Mathematics-I

Prof. S.K. Ray

Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

Lecture 1
Real Numbers

In these lectures, we are going to study a branch of mathematics called calculus.

(Refer Slide Time: 00:25)

What does this subject exactly deal with? It deals with essentially functions defined on
the set of real number systems. In symbol, we write it as function f from R to R, where
this R denotes the collection of real number system. But, what kind of functions we do
exactly study? We study functions which has certain analytical properties. For example,
we study functions which are continuous, which are differentiable and which are
integrable. But the problem is at the very beginning. If you want to study all these
properties of the functions defined on the set of real numbers, we exactly need to know
what these real numbers are. That means we need to study certain properties of real
numbers and the problem is, we do not exactly know what are real numbers?

1
(Refer Slide Time: 1:58)

There are certain numbers we anyway know. For example, the set of natural numbers
which is denoted by N. The numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on. We also know examples of
negative natural numbers, that is, minus 1, minus 2, minus 3, minus 4 and so on. We also
have the number 0 and that comprises the set of integers, denoted by Z. They are denoted
by these numbers. We also have example of a bigger set of numbers than the set of
integers, for example, the set of rational numbers. What are rational numbers? They are
just collection of fractions. For example, if I look at numbers like half, two third, three
fourth, these are rational numbers. So exactly, what is the definition of the class of
rational numbers?

They are denoted by Q and the elements here are numbers of the form m by n, where m is
an integer, n is an integer but n is not equal to 0. We understand why we need this
condition, n not equal to 0, because, I want to divide by a non-zero number. Question is,
are there any other numbers than this set of rational numbers? We will see that, that is
the case. What we do is, let us take a square.

2
(Refer Time Slide: 03:34)

So this is a square with sides equal to 1 and then, let us look at this diagonal. What is the
length of this diagonal? If I apply Pythagoras theorem, what comes out, that this diagonal
if I call it l, then, l is actually root 2. This is very well known to us. Now the question we
ask is, is root 2 a rational number? Let us see whether root 2 is a rational number or not.
So, to prove that, what we do is, we assume the opposite of what we want to prove. That
is, I will assume that root 2 is a rational number and I will try to get a contradiction out of
it.

So if I assume root 2 is a rational number, then I can write root 2 equals to m by n, where
m and n are natural numbers and I also assume that m and n has got no common factor,
because, if there is a common factor between m and n, I can certainly cancel those
factors. So, let us assume, that m and n has no common factor, of course except 1.

3
(Refer Time Slide: 04:44)

If that is the case, this would imply that n square times 2 is m square. I am just squaring
both sides of the equation, right? If that is the case, this implies, since product of odd
natural numbers has to be odd and here I see that m into m is even, it implies that m must
be an even number. So, I have, m is even. That means m must be looking like 2 k, for
some natural number k. This then implies that 2 n square is 4 k square. If I cancel 2 from
both sides, it would mean that, n square is 2 k square. That means, n into n is an even
natural number. But again, I know that product of two natural numbers which are odd has
to be odd. But this is even. That means, n itself is even, implies n must be some 2 p and
then can you see I already got the contradiction?

Because 2 is a common factor between m and n and that contradicts my assumption, I

said I am taking m and n which has got no common factor. Why is this contradiction
arising? It is arising simply because of the fact that I have assumed, root 2 is a rational
number, which it is not. So, it implies that root 2 is not rational. That means, we can
conceive about real numbers which exist according to the pictures which we have drawn,
which are not really contained in the set of rational numbers. That means, there is a need
to enlarge the system to a bigger system, where we have all the conceivable numbers
which we can have. Well, that introduces us to the set of irrational numbers.

4
(Refer Time Slide: 07:25)

You already have got an example that root 2 is an irrational number. Now, to define
exactly what is a real number, it is essentially demanding to know that, we know exactly
what are the set of real numbers and that is a complicated thing to go for. So, what we
will do is, we will start with a geometric intuition, which will help us doing analysis of
functions. So, here we go. Let us look at the line, an infinite line, where somewhere I
have 0. Then, at some point, I locate 1. Then, exactly with the same length I locate 2,
then, I locate 3, I locate 4 and I go on. Then, on the left hand side of 0, I locate minus 1,
I locate minus 2, I locate minus 3 and I go on. Then, it is highly conceivable that I can
represent the point, let us say, half. Where it should be? It should be somewhere here.
I can certainly look at the point 3 by 2. Let us say, it should be somewhere here and so
on.

