Lesson 1
Numbers, and Sets
The number line, the sets built on it, the rules of arithmetic, and the algebra that follows from them.
Taught
We note early that the notes below and onwards assume the basic algebra and arithmetic of a GCSE math course; everything past that point is built up here from the start.
The Number Line
Two ideas carry almost all of what follows: the number line, which is where numbers live, and the set, which is how we talk about a collection of them at once.
We start with the number line. Here is an infinite line.
The arrowheads are there to say that the line is meant to extend in both directions, to infinity. Now let us fix a point on this line (can be any point, but we do normally like it being in the middle), and label it .
This point represents the number zero, and it is the point against which every other number is measured. Numbers sitting to the left of are called negative, numbers sitting to the right are called positive, and itself is neither.
One thing is still missing; we can now say which side of a point lies on, but not how far along it lies, so let us finally fix a unit of length.
This unit of length is what we use, among other things, to compare how far the other numbers sit from zero.
Definition 1.1 (The Number Line).
The infinite line above, together with its fixed zero point and its fixed unit of length, is the (real) number line. The numbers represented by the points of the number line are called real numbers, and the collection of all of them is written .
A few real numbers, and where they sit:
The Natural Numbers
The natural numbers are the numbers we count with. Counting is done by incrementing a quantity, one object at a time, and on the number line an increment is a move to the right by the unit length. The distance we have moved from zero is then the number of times we moved, which is exactly the number of objects counted.
Definition 1.2 (Natural Numbers).
The natural numbers (sometimes called whole numbers) are the numbers represented by those points of the number line that can be reached by starting at and moving right by a whole unit length some number of times.
Remark (A Convention).
Whether counts as a natural number is a matter of convention; but my personal preference is we do not count it, so and when we do want zero alongside them we write
The Integers
The natural numbers count, but they cannot measure the difference between two counts; if an increment in quantity is a move to the right by the unit length, then a decrement is a move to the left by the unit length, and allowing both directions gives the integers.
The integers are the numbers represented by those points of the number line that can be reached by starting at and moving in either direction by a whole unit length some number of times. The collection of all of them is written .
Closure
One property that ordinary arithmetic quietly assumes has not been mentioned yet.
A collection of numbers is closed under an operation if carrying out that operation on any two of its members again produces a member of that same collection.
The real numbers are closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication and division: the sum, difference, product and ratio of any two real numbers is again a real number. Division is the one case needing a footnote, and we come back to it below.
Smaller collections need not behave so well: If and are natural numbers then so are and , and if and are integers then so are , and ; but by our definition the naturals are not closed under subtraction, since is not a natural number, and the integers are not closed under division, since is not an integer. Each failure is a reason to enlarge the collection we are working with.
Which of the four operations is the collection of negative integers closed under?
The Rational Numbers
The integers were forced on us by subtraction; division forces the next enlargement. Where an integer is what we get by laying whole units end to end, a rational number is what we get by first cutting the unit into equal segments.
Definition 1.5 (Rational Number).
A rational number is a real number that can be written as a fraction whose numerator is an integer and whose denominator is a nonzero integer; that is, is rational if and only if there are integers and with such that The collection of all rational numbers is written .
Placing them on the line takes a little more work than placing the integers did. Given a positive integer , the number is the length obtained by breaking the unit length into equal parts. For :
The numbers of the form with an integer are then those reached by starting at and moving left or right by units some number of times, with deciding both the direction and the number of steps.
Nothing new happens when is negative, because then is positive and so the picture for a negative denominator is the picture for a positive one.
Remark (Why the denominator cannot be zero).
In terms of the picture above, asks us to break the unit into zero equal parts, which does nothing at all: there is no piece left to step by, so no point on the line gets named. The same objection can be made in one line. Dividing by is meant to undo multiplying by , so if were a number we would need . If there is then no such at all, and if then every qualifies. Either there is no answer or there is no way to choose between the answers, so we leave undefined.
