studying the rate of growth of Pell numbers.
Thanks, but I'm trying to use a method using the minimum of the expression given second in the question.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:18
@eeg710: How do you plan to find such a minimum? As I said, the best rational approximations for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of the continued fraction.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Sep 24 '15 at 15:21
1
@eeg710 A minimum over what, exactly? If you take the infimum over all of $mathbbN times mathbbN$ you get zero (the positive rationals are dense in the positive reals). Do you want to take the infimum over $m$ for each fixed $n$? You will find that this infimum oscillates, coming to minima at the values of $n$ corresponding to the convergents of the continued fractions.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:27
Even with the constraint $|sqrt 2 -frac mn| <1$ I would get 0 for the minimum?
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:44
Again, which minimum? If you minimize over both $m$ and $n$, then yes, you will get zero, since otherwise you would have a positive real that could not be approximated by positive rationals. But if you hold either $m$ or $n$ fixed then the infimum over the other one will be some positive number. Since the RHS of your inequality involves $n$, it is natural to try to take the infimum over $m$. This turns out to be hard, which is part of why we developed continued fractions, but at least at first it seems natural.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Hint(s): The best rational approximation for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of its continued fraction:
$$ sqrt2=[1;2,2,2,ldots]tag1$$
If $fracp_nq_n$ and $fracp_n+1q_n+1$ are two consecutive convergents, $sqrt2$ is between them and:
$$ left|fracp_nq_n-fracp_n+1q_n+1right|=frac1q_nq_n+1.tag2$$
The claim then follows by studying the rate of growth of Pell numbers.
Thanks, but I'm trying to use a method using the minimum of the expression given second in the question.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:18
@eeg710: How do you plan to find such a minimum? As I said, the best rational approximations for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of the continued fraction.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Sep 24 '15 at 15:21
1
@eeg710 A minimum over what, exactly? If you take the infimum over all of $mathbbN times mathbbN$ you get zero (the positive rationals are dense in the positive reals). Do you want to take the infimum over $m$ for each fixed $n$? You will find that this infimum oscillates, coming to minima at the values of $n$ corresponding to the convergents of the continued fractions.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:27
Even with the constraint $|sqrt 2 -frac mn| <1$ I would get 0 for the minimum?
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:44
Again, which minimum? If you minimize over both $m$ and $n$, then yes, you will get zero, since otherwise you would have a positive real that could not be approximated by positive rationals. But if you hold either $m$ or $n$ fixed then the infimum over the other one will be some positive number. Since the RHS of your inequality involves $n$, it is natural to try to take the infimum over $m$. This turns out to be hard, which is part of why we developed continued fractions, but at least at first it seems natural.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Hint(s): The best rational approximation for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of its continued fraction:
$$ sqrt2=[1;2,2,2,ldots]tag1$$
If $fracp_nq_n$ and $fracp_n+1q_n+1$ are two consecutive convergents, $sqrt2$ is between them and:
$$ left|fracp_nq_n-fracp_n+1q_n+1right|=frac1q_nq_n+1.tag2$$
The claim then follows by studying the rate of growth of Pell numbers.
Hint(s): The best rational approximation for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of its continued fraction:
$$ sqrt2=[1;2,2,2,ldots]tag1$$
If $fracp_nq_n$ and $fracp_n+1q_n+1$ are two consecutive convergents, $sqrt2$ is between them and:
$$ left|fracp_nq_n-fracp_n+1q_n+1right|=frac1q_nq_n+1.tag2$$
The claim then follows by studying the rate of growth of Pell numbers.
answered Sep 24 '15 at 15:16
Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
270k31266630
270k31266630
Thanks, but I'm trying to use a method using the minimum of the expression given second in the question.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:18
@eeg710: How do you plan to find such a minimum? As I said, the best rational approximations for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of the continued fraction.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Sep 24 '15 at 15:21
1
@eeg710 A minimum over what, exactly? If you take the infimum over all of $mathbbN times mathbbN$ you get zero (the positive rationals are dense in the positive reals). Do you want to take the infimum over $m$ for each fixed $n$? You will find that this infimum oscillates, coming to minima at the values of $n$ corresponding to the convergents of the continued fractions.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:27
Even with the constraint $|sqrt 2 -frac mn| <1$ I would get 0 for the minimum?