So probably, I can represent all the fractions. That means the set of rationals inside here,
and I will like to assign each and every point of this line with some system, the set of real
numbers, which I am going to define, which I am going to have. I want to have points on
this line to correspond numbers in R and every element of R should correspond to points
on the line. That means, all the irrational numbers, they should correspond to certain
points on these lines. So intuitively we will assume that the whole real line, the whole set

5
of real numbers is actually given by this line, every point which are not fractions on this
line corresponding to irrational numbers.

(Refer Time Slide: 10:06)

Let us see some more necessity. Why should we have irrational numbers in the set of real
number systems at all? Let us look at this problem. I define a set A; it is the collection of
all real numbers. I am going to have all rational numbers, which satisfies the property that
r square is less than 2. I also define a set B which is given by all rational numbers such
that r square is strictly bigger than 2. Well, the question I ask is, does there exist a largest
element of A in Q? I can also ask, does there exist a smallest element of B in Q? If both
these answers turned out to be negative, then what happens? You can intuitively feel that
the largest number of the set A and of the set B, the largest number of the set A and the
smallest number of the set B should actually be root 2. But since I am demanding that I
am searching for the number which lies inside Q, I will land up with the problem, if root
2 is not a number at all. That necessitates the fact that, if I want to avoid gaps in real line,
I must have numbers like root 2 in my system.

So let us see whether the answers to these questions are positive or negative. Let us start
with A. So let r is an element of A. This implies, by the defining property of the set A

6
that r square strictly less than 2. Then, I choose some natural number n in N and I look at
r plus 1 by n. I am trying to say that I can always manufacture a natural number n, such
that r plus 1 by n still is in A. So I want to get some such n. Let us see whether we can do
it.

(Refer Slide Time: 12:39)

If r plus 1 by n has to be in A, that means, it has to satisfy the defining property of the set
A. That means, r plus 1 by n whole square must be strictly less than 2. Well, this implies r
square plus twice r by n plus 1 by n square must be strictly less than 2. This implies twice
r by n plus 1 by n square strictly less than 2 minus r square and this is anyway positive.
This right hand side, 2 minus r square because I assumed that r square is strictly less than
two. Now, if I want to find some such n, I say that it suffices to get a natural number n
such that twice r by n plus 1 by n strictly less than 2 minus r square. This is simply
because of the fact that 1 by n square strictly less than 1 by n and this implies twice r by n
plus 1 by n square is strictly less than twice r by n square twice r by n plus 1 by n. Now,
if I can find an n such that twice r by n plus 1 by n is strictly less than 2 minus r square
because of this inequality, it will trivially follow the twice r by n plus 1 by n square is
strictly less than 2 minus r square. So that is good enough. That means I have to find a

7
number, a natural number in the set of natural numbers, such that twice r plus 1 divided
by n is strictly less than 2 minus r square. That is good enough.

(Refer Slide Time: 14:28)

Then I say the proof is intuitively clear, because twice r plus 1 is rational. Similarly, 2
minus r square; this is also rational. Then, you can always arrange for an n such that n
into 2 minus r square is strictly bigger than twice r plus 1. That is not very difficult. That
shows that, if r is in A, this would imply, r plus 1 by n is also in A but what does it show?
If I take any r, then r plus 1 by n, again a rational number, which is strictly bigger than r
and still it is in A and there is no end to this process.

Similarly, we can show that B has no smallest element and this essentially shows that the
set of real number has got certain gaps. That is, if you do not assume that the set of
irrational numbers are needed, just to fill in those gaps you throw in the set of irrational
numbers. That is, now the whole collection of real numbers stands for rational numbers
and irrational numbers. Although mathematically difficult, but actually one can construct
the set of real numbers starting from the set of rational numbers and not only that: the
usual operations of mathematics, which I had on the set of rational numbers can actually
be extended to the full set of real numbers.