The Rationals are Closed
The rationals are closed under addition, subtraction and multiplication as the integers are, and unlike the integers they are also closed under division. This is quick to see.
Let and be rational. By the definition we may write and , where , , , are integers and , . Then
The integers are closed under multiplication, so , and are integers; they are closed under addition, so is an integer; and , since neither nor is zero. So is an integer over a nonzero integer, which is to say it is rational. The same follows for the rest. For the difference and the product,
and both are again an integer over a nonzero integer. For the quotient, suppose also that , so that ; then
and , so is rational as well.
Where exactly in the argument above was it used that and are nonzero? Would anything go wrong if or were zero?
Sets
The number line says what a single number is; to speak about many at once — the naturals, the integers, the solutions of an equation — we need the second idea.
A set is a collection of distinguishable objects, mathematical or otherwise.
The objects need not be numbers. The set of all animals in this building called Bob is a perfectly good set, and so is the set of letters appearing in the word “banana”, which is the collection consisting of , and .
The objects collected in a set are its elements. If is one of the objects collected in the set , we say is an element of , or that belongs to , and write If is not one of them we write , read ” is not in ”.
Let be the set of animals in this building called Bob. If the cat is called Bob then , and if the dog is called Rex then . Numbers behave the same way: , while .
Subsets
In the example above, every animal called Bob is also an animal in the building. That situation is common enough to deserve a name: given two sets and , it may happen that every element of is also an element of , which is to say that whenever we also have .
A set is included in a set , or is a subset of , if every element of is also an element of . We write
If every element of lies in and every element of lies in , then the two collections have exactly the same members, and we call them equal: precisely when and .
Remark.
Sometimes we want to say that is contained in and that at least one element of is missing from , so that the two are not equal. Then we call a proper subset of and write .
The collections of numbers built up in the first half of this chapter now line up in a chain,
and every inclusion in it is proper: lies in but not in , lies in but not in , lies in but not in , and lies in but not in — the last of these being a claim we do not settle here, though Exercise 1.6 does.
Remark (Decorating the symbols).
Three decorations on these symbols come up constantly. A star removes zero, so , and are the integers, rationals and reals apart from . A subscript plus keeps the non-negative ones and a subscript minus the non-positive ones, giving , , and , , . The two can be combined: is the set of strictly positive real numbers.
It is worth pointing out how much the symbol resembles the symbol , and where the resemblance stops. Given two numbers and , exactly one of , , holds; two numbers cannot be different and yet fail to be comparable. Sets are not like this. Two sets can differ without either one being contained in the other.
Let and . Then , but , since and , and also , since and . Neither set comes first.
Remark.
As in the example, a slash through the symbol denies it: says that is not a subset of , which is to say that at least one element of escapes . It is not used often.
Is ? Is ? These are not the same question.
Is
Listing and Describing
Describing a set in a sentence, as we have been doing, is exact but slow. Two shorter notations do most of the work. The first is simply to list the elements, separated by commas and enclosed in curly brackets. This is called the roster method:
A list may be too long to write out, or infinite, or of a length depending on some variable. In those cases we write out enough of it to make the pattern plain and leave the rest implicit, using an ellipsis:
Remark.
There is some genuine ambiguity here, since the reader is expected to work out what pattern the "" is meant to suggest. Usually that is obvious. Sometimes it is not: is meaningless.
In contrast to a list, the second notation describes the members implicitly by a rule. This is set-builder notation: we write
read “the set of all elements such that has that property”, the bar being read as “such that”. So the rationals, defined earlier in words, can be written
Each notation has its own strength. A list says exactly what is in the set and nothing about why those things and not others; a rule says exactly why and leaves you to work out what actually satisfies it. The set names its four members at a glance and hides that they are the primes below .
Write each of these sets both ways, as a list and by a rule: the even integers between and ; the integers whose square is ; the real numbers whose square is .
