Processing math: 100%

11.4 Comparison of Cauchy and Dedekind reals


Let us also say something about the relationship between the Cauchy and Dedekind reals. By \autorefRC-archimedean-ordered-field, 𝖼 is an archimedeanPlanetmathPlanetmathPlanetmathPlanetmath ordered field. It is also admissible for Ω, as can be easily checked. (In case Ω is the initial σ-frame it takes a simple inductionMathworldPlanetmath, while in other cases it is immediate.) Therefore, by \autorefRD-final-field there is an embeddingMathworldPlanetmathPlanetmath of ordered fields

𝖼𝖽

which fixes the rational numbers. (We could also obtain this from \autorefRC-initial-Cauchy-complete,\autorefRD-cauchy-complete.) In general we do not expect 𝖼 and 𝖽 to coincide without further assumptionsPlanetmathPlanetmath.

Lemma 11.4.1.

If for every x:Rd there merely exists

c:q,r:(q<r)(q<x)+(x<r) (11.4.1)

then the Cauchy and Dedekind reals coincide.

Proof.

Note that the type in (11.4.1) is an untruncated variant of (LABEL:eq:RD-linear-order), which states that < is a weak linear order. We already know that 𝖼 embeds into 𝖽, so it suffices to show that every Dedekind real merely is the limit of a Cauchy sequenceMathworldPlanetmathPlanetmath of rational numbers.

Consider any x:𝖽. By assumption there merely exists c as in the statement of the lemma, and by inhabitation of cuts there merely exist a,b: such that a<x<b. We construct a sequenceMathworldPlanetmath f:\setof(q,r)×|q<r by recursion:

  1. 1.

    Set f(0):(a,b).

  2. 2.

    Suppose f(n) is already defined as (qn,rn) such that qn<rn. Define s:(2qn+rn)/3 and t:(qn+2rn)/3. Then c(s,t) decides between s<x and x<t. If it decides s<x then we set f(n+1):(s,rn), otherwise f(n+1):(qn,t).

Let us write (qn,rn) for the n-th term of the sequence f. Then it is easy to see that qn<x<rn and |qn-rn|(2/3)n|q0-r0| for all n:. Therefore q0,q1, and r0,r1, are both Cauchy sequences converging to the Dedekind cut x. We have shown that for every x:𝖽 there merely exists a Cauchy sequence converging to x. ∎

The lemma implies that either countable choice or excluded middle suffice for coincidence of 𝖼 and 𝖽.

Corollary 11.4.3.

If excluded middle or countable choice holds then Rc and Rd are equivalentMathworldPlanetmathPlanetmathPlanetmathPlanetmathPlanetmath.

Proof.

If excluded middle holds then (x<y)(x<z)+(z<y) can be proved: either x<z or ¬(x<z). In the former case we are done, while in the latter we get z<y because zx<y. Therefore, we get (11.4.1) so that we can apply \autoreflem:untruncated-linearity-reals-coincide.

Suppose countable choice holds. The set S=\setof(q,r)×|q<r is equivalent to , so we may apply countable choice to the statement that x is located,

((q,r):S).(q<x)(x<r).

Note that (q<x)(x<r) is expressible as an existential statement (b:𝟐).(b=0𝟐q<x)(b=1𝟐x<r). The (curried form) of the choice function is then precisely (11.4.1) so that \autoreflem:untruncated-linearity-reals-coincide is applicable again. ∎

Title 11.4 Comparison of Cauchy and Dedekind reals
\metatable