Introduction to Mathematical PhilosophyRussell, Bertrand
Philosophy
Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy
Russell, Bertrand
Mathematics -- Philosophy
It is clear that an irrational Dedekind cut in some way "represents"
an irrational. In order to make use of this, which to
begin with is no more than a vague feeling, we must find some
way of eliciting from it a precise definition; and in order to do
this, we must disabuse our minds of the notion that an irrational
must be the limit of a set of ratios. Just as ratios whose denominator
is 1 are not identical with integers, so those rational
[Pg 71]
numbers which can be greater or less than irrationals, or can
have irrationals as their limits, must not be identified with ratios.
We have to define a new kind of numbers called "real numbers,"
of which some will be rational and some irrational. Those that
are rational "correspond" to ratios, in the same kind of way
in which the ratio corresponds to the integer ; but they are
not the same as ratios. In order to decide what they are to be,
let us observe that an irrational is represented by an irrational
cut, and a cut is represented by its lower section. Let us confine
ourselves to cuts in which the lower section has no maximum;
in this case we will call the lower section a "segment." Then
those segments that correspond to ratios are those that consist
of all ratios less than the ratio they correspond to, which is
their boundary; while those that represent irrationals are those
that have no boundary. Segments, both those that have
boundaries and those that do not, are such that, of any two
pertaining to one series, one must be part of the other; hence
they can all be arranged in a series by the relation of whole and
part. A series in which there are Dedekind gaps, i.e. in which
there are segments that have no boundary, will give rise to more
segments than it has terms, since each term will define a segment
having that term for boundary, and then the segments without
boundaries will be extra.
We are now in a position to define a real number and an
irrational number.
A "real number" is a segment of the series of ratios in order
of magnitude.
An "irrational number" is a segment of the series of ratios
which has no boundary.
A "rational real number" is a segment of the series of ratios
which has a boundary.
Thus a rational real number consists of all ratios less than a
certain ratio, and it is the rational real number corresponding
to that ratio. The real number 1, for instance, is the class of
proper fractions.
[Pg 72]
In the cases in which we naturally supposed that an irrational
must be the limit of a set of ratios, the truth is that it is the limit
of the corresponding set of rational real numbers in the series
of segments ordered by whole and part. For example, is
the upper limit of all those segments of the series of ratios that
correspond to ratios whose square is less than 2. More simply
still, is the segment consisting of all
those ratios whose square is less than 2.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account