Two Special Sets
The Empty Set
Calling a set a collection of objects is slightly misleading, because it suggests there has to be something there. There does not.
Every set carries with it a test for membership: given an object, either it belongs or it does not. Nothing in that test requires any object to pass it. Consider the set of all real numbers greater than but less than . Any such number would belong to the set, and there is no such number, so the collection is empty — and it is still perfectly well defined, because we can still answer the membership question for every object we are handed.
Definition 1.11 (The Empty Set).
The set with no elements is called the empty set, written .
Remark.
A set is well defined when, given any object, there is an objective rule deciding whether the object belongs to it or not: one of the two answers must happen, and not both. The sets we study are always of this kind. “The set of all large numbers” is not a set in this sense, since nothing decides whether belongs to it.
Remark (The empty set is not zero).
The number and the empty set are not the same thing. Take the set of all numbers that are neither positive nor negative. Exactly one number qualifies, so the set is , which has one element and so is not empty. A box with a zero in it is not an empty box.
The Universe of Discourse
At certain times we wish to limit membership in a set not only by the rule but also by what is eligible for membership in the first place: when solving an equation about lengths, nobody intends “the colour blue” to be a candidate.
Definition 1.12 (Universe of Discourse).
The universe of discourse, usually written , is a set fixed in advance such that for every object and every set under discussion,
So, for instance, we may write where the eligible objects are the four listed and the rule then keeps three of them.
Once a universe is fixed, every set we can speak of is caught between two bounds: no set can have fewer elements than the empty set, and none can contain an object the universe does not, so
A picture of this kind, with sets drawn as regions and the universe as the rectangle around them, is called a Venn diagram. It is a way of seeing an argument about sets rather than a way of settling one, but it is a very good way of seeing one.
The Arithmetic of Sets
Just as we combine two numbers to get a third, we can combine two sets to get a third. Doing so gives us an arithmetic of sets, and it has its own operations, its own rules, and its own closure.
Throughout this section every set is a subset of a fixed universe of discourse , as above.
Union
The union of sets and , written , is the set of all elements belonging to at least one of and :
The word “or” here is the inclusive one: it means at least one, not exactly one. If Tom goes to the shop, or Jerry does, or both of them do, then in every one of those three cases somebody from the union went.
Intersection
Definition 1.14 (Intersection).
The intersection of sets and , written , is the set of all elements belonging to both and at once:
The intersection of two sets can be empty even when neither set is. Take , let be the even integers and the odd ones; no integer is both, so . This is one of the reasons the empty set has to exist at all: without it, the intersection of two perfectly good sets would sometimes fail to be a set.
Complement
The complement of a set , written , is the set of all elements of the universe that are not in :
The complement depends entirely on the universe. We never speak of all the non-’s in the world; only of all the elements of which are not in . Since everything under discussion lies in anyway, we could equally have written , and it is sometimes useful to remember that the is silently there.
Relative Complement
Definition 1.16 (Relative Complement).
The relative complement of in , also called the difference and written , is the set of all elements of that are not in :
The difference is not really a fourth operation, because it can be written with the three we already have:
An element of is one that is in and is not in , and “not in ” is exactly “in ”.
Combining the Operations
Expressions can be built up out of these operations as freely as arithmetic expressions are built out of and , with brackets settling the order. So is read ” intersect the union of and ”, and moving the bracket to give need not leave the set alone.
One combination is worth recording, because it is the picture of a union taken apart:
The three pieces on the right are disjoint — no element lies in two of them — and they name the three regions of the diagram: the part of outside , the overlap, and the part of outside .
What is True of All Sets
Not everything that looks natural is true. It is tempting to expect complementation to pass through a union the way a minus sign passes through a bracket, giving , and that is false in general. What is true is
which is one of De Morgan’s laws: to be outside both and is to be outside and also outside , and the union has turned into an intersection along the way.