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:44
Again, which minimum? If you minimize over both $m$ and $n$, then yes, you will get zero, since otherwise you would have a positive real that could not be approximated by positive rationals. But if you hold either $m$ or $n$ fixed then the infimum over the other one will be some positive number. Since the RHS of your inequality involves $n$, it is natural to try to take the infimum over $m$. This turns out to be hard, which is part of why we developed continued fractions, but at least at first it seems natural.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
Thanks, but I'm trying to use a method using the minimum of the expression given second in the question.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:18
@eeg710: How do you plan to find such a minimum? As I said, the best rational approximations for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of the continued fraction.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Sep 24 '15 at 15:21
1
@eeg710 A minimum over what, exactly? If you take the infimum over all of $mathbbN times mathbbN$ you get zero (the positive rationals are dense in the positive reals). Do you want to take the infimum over $m$ for each fixed $n$? You will find that this infimum oscillates, coming to minima at the values of $n$ corresponding to the convergents of the continued fractions.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:27
Even with the constraint $|sqrt 2 -frac mn| <1$ I would get 0 for the minimum?
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:44
Again, which minimum? If you minimize over both $m$ and $n$, then yes, you will get zero, since otherwise you would have a positive real that could not be approximated by positive rationals. But if you hold either $m$ or $n$ fixed then the infimum over the other one will be some positive number. Since the RHS of your inequality involves $n$, it is natural to try to take the infimum over $m$. This turns out to be hard, which is part of why we developed continued fractions, but at least at first it seems natural.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:50
Thanks, but I'm trying to use a method using the minimum of the expression given second in the question.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:18
Thanks, but I'm trying to use a method using the minimum of the expression given second in the question.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:18
@eeg710: How do you plan to find such a minimum? As I said, the best rational approximations for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of the continued fraction.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Sep 24 '15 at 15:21
@eeg710: How do you plan to find such a minimum? As I said, the best rational approximations for $sqrt2$ are given by the convergents of the continued fraction.
â Jack D'Aurizioâ¦
Sep 24 '15 at 15:21
1
1
@eeg710 A minimum over what, exactly? If you take the infimum over all of $mathbbN times mathbbN$ you get zero (the positive rationals are dense in the positive reals). Do you want to take the infimum over $m$ for each fixed $n$? You will find that this infimum oscillates, coming to minima at the values of $n$ corresponding to the convergents of the continued fractions.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:27
@eeg710 A minimum over what, exactly? If you take the infimum over all of $mathbbN times mathbbN$ you get zero (the positive rationals are dense in the positive reals). Do you want to take the infimum over $m$ for each fixed $n$? You will find that this infimum oscillates, coming to minima at the values of $n$ corresponding to the convergents of the continued fractions.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:27
Even with the constraint $|sqrt 2 -frac mn| <1$ I would get 0 for the minimum?
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:44
Even with the constraint $|sqrt 2 -frac mn| <1$ I would get 0 for the minimum?
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:44
Again, which minimum? If you minimize over both $m$ and $n$, then yes, you will get zero, since otherwise you would have a positive real that could not be approximated by positive rationals. But if you hold either $m$ or $n$ fixed then the infimum over the other one will be some positive number. Since the RHS of your inequality involves $n$, it is natural to try to take the infimum over $m$. This turns out to be hard, which is part of why we developed continued fractions, but at least at first it seems natural.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:50
Again, which minimum? If you minimize over both $m$ and $n$, then yes, you will get zero, since otherwise you would have a positive real that could not be approximated by positive rationals. But if you hold either $m$ or $n$ fixed then the infimum over the other one will be some positive number. Since the RHS of your inequality involves $n$, it is natural to try to take the infimum over $m$. This turns out to be hard, which is part of why we developed continued fractions, but at least at first it seems natural.
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:50
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1449655%2fproof-of-inequality-for-real-analysis-course%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Perhaps an absolute value is intended on the left side?
â Ian
Sep 24 '15 at 15:10
Thank you. I did intend the absolute value on the left.
â eeg710
Sep 24 '15 at 15:15