Stefano Ferri
11.04.2007

Abstract. This note about real numbers started as notes for my course “Integral Calculus
with Differential Equation”. In this course (as in most calculus courses in this university)
real numbers are taken for granted. Usually this gives no problem, however there are a few
propositions about sequences and series which were proved in class using the Least Upper
Bound Property of real numbers. In fact, also the Intermediate Value Theorem which is part
of the programme of the course of Differential Calculus requires this property but most likely
you did not notice this because usually the “proof ” given in that course is just a picture on
the white-board. Eventually the note grow a bit larger (and the level become a bit higher)
than I first planned, so it is possible that there are parts which can result a bit unclear to some
of you. I suggest you concentrate first to sections 1, 2 (without waisting too much time on
Proposition 2.2 if it confuses you), 3, 4 and 5 and leave the last two sections for future reading
if they get you confuses. These notes were written very fast in order to be put online in time,
I hope to be able to write better notes soon. If you find mistakes or you think that something
in these notes is not clear, please, send your comments to stferri@uniandes.edu.co

1. Rational Numbers are not enough.

We begin these notes taking for granted a basic knowledge of natural, integer and rational
numbers. This because, despite their apparent semplicity, defining the set N of natural numbers
requires some digression about sets which can make the discussion heavier than strictly necessary.
Perhaps, the first time in which it become clear that rational numbers are not always adequate
is when you studied the second degree equations x2 = 2.
Proposition 1.1 The equation x2 = 2 has no rational solutions.

Proof. We recall that all numbers in Q can be written in the form ab with a, b ∈ Z and that two
0
expressions ab and ab0 define the same rational number if and only if ab0 = a0 b.
Suppose now, by contraddiction, that there exists q ∈ Q such that q 2 = 2. We can write
q = ab . Moreover, we can assume that a and b are not both even (otherwise we can “semplify by
2” and pick another expression which defines the same number). The equality q 2 = 2 implies then
that a2 = 2b2 , which implies that the even number must be a. But if a is even (i.e. if it is divisible
by 2) then a2 is divisible by 22 = 4. This means that 2b2 is divisible by 4, i.e. that b is even, which
is against our assumption that a and b were not both even.

This proposition already shows that the rational numbers have “gaps”. Not only there is no
number whose square is 2 but exactly the same argument can be replicated to show that given any
prime p ∈ N there is no rational number q such that q 2 = p.
The following propositions shows that actually, despite the fact that between any two rational
0
number q < q 0 there is always another rational number (namely, q+q
2 ), the rational number system
has many gaps!
Proposition 1.2 Let A := {q ∈ Q : q > 0 and q 2 < 2}, then A has no largest element.

Proof. Let q ∈ A. We claim that we can find h ∈ N such that q + h1 ∈ A. In order for this to

2
happen we need to find h such that q + h1 = q 2 + 2 hq + h12 < 2. This is the same as saying that

1
 THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM

2 hq + h12 < 2 − q 2 (notice that 2 − q 2 is positive because q ∈ A). Now if h is such that h2 > 2−q 2
2 and
2 2 2

h > 2−q 4q 1
2 we have that h2 <
2−q
2
and 2 hq < 2−q2
, which implies that 2 hq + h12 < 2 2−q
2
= 2 − q2 ,
as requested.

Of course, an argument similar to the previous one can be used to show that the set {q ∈ Q :
q > 0 and q 2 > 2} has no smallest element.

2. Ordered fields and the LUB property.

In order to be able to define the real number system it is usefull to introduce some terminology.