The distinction matters more than the particular formula. What we are after in this arithmetic are the statements that hold for all sets, not the ones that happen to come out right for a convenient choice of and .
Draw the two-circle diagram and shade . Then shade on a fresh copy, and on another. Which two agree?
Take , and . Write out , , , and as lists.
Is the same set as ? Compare with and for numbers.
Finally, both of the operations we started with are closed: given two sets, is a set and is a set, so the results can be combined again in their turn. That is what makes this an arithmetic rather than a collection of one-off constructions.
The Inclusion–Exclusion Principle
Write for the number of elements of a finite set . The question of this section is what does to a union, and the answer is not the one most people guess.
Counting a Union
The mistake to get out of the way first is treating as though it were . A union does combine two sets, but it is not numerically additive unless the sets are completely separate.
Suppose students take Math 209, making up a set , and students take Bio 232, making up a set . Intuition says , and that is right if and only if no student takes both courses. Suppose students take both. Those are among the and they are also among the , so adding counts each of them twice, although each of them is one person. That leaves taking only Math 209 and taking only Bio 232.
Counting the diagram region by region gives distinct students, and the general rule follows.
For finite sets and ,
and this is called the inclusion–exclusion principle.
Here , as counting the regions said it should be.
The intersection is the controlling factor. Every element of contributes to and another to although it is only one element, so the sum counts the intersection exactly twice, and subtracting it once puts things right. The wrong answer minus the correct answer is , which is the size of the intersection and nothing else.
What the Two Sizes Alone Will Tell You
If all we are told is and , we cannot recover ; we can only bound it, since
At one extreme the sets are disjoint, and . At the other, sits entirely inside , so and . The union therefore has at least and at most elements, and by choosing the intersection we can arrange for any answer between the two.
Adding is Safe on Disjoint Regions
Behind all of this is one rule: numbers may be added when the regions they count are mutually exclusive. The three regions , and of Figure 1.14 do not overlap, so
and this addition needs no correction, because no element has been counted twice. The subtraction in the two-set formula is the price of using and , which overlap, instead of the disjoint regions.
Remark (Finite sets only).
From here on every set is finite. The formula becomes troublesome for infinite sets, because we cannot reliably subtract one infinity from another. Take . If is the set of even natural numbers then is the odd ones, which is infinite; but if is instead the set of natural numbers greater than , then , which has exactly elements. In both cases and are infinite, so no arithmetic on their sizes alone can tell those two answers apart.
Example 1.17 (A Hand of Cards).
What is the chance of drawing a card that is either a heart or a face card from a standard deck of ?
There are hearts, making a set , and face cards — aces, kings, queens and jacks — making a set . The trap is to answer . Four cards, the ace, king, queen and jack of hearts, lie in both sets, so and
So the chance is , not the the intuitive count gives.
Three Sets
For finite sets , and the principle reads
The name says what is happening: include, then exclude, then include again. Follow an element that lies in all three sets. The first line counts it three times, once in each of , and . The second line subtracts it three times, once for each pair, which leaves it counted zero times. The third line adds it back once. It ends up counted once, which is correct. An element in exactly two of the sets is counted twice on the first line, subtracted once on the second and untouched by the third, so it too is counted once.
Example 1.18 (Language Classes).
Every student in a graduating class must take at least one of French, German or Spanish, giving sets , and with
and . How large is the class?
Straight from the formula,
The diagram gets there another way, by filling the seven disjoint regions from the inside out. Put in the centre. Each pair intersection already contains that , so the pair-only regions hold , and . Each single set contains the three regions just filled, so the parts taken by one language alone hold
Adding the seven regions, which is safe because they do not overlap,
agreeing with the formula. The diagram carries more than the total: it also shows, for instance, that students took German and neither of the other two.
More Than Three
The pattern continues, with the signs alternating. Add the sets taken one at a time; subtract the intersections taken two at a time; add those taken three at a time; subtract those taken four at a time; and carry on alternating until the intersection of all of them has been used.