8
For example, I have plus because I can add two rational numbers certainly, that will
obviously include the case that I can subtract two rational numbers. I can multiply two
rational numbers and another fundamental thing that, given two rational numbers I can
determine which one is larger, which one is smaller. That means I have an ordered
relation like this among the set of rational numbers.

(Refer Slide Time: 16:48)

Well, it is possible to construct a set of real numbers throwing in the irrational numbers
with the set of rational numbers, such that all these operations actually can be extended to
the whole set of real numbers. What does extension mean? It means, among real
numbers, if I can somehow choose rational numbers, let us have two rational numbers,
then the addition of the real numbers is same as the usual addition of rational numbers.
The order relation of two real numbers, if I restrict my real numbers to the set of rational
numbers, it coincides with the order relation of rational numbers, which I had earlier
aimed with these things.

Now, I will say that if I want to fill in the gaps with the rational numbers, with the
irrational numbers. Then the most important property of real line, which I am going to

9
have is, the completeness property. Well, what is completeness property? Notice that we
have not really constructed the set of real numbers. We have just assumed some such
thing exists. If that is the case, I cannot really deduce what completeness property is. So I
will like to throw in as an axiom. That means, you have to just, you know, you have to
just assume it, I mean.

So axiom, it just means, that it is a statement with a mathematical statement which you
will not like to prove and you are neither supposed to question that statement. You just
have to assume the statement. What the completeness axiom is? It turns out that, in whole
calculus, this plays a very fundamental rule. Now question is, what is completeness
property? Well, to tell you what exactly completeness property is, we need to define
certain things.

(Refer Slide Time: 19:25)

Let A be a sub set of R. Then, let us say, some x. Let x belong to R. We say x is an upper
bound of A. If every element of A is smaller than this x, you know, that is, a is less or
equals to x for all a in A. If you look at the picture, that means, if I represent real numbers
in a line, let us say A is certain collection of points. Here, then x actually has to be here

10
onwards. It can be this end point, but any x after this end point will work as an upper
bound. Pictorially, it means just this.

(Refer Slide Time: 20: 50)

Now let us talk about least upper bound. What does this mean? Well, it means exactly
what it says. It is the least among all the upper bounds. Let A be a set again and let B be
the collection of all real numbers x in R such that a is less or equals to x for all a in A. By
this symbol, I mean for all. Well, then what is b actually? This B is just the collection of
all upper bounds and then what is least upper bound? Least upper bound is the least
member in the set B. So, least upper bound, in short, we call it l.u.b. It is the least
member. In other words, it means the smallest number in the set B. That means what?

11
(Refer Slide Time: 22:01)

Well, it means by definition, that if alpha is the smallest number in B, as it is a member of

B, it must be an upper bound of the set A. That is, the first condition is, that a is less or
equal to alpha, for all a in A. Second is, it is the least. That means, if beta is an upper
bound, which means a is less or equal to beta for all a in A. Then, this beta must be
bigger than or equal to alpha. That is, alpha is less than or equal to beta right?

(Refer Slide Time: 22: 23)

12
Now, let us just make an observation. I will say it is a note. Suppose, alpha is an l.u.b and
I look at some alpha minus 1, the question is, can this be an upper bound? Well, you
know least upper bound means it is the least among the upper bounds. So, l minus 1 can
no longer be an upper bound, means what? Something is not an upper bound; it means
there must be some element in the set A, which is bigger than this number alpha minus 1.
That is, it must be strictly less than a, for some a in A.

Now, if you go back to the previous example of the sets A and B which I defined in terms
of r square less than 2, then I had a problem that the set B, they had no smallest element,
among the set of rational numbers. I want to remove that difficulty. That means, I want to
have every subset the least element and that is actually what the completeness axiom
says. So to be precise the axiom is, we call it the l.u.b axiom. It just says that every
bounded, non-empty subset of the set of real numbers has the least upper bound. This
l.u.b or least upper bound, which we have defined, is also known as supremum and the
l.u.b axiom is also known as the supremum axiom or the completeness axiom or the
completeness property.