Definition 2.1 Let A be a non-void set. An order relation on A is a subset O ⊆ A × A such that
the following properties hold:
(a) For all x ∈ A we have that (a, a) ∈ O;
(b) If a, b ∈ A, (a, b) ∈ O and (b, a) ∈ O, then a = b;
(c) If a, b, c ∈ A, (a, b) ∈ O and (b, c) ∈ O, then (a, c) ∈ O.
If O is an order relation on A it is common practice to write a ≤ b if (a, b) ∈ O. With this notation
the previous properties can be writen as follows.
(a0 ) For all x ∈ A we have that a ≤ a;
(b0 ) If a, b ∈ A, a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then a = b;
(c0 ) If a, b, c ∈ A, a ≤ b and b ≤ c, then a ≤ c.
It is also common practice to write b ≥ a to mean a ≤ b and to write a < b if a ≤ b and a 6= b.
Example 2.2 The set Q with the order defined by q ≤ q 0 if and only if q 0 − q ≥ 0 is an ordered
set.
Definition 2.3 Let A be a set ordered by ≤. A subset B ⊂ A is said to be bounded above (with
respect to ≤) if there exists α ∈ A such that, for all x ∈ B we have x ≤ α. In this case α is said
to be an upper bound of B. The set B is bounded below if it exists α 0 ∈ A such that, for all x ∈ A,
we have that x ≥ α0 . In this case α0 is said to be a lower bound of B.
Definition 2.4 Let A be a set ordered by ≤. Let B be a subset of A bounded above, we say that
B has a least upper bound (also called a supremum) if there exists β ∈ A such that:
(a) β is an upper bound of B and;
(b) if γ ∈ A and γ < β, then γ is not an upper bound of B.
If this happens β is called the least upper bound of B and denoted by sup(B). The greatest lower
bound (also called infimum) is defined similarly and is denoted by inf(B).
Remark 2.5 In Proposition 1.2 we have seen that a subset of Q can be bounded above with respect
to the order ≤ defined in Example 2.2 and have no least upper bound, as we shall see definind a
number system in which this cannot happen (and which contains Q) is a way to “fill the gaps” of
Q.
Definition 2.6 An ordered set A (with order ≤) is said to have the least–upper–bound property
(in short the LUB property) if all nonempty subsets B of A which are bounded above have a least
upper bound in A (the least upper bound does not necessarily belongs to B).

2
 THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM

We are now almost ready to define the real number system. What we still need is a formal
definition of sum and product (which we want to define on the real numbers).
Definition 2.7 A field is a set F with two operations + : F × F −→ F (the addition) and
· : F × F −→ F (the multiplication) satisfying the following axioms:
(a) For all x, y, z ∈ F we have that (x + y) + z = x + (y + z) (addition is associative);
(b) There exists an element 0 ∈ F such that, for all x ∈ F, we have 0 + x = x + 0 = x;
(c) For all x ∈ F there exists −x ∈ F such that x + (−x) = (−x) + x = 0;
(d) For all x, y ∈ F we have that x + y = y + x (addition is commutative);
(e) For all x, y, z ∈ F we have that (x · y) · z = x · (y · z) (multiplication is associative);
(f) There exists an element 1 ∈ F such that, 1 6= 0 and, for all x ∈ F we have that 1 · x = x · 1 = x;
(g) For every element x ∈ F \ {0} there exists x−1 ∈ F such that x · x−1 = x−1 · x = 1;
(h) For every x, y ∈ F we have that x · y = y · x (multiplication is commutative);
(k) For every x, y, z ∈ F we have that x · (y + z) = x · y + x · z (this is the distributive law .
A non empty set A together with an operation + satisfying (a) is called a semigroup, if (b)
holds the semigroup is said to be unitary (or to be a monoid), is (c) holds then A is a group, if we
have a semigroup [or a monoid, or a group] and (d) holds we say that the semigroup [the monoid,
the group] is commutative (if A is a group also called abelian). So a fast way to describe a field is
to say that it a set F together with two operation + and · such that F is an abelian group with
respect to +, F \ {0} is an abelian group with respect to · and the distributive law (k) holds. If all
the above properties hold except (h) then the corresponding object is called a skew field.
It is common practice to write just xy instead of x · y to denote the product between elements
of a field F. Since associativity holds it is also common practice to drop all parentheses when there
is no danger of confusion, so, for example, we write x + y + z instead of x + (y + z) and we write
xy + z instead of (xy) + z.
It is beyond the scope of these notes to discuss the theory of fields, it suffices to say that the
axioms of Definition 2.7 imply the “usual rules” we use to make calculations with rational numbers
and that we want to preserve when defining R. The interested reader can consult any book in
modern algebra, for example [GO].
Definition 2.8 An ordered field is a field F which is also an ordered set with respect to some order
≤ and such the following properties hold:
(a) For all x, y, z ∈ F we have that y < z implies that x + y < x + z;
(b) For all x, y ∈ F such that x > 0 and y > 0 we have that x · y > 0.
We are now ready to introduce the real number system.
Theorem 2.9 There is an ordered field with the LUB property. We denote this field by R and call
it the real number system. This field contains a subset which can be identified with Q.