In a group of people, read the news online and read it on paper. What is the largest the overlap could be, and what is the smallest, given that everybody reads it one way or the other?
Write out the four-set formula in full. How many terms does it have, and how many of them carry a minus sign?
The Real Numbers
The first section of this chapter named the real numbers, as the points of the number line, and left it at that. The reason for leaving it there is that the real numbers are notoriously awkward to pin down, and doing it properly is the business of an analysis course rather than this one. For now the following will serve.
Definition 1.19 (Real Numbers, Informally).
A real number is a number that can be written as a decimal expansion, possibly one that never terminates and never repeats. These are exactly the numbers represented by the points of the number line: every point is a real number, and every real number is a point.
There also exist irrational numbers, meaning real numbers not contained in . One example is the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter, which is known as ; another is . The set of real numbers describes all physical quantities that can be represented on a line, and is the set of all rational and irrational numbers together.
The Rules of Arithmetic
The operations and in — and so also in , and — satisfy the following properties. Every manipulation in the rest of these notes is built out of them.
Let .
- Commutativity. and .
- Associativity. and .
- Distributivity. and .
- Neutral elements. and .
- Inverses. There is a number with , and if there is a number with .
We call the neutral element with respect to and the neutral element with respect to , and we call the negative of and the reciprocal of . None of these properties is claimed for subtraction or division, and in general several of them fail there; that is the point of Exercise 1.9.
What Follows from the Rules
A surprising amount of ordinary algebra is nothing but these five rules used carefully. We record the pieces we shall need.
If then and . Adding to both sides of gives , and the left-hand side is , so . Adding to both sides instead gives in the same way.
As a matter of convention, we shall write
With that convention, associativity and commutativity mean that a sum involving three terms may be written in many ways, all of them the same number:
so we may also write this sum as .
. By definition is the number that adds to to give ; but says exactly that is the number which adds to to give , and that number is .
. We show this by adding to : rearranging, , so is the negative of .
. Here distributivity does the work:
Adding to both sides gives , and the left-hand side is simply . So .
. We show this the same way:
and a number that adds to to give is the negative of .
. What has to be shown is that is the negative of , which amounts to showing that the two add to zero; and by distributivity .
. We show this by the same computation with the factors the other way round: .
. Applying the previous two facts in turn, .
A number has only one negative. Show this: if and , then .
A nonzero number has only one reciprocal. Show this: if and , then .
Show that if then or .
Fractions
With the rules of arithmetic written down we can say precisely how fractions behave, since every rule about them comes out of those five.
Throughout this section , , , are integers, and any letter standing in a denominator is nonzero.
The rule for cross-multiplying says that
This is the rule that turns a question about two fractions into a question about two integers, and it is the one to reach for whenever two fractions have to be compared.
The cancellation rule says that for a nonzero integer ,
To test the equality we apply the rule for cross-multiplying, so what has to hold is , and that is true by associativity and commutativity. For instance,
In dealing with quotients of integers which may be negative, it is useful to observe that
which cross-multiplying turns into , something we already know. Both are equal to , and for this reason we shall write
without worrying about which of the three is meant.
Definition 1.20 (Lowest Form).
A fraction of positive integers is in lowest form if and have no common divisor other than .
Any positive rational number has an expression as a fraction in lowest form. Start from any way of writing it as a quotient of positive integers . We know is a common divisor of and , and any common divisor is at most equal to or , so among all common divisors there is a greatest one; call it and write and with and positive integers. Cancelling ,
and and have no common divisor left, since one would have made larger.
Cancellation also explains addition. Given and we have seen that
so both now have the common denominator , and adding is then adding numerators:
Multiplication needs no such preparation, since
These are the formulas the closure argument earlier in the chapter used, and the two of them together are why is closed under all four operations while is not.