(Refer Slide Time: 25:50)

13
Now, I want to show you the power of this axiom in some familiar situation. Let us go
back to the proof, that the set A, that is all rational numbers such that r square is less than
2, has no largest element. We have seen the proof of this. How did we go about this
proof? Well, I had taken some real number, some rational number r in A and I just
looked at r plus 1 by n, for a special choice of n and what kind of n actually I have
chosen? I had chosen an n which has the property that n of 2 minus r square is strictly
bigger than 1 plus twice r. Since everything is rational here, 2 minus r square and 1 plus 2
r, I could manage some such n. But now I want to generalize it. For example, let me ask
this obvious looking question.

Suppose, x is a positive number and y is just another real number. Is it possible, to get a
natural number n, such that n times x is strictly bigger than y? You can see why I am
asking the question. For example, I have already shown that if x equal to 2 minus r square
and y equals to 1 plus 2r, I can manufacture some such n. But now I am generalizing. I
am telling you, suppose x is an arbitrary real number that is no longer a rational number,
so is y, is it possible to get a natural number n such that this happens? You will see that,
yes, that is the case. So let us try to prove it. There are two cases.

(Refer Slide Time: 28:10)

14
First of all, I assume that y is less than or equal to 0. In that case, I would say it is
obvious. You can take n to be equals to 1, because x is certainly strictly bigger than y,
because I have taken x to be positive. But the real non trivial task is, if I assume y strictly
bigger than 0, what happens in this case? Well, we use something called contra positive
argument. That means, you assume that the result is false and then you try to contradict
which you already know to be true. It means that your assumption must be false. So what
is the contradiction of my statement? The contradictory statement is, for all n in the set of
natural numbers, the set nx satisfies for all n.

Now, look at this set. If I call this set A, then it turns out that, y by definition is an upper
bound of this set A. So, we have y is an upper bound. Well, I can easily check that the set
A is non-empty. Because, certainly the element x is there. Then, by the least upper bound
property, A must have a supremum. By l.u.b property, equivalently, the completeness
axiom A has a supremum. I denote the supremum by alpha, let us say.

(Refer Slide Time: 30:39)

Let alpha be the supremum of A. In symbol, I write alpha is equal to supremum A. This
implies nx, certainly, less or equal to alpha, for all n in N. Well, that also means that, n

15
plus 1 x is also less or equal to alpha, for all n in N because if n is a natural number, so is
n plus 1. This implies that nx is less or equal to alpha minus x. Notice that this alpha
minus x is positive. What does it mean? As, alpha minus x is less than alpha, I see that it
implies alpha minus x is an upper bound of the set A.

Now, if I go back to the observation which I just made after the definition of supremum,
which essentially says that anything lower than supremum cannot be an upper bound,
alpha minus x is smaller than alpha, how can this be an upper bound? This is a
contradiction. So, as alpha minus x is smaller than alpha, it cannot be an upper bound of
the set A. Well, I say this is a contradiction and that means my proposition is wrong.
That means this set A which I have defined, the set A which is collection of nx; this
cannot satisfy that nx is less or equals to y for all n. This is not true. This is not true
means, there must exist some n for which this is false. That is, nx is strictly bigger than y.
That is, what we wanted to prove. This is called the Archimedean property. So, the
precise statement of this is, if x is a positive real number and y is an arbitrary real number
then there exist a natural number such that nx is strictly bigger than y.

(Refer Slide Time: 33:26)

16
Well, let me show another application of this. Let epsilon be any positive real number.
Then I say, there exists a natural number n such that 1 by n is strictly less than epsilon.
How do you prove it? Very simple; just in the archimedean property, take x equal to
epsilon and y equals to 1, in archimedean property. Then, by the Archimedean property,
there exist n in N such that n epsilon is bigger than y. This precisely means 1 by n strictly
less than epsilon. Let us look at some more examples of Archimedean property. That is,
applications of it. What does it really imply?

(Refer Slide Time: 35:33)

The second example, which I have in mind, is the denseness of rational numbers. So let
me write, denseness of rational numbers. What does denseness really mean? To illustrate,
let us look at the picture again. This is the real line. Let us say, I am standing at the point
root 2, which is an irrational number, now you know. Denseness essentially means this,
that suppose, I move little bit right, let us say here or I move little bit left let us say here,
then I am actually crossing a rational number. That is, if I magnify this picture a little bit
more, let us say this is root 2, this is 0, I am standing here.