Proof. We shall construct R Section 6. We shall first concentrate first on some consequences of
our definition.

The first consequence of our definition is what is usually know as the archimedean property of
R.
Theorem 2.10 Let x ∈ R, and x > 0, then there is n ∈ N such that nx > y.

3
 THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM

Proof. Let A := {nx : n ∈ N}. If the theorem were false, then y would be an upper bound of A.
Let α := sup(A). Since x > 0 we have that α − x < α, hence α − x is not an upper bound of A.
This means that α − x < mx for some m ∈ N. Thus α < (m + 1)x ∈ A which is not possible since
α is an upper bound of A.

3. Is this what we need?

We have seen that Q have a lot of “gaps” and that it is not adequate in several cases (for
instance we cannot solve a lot of simple equations we would like to solve). We then suspected that
a way to solve the problem was to “fill the gaps” by defining a field (i.e. a set in which we could
add and make products as we do in Q) with the LUB property. However it is not clear that this
solves our problems. The first thing we would like to check is, for example, that there is indeed an
element x ∈ R such that x2 = 2!
Theorem 3.1 There exists x ∈ R such that x > 0 and x2 = 2

Proof. Let A := {x ∈ R : x > 0 and x2 < 2}. The set A is nonvoid. For istance 1 ∈ A (that 1 > 0
follows from the fact that 1 = 12 and from (b) of Definition 2.8). Moreover, A is boundend above
(for example 2 is an upper bound of A). Let x := sup(A) (this exists now by definition of R). We
shall show that x2 = 2. Suppose that x2 < 2, then x ∈ A. Now, arguing like in Proposition 1.1,
we can find h ∈ N such that x + h1 ∈ A, which implies that x is not an upper bound of A. Suppose
now that x2 > 2, then, using again the same argument as in Theorem 1.1, we can find h ∈ N such

2
that x − h1 > 2, that is x in not the least upper bound of A. Hence the only possibility (by the
so called tricotomy law ) is that x2 = 2.

Using a similar argument as that used in the previous theorem it is possible to show that,
given any real number y > 0 and any n ∈ N there exists a number x ∈ R such that y > 0 and
y n = x.
Of course, the fact that the LUB property solved our problem of finding a “square root of 2”
still does not say that the definition of real numbers given here is an optimal solution. For istance,
could not we do with a simpler system? And what about all the “strange numbers” like π? Can
we really find them in our system? These are questions which are not easily answered at this level
and which go beyond the scope of these notes. It suffices to say that the definition given here is
the usual definition of real numbers and that a good answer to all of the above questions is: “Yes!
This is a good solution to the problems given by the gaps of Q and it gives very little problems (for
sure it gives no problems in the applications we shall see in our course).
In the next sections we shall examine some applications of the LUB property. In particular,
we shall prove again the theorems we presented in class concerning sequences and series and we
shall give a rigorous proof or the Intermediate Value Theorem.