Put in lowest form, and check the answer by cross-multiplying against the original.
Rearranging a Relation
Suppose three numbers are related by
Adding to both sides gives : the has crossed the equals sign and changed sign. That single move, together with the corresponding one for multiplication, is the whole of elementary equation solving.
Solve . Adding to both sides gives ; multiplying both sides by gives .
Distributivity is what lets a bracket be expanded before the rearranging starts. Used twice,
Equations, Identities and Inequalities
Consider the following four expressions.
By inspection we see that these four expressions are all different in nature, and by investigating each of them in turn we shall identify the differences.
Equations
Substituting for in the left-hand side (LHS) and right-hand side (RHS) of separately, we find
so LHS RHS when . Substituting for in the same way, however,
so LHS RHS when . Now rearranging the original expression gives
from which LHS RHS if and only if either , that is , or , that is . The equality holds for no other value of .
An expression of this type, in which the two sides are equal only for a number of distinct values of the unknown quantity, is called an equation. The process of finding those values is called solving the equation.
Sets give us a tidy way of stating the answer. The problem “solve ” becomes “find the solution set of ”, and we write
Remark.
The same question can also be answered in set-builder notation, where which is a statement of a different kind: the list tells us what the set contains but not the property its members share, while the rule tells us the property but not the members. Solving the equation is exactly the work of turning the second description into the first.
Recalling that two sets are equal when each is contained in the other, this gives a rather meaningful interpretation of what it is for two equations to be the same problem: two equations are equivalent when they have the same solution set. Each rearrangement above replaced an equation by an equivalent one, and that is what entitled us to read the answer off the final line.
Are and equivalent? Compare their solution sets.
Identities
Now take . Substituting for in both sides,
and substituting for as before,
Whatever other numerical value we substitute for we find that LHS RHS, so it appears that the two sides agree for all values of . Expanding the bracket, as we did above, says the same thing in algebra; the following geometric illustration says it a third way, without any algebra at all. Consider a square of side units.
Since these two squares are identical, their areas are identical. The left one has area , and the right one has been cut into four pieces of areas , , and . Hence for all values of , and we say that is identical to .
A relationship whose two sides are equal for any value of the unknown quantity is called an identity. Using the symbol for “is identical to”, the relationship above is written
The two sides of an identity are not two things that happen to agree; they are, in fact, two forms of the same expression. We shall use the identity symbol whenever we are dealing with an identity relationship, and we strongly recommend that the reader does the same.
State which of the following are equations and which are identities.
Inequalities
The third relationship, , is obviously different from the first two. Reading from left to right, the symbol means “is greater than”, and means “is less than”.
By inspection we see that for to have a value greater than one, must have a value greater than three:
A relationship between two expressions using one of , , , is called an inequality.
Here the number line does the explaining. Consider a line as being made up of adjacent points; then all the real values the variable can take are represented by positions of points on that line, and the position of a point to the left of a second point corresponds to a value of less than the value at the second point:
The values of given by the statement can then be represented by a section of this line.
From this we see that not all values of satisfy the inequality, but that there is an infinite set of values which do: the solution of an inequality is a range, or several ranges, of values of the variable involved. Note that is not included in the range, and this is what the hollow circle records. For , which means is greater than or equal to , the value is included in the range, and the circle is filled in.
Find the range of values of for which the following inequalities are true, and illustrate the range on a number line.
Expressions
The fourth of the four, , differs from the other three in the simplest possible way: it asserts nothing. It is a term, not a relationship, so there is nothing to solve and nothing to check. It has a value once is given, and that is all.
Powers
We have been writing and without comment, on the strength of school algebra. The notation is worth setting down properly, because we are about to push it a long way past whole-number exponents.
Definition 1.25 (Powers with Natural Exponents).
Let and . Then ” raised to the power of ” is defined as
where is called the base and the exponent.