Suppose I want to go here. I am moving left or I want to go here, that is right. Then, I am
crossing a rational number. That means, there is some irrational number sitting here or

17
there is some rational number sitting here. That is what denseness means. The precise
mathematical formulation of this is as follows. Let x and y are 2 real numbers, such that,
x is strictly less than y. This x, you can think of, is square I have moved and y is my right
movement. I want to say, then, there exist a rational number r, such that r lies between x
and y. That is, x is strictly less than r; this is strictly less than y. The proof of this is just a
very simple application of Archimedean property. If you people think a little bit, you will
also come up with the proof.

So, the proof is this. First thing is, what exactly I want? I want a rational number r, which
lies between an x and y. That means I need to find 2 integers, let us say, m and n, such
that, x is less than m by n and this is less than y. For simplicity, let me first assume that x
and y, both are positive. The other thing you can actually manage yourself. So I assume
x, y both are positive. That means, now my job is reduced to finding two positive
numbers m and n, that is, no longer integers, natural numbers, such that x is less than m
by n and m by n is less than y.

(Refer Slide Time: 39:14)

What does it mean to say that, I will find these numbers? It means this, that, I need to find
now m and n, such that, nx is less than m and this is less than ny. Now, what I do is, I use

18
a very simple trick. I just write ny as nx plus n of y minus x. So I need to find, m and n,
such that this is true. nx is less than m; it is less than n x plus n into y minus x. Now,
since x is less than y, I already know that y minus x is strictly bigger than 0. In this case, I
say by Archimedean property, I can always manage to find a natural number n, such that
n into y minus x, let us say, is bigger than 10 because y minus x is a positive number, 10
is a given real number.

Then by the statement of Archimedean property, there is a natural number n such that n
into y minus x is bigger than 10. But this, in turn, implies that n y, sorry, n x plus n y
minus x minus n x is bigger than 10. What does it say? It says, that the distance between
this real number, which is actually n y and this real number is 10 and if there are 2 real
numbers whose distance is 10, I can always find a natural number, which lies between
these 2 numbers. That is, there exist a natural number m, such that n x is less than m and
this is less than n x plus n into y minus x. But this righter number is nothing but n y. That
means my job is over. I have found a natural number m such that, n x is less than n,
which is less than n y. That in turn implies that, x is less than m by n less than y.

(Refer Slide Time: 42:31)

19
It again means that between any two real numbers, there exist a rational number, and this
is precisely what denseness of rational numbers in the real number system means. Now, I
show another application of Archimedean property. This is the third example. I want to
prove denseness of irrational numbers. Now, you people know already what does this
mean.

Exactly analogous to the rational numbers, I will like to prove between any 2 real
numbers, there exists an irrational number also. That is, if x and y are 2 real numbers, I
want to prove that there exist an irrational number s, such that x is less than s, less than y.
How you go about it? What I do is, given x and y, I can always, squeeze in some rational
number between x and y. That is, by the previous example, I call that number r. That is,
first get a rational number by using example 2, such that x lies between, x is less than r
and r is less than y and then I want to find an irrational number s which lies between r and
y, that is, to find an irrational number s such that this happens: r is less than s and it is less
than y.

You will be surprised to see that I can manage some such s with an explicit knowledge of
only one irrational number, which we have seen so far, that is, root 2. What I do is as
follows. I look at first y minus r and obviously, this is bigger than 0. In the Archimedean
property, if you think this as an x and choose another irrational number, root 2, I say, by
Archimedean property, it follows that, there exist a natural number n such that n into y
minus r it is strictly bigger than root 2. Let us have a look at it again.

20
(Refer Slide Time: 45:37)

I am saying that y minus r is a positive real number. That is clear because r is less than y.
Root 2 is a real number. Then, by the Archimedean property, there exist a natural number
n such that n into y minus r is strictly bigger than root 2. That is fine. What does this
mean? This implies that y minus r strictly bigger than root 2 divided by n. This also
implies, that y is strictly bigger than r plus root 2 by n and notice that root 2 by n is a
positive number. That means it is strictly bigger than r.

Now if I can somehow guarantee, that this is irrational, then I will prove. But why it
should be rational? Again, we use the contra positive argument. About rational number
system, we know that if we add or subtract two rational numbers, I land up within the set
of rational numbers. If I multiply two rational numbers, I am still inside the set of rational
numbers. So let us assume that this is not irrational. That means, again, I am using the
opposite of what I am supposed to prove and then I will try to get a contradiction out of
it. That means my assumption is wrong.

