0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
Dedekind felt that arithmetic lacked a scientific foundation

6 Answers

0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
I always felt as if the two approaches demonstarate a difference in philosophy as to how one might approach real analysis.

The cantor construction is more geometric, it works for any metric space, even being characterized by a univeraal property. The cantor construction solves the issue of having missing points in order to carry out geometric arguments, and is constructed essentially in a way that fills those holes and gives a "universal" geometric space over Q.

On the contrary, dedekind construction is far more analytical, it relies heavily on the ordered properties of the field and introduces the imporant analysis formalism of infimums and supremums that is crucial to give a well assgined numerical quality to many measurements like the integral and to allow onr to perform arguments like continous induction.
 
In my head, the cantor construction sees the reals as points on a line, whereas the dedekind construction sees them as numbers with value. And one of the beauties of real analysis is that both of those approaches go hand in hand and lead to the right things we want.
0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
My analysis class began by rigorously defining decimal expansions...Operations were painful. But I still think it's an acceptable way to introduce reals to freshmen
0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
Yeah Dedekind cuts are basically black magic. Terrence Tao admits as much in his Analysis course.
by
0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
The issue I have with Cantor's construction (which really isn't a big issue) is that you first need to define the concept of convergence in the rationals that only relies on the rationals, a Q-convergence, if you will. If I remember correctly, this is the approach Tao takes in his introductory real analysis texts. To me, this is inelegant because it's immediately abandoned once you complete Q, in favor of the usual convergence in R. It's almost as though Cantor knows what he wants to have (for convergence), but since R hasn't been invented yet, he can't say "for all epsilon > 0" unless he only means rational epsilons.
0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
Are you going to participate in the SOME2 perhaps?
0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
Dedekind cuts good

Cauchy sequences boring

simple as

Related questions

0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
79 answers
coL_Punisher asked Jun 21
Regretting majoring in math
coL_Punisher asked Jun 21
0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
61 answers
_spunkki asked Jun 21
Just ordered a Klein Bottle from Cliff Stoll. He sent me about 2 dozen pictures of him packing it up. Why is he so cute :)
_spunkki asked Jun 21
0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
21 answers
Brands_Hatch asked Jun 21
Is set theory dying?
Brands_Hatch asked Jun 21
0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
2 answers
a_dalgleish asked Jun 21
Contributing to the right math area, If all areas are equally curious
a_dalgleish asked Jun 21
0 like 0 dislike
0 like 0 dislike
5 answers
BrianDenver7 asked Jun 21
Is there a nice way to recast riemannian geometry in terms of principal bundles?
BrianDenver7 asked Jun 21

24.8k questions

103k answers

0 comments

33.7k users

OhhAskMe is a math solving hub where high school and university students ask and answer loads of math questions, discuss the latest in math, and share their knowledge. It’s 100% free!