Power Rules
Let and . Then
Each of the three is a matter of counting the factors. For the first, writing both powers out gives copies of followed by more, which is copies in all:
For the second, copies of beside copies of can be paired off, one to one , by commutativity, giving copies of :
For the third, is copies of a block of copies of , which is copies of altogether:
Remark.
We define , and the reason is the first power rule: that is the only value making come out right for all .
Definition 1.26 (Powers with Negative Integer Exponents).
Let and let . Then ” raised to the power of ” is defined as
Remark.
Again the definition is forced rather than chosen. If the power rules are to hold for integer exponents then we need
and this makes sense if and only if is the reciprocal of , which requires . With this definition the power rules above also hold for .
Roots
How should the square root of a number be defined? Each of the obvious attempts has a problem.
- “The number which, raised to the power , gives .” But there may be two such numbers, since .
- “A number which, raised to the power , gives .” Then would be a square root of , and would not name one number.
- ”.” But we have not yet said what raising to the power means.
The way out is to demand a single number by insisting that it be the non-negative one.
Definition 1.27 (Square Root).
For , the square root of , written or , is the non-negative real number such that .
Remark.
Every word of that definition is doing work, in particular the condition and the word non-negative. Both and square to ; only is .
Let . For , the -th root of , written or , is the non-negative real number such that .
With roots in hand, an exponent may be any rational number at all.
Definition 1.29 (Powers with Rational Exponents).
For and a rational exponent with and , ” raised to the power of ” is defined as
The power rules above hold with and rational as well, and from here on we use them without comment.
Simplify each of the following.
Remarkable Identities
Three expansions come up so often that they are worth knowing by sight rather than working out each time.
Let . Then
The first comes out of distributivity used twice, exactly as the expansion of did:
the last step by commutativity. The other two go the same way.
The first identity is also the picture we drew for , with the replaced by : the big square has area , and it decomposes into smaller rectangles of areas , , and .
Use the third identity to compute in your head.
Surds
Expressions such as and have exact numerical values, namely and . Expressions such as , , cannot be written as numerically exact quantities. We might say that
or that
but we can never write down an exact quantity equal to . Such numbers are the irrational numbers met earlier, and it is often convenient to leave them in the form , or , and so on.
A root left in its root form, rather than replaced by a decimal approximation, is called a surd.
Remark.
Recall that means the positive square root of . So although is solved by both and , we still have .
Surds occur frequently in solutions, so it is useful to be able to simplify them. The tool is the power rule : look for a square factor and take it outside.
Express as the simplest possible surd.
Expand and simplify and .
For the first,
For the second, the brackets are of the form , so the middle terms cancel:
Expand and simplify.
Rationalising the Denominator
When the solution to a problem comes out containing surds, it is accepted practice to leave the answer in surd form, simplified as far as possible, unless an approximation has been asked for. Simplifying a fractional answer can often be managed by removing the surds from the denominator, and this process is called rationalising the denominator.
Rationalise the denominator of .
The expansion of above is the one to remember, because it is what makes this work in general: a bracket of the form gives , and squaring kills any surd in or in . So a denominator is rationalised by multiplying above and below by .
Simplify .
We multiply numerator and denominator by :
Rationalise the denominator.
Even and Odd
The last idea of the chapter costs nothing new and will be used constantly. It is a way of splitting the integers in two.
Definition 1.35 (Even and Odd).
An integer is even if it is twice an integer, and odd if it is one more than twice an integer. In set notation, the even integers and the odd integers are
Every integer belongs to exactly one of and : dividing by leaves a remainder of either or , and no integer can be written in both forms.
The Parity of a Sum
Let and be positive integers.
- If is even and is even, then is even.
- If is even and is odd, then is odd.
- If is odd and is even, then is odd.
- If is odd and is odd, then is even.
We show the first. If and are even then and for some integers and , so by distributivity
and is an integer, so is twice an integer. The other three are left as problems below; each is the same computation with a carried along.