So if r plus root 2 is rational, then so is r plus root 2 by n minus r because difference of

two rational numbers is a rational number and I have assumed that r is a rational number.
But this implies that root 2 by n is rational number. I also know that product of two

21
rational numbers is a rational number, and of course, any natural number is a rational
number because n, I can always write as n by 1. This implies n into root 2 by n must be a
rational number. Notice that n is a rational number, so is root 2 by n.

(Refer Slide Time: 48:51)

This implies in turn, that root 2 is rational number, but that is a contradiction because this
is the first result we started with; that root 2 is an irrational number. This implies that r
plus root 2 by n is actually an irrational number, and this implies what I got finally is x
less than r, which is less than r plus root 2 by n, which is in turn, less than y. x and y are
the two real numbers. I started with and finally I landed up with r plus root 2 n, which is
irrational. That is, between any 2 real numbers you can always find rational number as
well as an irrational number. That is what is called the denseness of irrational numbers.

22
(Refer Slide Time: 50:15)

Let us summarize what we have learnt in todays lecture. Although we have not really
defined for you, explicitly, what are real numbers, but we certainly do have an intuitive
feeling towards it. Let me explain. Let us look at this line and I have the set of real
numbers. Then, I say, that there is a one-to-one correspondence among points in this line
and real numbers, that is, elements of the set written as R. What is the correspondence?

Given any point, I can always choose a point here so that the length represents the real
number. That is, if I take the rational numbers inside here, then the points having
fractional length from 0 corresponds to rational numbers and any other point which does
not have this kind of fractional length, they are actually representing the irrational
numbers and that is the reason, sometimes, this is called the real line.

Now the second thing, the most fundamental about this real line was the supremum
axiom. Sometime, this is also called the completeness axiom. What does it say? As you
already know now, that if you take any non-empty subset of real line A, then A has a
supremum and supremum means what? Supremum means, the least among the upper
bounds of the set A.

23
(Refer Slide Time: 52:26)

The next thing was the fundamental application of the supremum axiom, which we call
the Archimedean property. Pictorially, it means just this. You have this line, you take
some y far away from 0 and you take some x here. Then what you do is, you go on
adding it to itself for sufficiently many times, you know, that means this is x, 2x, 3x, 4x,
5x and so on. At some stage, for a large n you will have nx sitting here. That is what
Archimedean property says. That is, given any x bigger than 0 and y, an arbitrary real
number, there exist a natural number n such that nx is strictly bigger than y and as you
must have noticed that, if y is actually a negative real number, that is, it is less than 0,
then there is no point in trying to prove it because it is obviously true.

Then we have seen some fundamental applications of that Archimedean property.

Number one was, that given any epsilon bigger than 0, this epsilon might be very large, it
might be very small, also something like 1 by 10,00,00, you know, it does not really
matter, then there exist a natural number such that this epsilon is strictly less than 1 by n.
This was the simple application of the Archimedean property. Then the second property
was denseness of rational numbers. That is, given any 2 real numbers, x and y, suppose, x
is strictly less than y, then always, there exist a rational number r, which lies between x
and y.

24
(Refer Slide Time: 54:47)

And then, we have analogous property for the irrational numbers that is, if x and y are
two real numbers such that x is strictly less than y, then just like rationals, there are
irrationals also which lie in between x and y, that is, x is less than s, less than y and s is
an irrational number. That is, there are enough rational numbers and irrational numbers in
the real line. The most fundamental among those properties, which we have learnt so for
is, the supremum axiom. It is also called the completeness axiom, what does it say? It
says, that if I take a subset A of R, which is non-empty, as well as, bounded, then it has
the supremum and what is the supremum? Supremum is an upper bound of the set A, but
it is the least among all the existing upper bounds.

These are the most fundamental properties of real line. In the forthcoming lectures, we
will see that, when we start studying functions, which are continuous differentiable or
integrable, to study them, actually, we will be frequently using these above mentioned
properties and that is why, these properties are the most fundamental properties, directly
related to the structure of real line.

25