4. The LUB property, sequences and series.

The first theorem we proved in class by using the LUB property of R was the following.
Theorem 4.1 Let hxn i be an increasing sequence of real numbers. Then hxn i converges if and
only if it is bounded above (i.e. if the set {xn : n ∈ N} is bounded above).

4
 THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM

Proof. Suppose that hxn i converges. Then there exists L ∈ R such that, for every ε > 0, there
exists Nε ∈ N such that, if n > Nε , then |xn − L| < ε, in particular the set {xn : n ∈ N} is bounded
above by max{x1 , x2 , . . . , xNε , L + ε}.

Suppose now that {xn : n ∈ N} is bounded above. Let x := sup {xn : n ∈ N} . We shall
show that x = lim xn . Fix ε > 0. Since x is an upper bound of {xn : n ∈ N} it is clear that, for
n→∞
all n ∈ N we have that xn ≤ x. If we can prove that there exists Nε ∈ N such that xNε > x − ε,
since the sequence is increasing, we get, for all xn with n > Nε that xn > x − ε, i.e. we have that
|xn − x| < ε, as desired.
Now, suppose by contraddiction that, for all n ∈ N we have that xn ≤ x − ε. This means that
x − ε < x is an upper bound of {xn : n ∈ N}, against the fact that x is the least upper bound of
this set.

Of course, there exists a version of this theorem for decreasing sequences which. The proof of
this theorem is left as exercise. This theorem has a corollary dealing with series.
P P
Corollary 4.2 Let xn be a series of positive terms. The xn converges if and only if the
Xn
sequence hsn i of partial sums (sn = xk ) is bounded.
k=1

Proof. Trivial once we notice that, since all xn are positive and since sn = sn−1 + xn , the sequence
hsn i is increasing.

5. The Intermediate Value Theorem.

The Intermediate Value Theorem was part of the programme of the course Differential Calculus
(or Mathematics I for Biology and Medicine if that is the course you followed) and it also relies on
the LUB property of R. However, it is very likely that you did not see a proof of this theorem last
semester so I decided to include this in these notes.
Theorem 5.1 (The Intermediate Value Theorem) Let f : [a, b] −→ R be a continuous function
and suppose that f (a) < y < f (b), then there exists a point x ∈ (a, b) such that f (x) = y. A similar
statement holds if f (a) > y > f (b)†

Proof. Let A := {x ∈ [a, b] : f (x) < y}. The set A is nonempty, because a ∈ A. Moreover, A is
bounded above by b. Let x := sup(A). We claim that f (x) = y. Suppose that f (x) = z < y. Let
ε := y−z ‡ 0 0
3 . Since f is continuous there exists δ > 0 such that, if |x−x | < δ, then |f (x )−z| < ε. In
particular, there exists x0 > x such that f (x0 ) < x+ε < y against the assumption that x = sup(A).
If we assume that f (x) > y we obtain a similar contradiction, hence we have that f (x) = y.

Remark 5.2 Of course, the Intermediate Value Theorem implies Theorem 3.1. In fact, Theorem
3.1 is the Intermediate Value Theorem in the special case of the function f (x) = x 2 − 2 and with
y = 2. The interval [a, b] can be taken to be equal to [0, 2].
† It is possible that the statement of the Intermediate Value Theorem you saw last semester was not identical to
the one I am presenting here, however the one you saw must have been similar and probably equivalent (or possibly
slightly stronger) than the one presented here.
‡ This proof is impossible to follow if you do not know a proper definition of continuity. However, this is treated
properly in most books of calculus, so I will not redefine what a countinuous function is here.

5
 THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM

Remark 5.3 It is possible that the proof you saw consisted in a picture of a graph of the function
f being cutted by a horizontal line through the point (0, y). It is even possible that some of you
(those taking honour courses for example) have seen a proof involving connectedness. In this case
it is perhaps a bit unclear where the LUB property come into play. However, in both cases the
main point of the proof was that the graph had no gaps, something that, as we have seen, cannot
happen in Q.