The Parity of a Square
Let be a positive integer. If is even then is even, and if is odd then is odd.
If then , which is even. If then
which is one more than twice an integer, and so odd.
This can also be read backwards: if is even then is even. Every integer is either even or odd, and not both. If were odd, what we have just shown would make odd; but is even, so the odd case is ruled out, and must be even. This is the step Exercise 1.6 turns on.
Show the three remaining parts of the parity-of-a-sum result.
Show that if is even then , and that if is odd then .
Show that if and are odd then the product is odd.
Exercises
Compute
Simplify:
Bigger, smaller, or equal?
Compute
Let be such that the following formulas are defined. Simplify:
Let us assume is a rational number, that is, that there exist with . Suppose this fraction is reduced as much as possible.
- By squaring the equation, show that is even.
- Is even or odd?
- Show that the two answers cannot both hold.
- What do you conclude about ?
Taking inspiration from the previous exercise, show that is not a rational number when is prime. (Reminder: an integer is called prime when it has exactly two divisors.)
Let and . Show that .
Show that division in is neither commutative, nor associative, nor distributive over .
Let .
- If , can we say ?
- If , can we say ?
- Can we say ?
Show that .
Let . Simplify the following expressions, where that is possible:
Let . What is ?
Let and with . Show that
Compute
Simplify:
Simplify:
Let be the set whose elements are , , and .
- Write in roster form.
- How many subsets does have? How many of them have exactly two elements? List those by the roster method.
- If a fair coin is tossed four times, is there a fifty-fifty chance of getting two heads and two tails? How is that question related to the previous part?
- Now let have six members instead. How many subsets does it have, and how many of them have exactly two elements, exactly three, exactly four? Two of those three counts agree; say why.
The universe of discourse decides what an answer looks like.
- Write the solution set of in set-builder notation, and then in roster form when the universe is (i) the complex numbers, (ii) the real numbers, (iii) the positive real numbers, (iv) the even integers. (Reminder: the complex numbers are the numbers with and real and .)
- Write the solution set of in set-builder notation, and then in roster form when the universe is (i) the rational numbers, (ii) the real numbers, (iii) the integers, (iv) the positive integers.
Brackets matter in set expressions just as they do in arithmetic.
- Show that and need not be equal. What is the most general condition on , and under which they are equal?
- Why is it ambiguous to write ? Is it ambiguous to write ?
- Show that and need not be equal, and that and always are.
Cancelling is not as free for sets as it is for numbers.
- Show that it is possible to have and yet .
- Show that if and also , then .
For real numbers and we say is less than , and write , if and only if is positive, that is, if for some positive . If we also say is greater than and write . Using only this definition and the rules of arithmetic, show the following.
- If then , and also .
- If and then . Is also true in this case? Explain.
- If and is positive then . What happens if the restriction that be positive is dropped?
- If and and are either both positive or both negative, which is to say , then .
Check Yourself
Fresh questions on the whole chapter — none of them is worked out above. Do each on paper first; the box only tells you whether you got there.
Answers are checked in your browser, as often as you like. Nothing is sent anywhere and
nothing is kept but your own work. A formula may be written with the symbols themselves or
with ~ & | -> <-> ^, and \and, \or, \to expand as you type.
Which one operation is the set closed under?
Exactly one of the following is true. Which?
For which value of does fail because too many numbers qualify, rather than because none does?
Which of these sets is empty?
The chapter gives one of De Morgan’s two laws. What is equal to, for all sets and ?
For finite sets, is equal to which of these?
Which of these is an identity rather than an equation?
What is the solution set of ?
Simplify .
Express as the simplest possible surd.
Expand and simplify .
Rationalise the denominator of .
Work out the value of
A set has elements and a set has . Which values can take?
Of students, play football and play chess, and do both. How many play at least one of the two?
Let be a positive integer whose square is odd. What follows about ?