6. Constructing the real number system.

There are many ways to actually prove Theorem 2.9. Most books in analysis use either
Dedeking cuts or Cauchy sequences (or more exotic object like Cauchy filters or near ultrafilters).
However, since these notes are aimed at second semester students I shall start from a more famiar
approach: decimal expansion.
Proof. (Or at least a draft of a first proof of Theorem 2.9.) First of all, it should be clear that if an
ordered field R with the LUB property exists, then it must contain a subset which we can identify
with Q. By axiom (f) of Definition 2.7 there exists an element 1 which we can identify with the
element 1 of Q. We can then identify 1 + 1 + . . . + 1 (summing n times the 1 in R) with the natural
number n. In this way we obtain a subset of R which we can identify with N. By taking additive
inverse (which exist by (c) of Definition 2.7) we can then find a subset of R which we can identify
n
with Z. We can then identify the element nm−1 in R with the rational number m . Of course,
at this point we should check that making computations in the subset of R we just defined and
making computations in Q is the same thing, but we leave this as an exercise.
We start then defining the real numbers as infinite sequences of integer numbers. Let R be the
set of all sequences a0 .a1 a2 a3 . . ., with a0 ∈ Z and ai ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} if i > 0. We identify
two sequences a0 .a1 a2 a3 . . . and b0 , b1 b2 b3 . . . in R if there is k ∈ N such that, when i < k, ai = bi ,
bk = ak + 1, and ai = 9 and bi = 0 if i > k if i > k (this is to say that we identify the sequences
3.21000000 . . . and 3, 20999999 . . . et cettera, in particular if k = 0 we identify a 0 .000000 . . . and
(a0 − 1).999999 . . ., for example we identify 21.000000 . . . and 20.999999 . . . ).
We denote by R the set R with the identification we just explained and define a sum and a
product on R by replicating the usual algoritms we use to sum and make products. If the sequences
are eventually made up of all 0’s and we want to sum two sequences we take the last element which
is not zero in one of the sequences and we truncate both sequences at the point corresponding to
this element. We then sum the rightmost element of the sequences, carry over whatever there is to
be carried over (I am assuming that you can sum rational numbers written in their decimal form
and can therefore understand my sloppy explanation!) and we carry on the process. If one of the
sequences is not eventually made up of 0’s (nor 9’s!) we have to define the sequence sum by steps.
We first truncate both sequences one place after the dot and sum them as before, obtaining a sum
truncated one place after the dot. We then truncate them two places after the dot and find a sum
truncated two places after the dot. We carry on the process. It is not difficult to see that each
truncated sum could differ from the previous one in one place but that each such sequence in never
different than the previous one in more than one place. Product is defined similarly.
We order R in the obvious way.
It is not easy to show (or at least it is very cumbersome!) that R with these operations and
this order is an ordered field. However, I am sure that, since this was the way real numbers are
usually presented at high school, you can easily believe this fact.
It is more interesting to show that this set with this order has the LUB property. Let A ⊂ R
be a nonempty set bounded above. We must show that then there exists sup(A). Let a 0 be the

6
 THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM

greatest integer number such that a0 x ∈ A (such a number must exist otherwise A ⊇ N and A
could not be bounded above). Let then a1 be such that a0 .a1 is the greatest number such that
a0 .a1 ∈ A (here we are just picking the largest element of a set of at most 10 numbers). Carrying
on this way it is not difficult to see that we obtain a sequence which defines a number that is larger
than any number in A and that this is the smallest such a number.

In the previous argument so many details are missing that it is hardly a proof. However,
I am sure that you can understand how the details should be filled because this is the way real
numbers are usually presented in high school. Notice that a real number x is in Q if and only if it
represented by a sequence which is eventually zero. Notice also that the choice we made of having
a1 ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} if i > 0 is completely arbitrary.
Another way to define real numbers which is more elegant and makes most of the proofs
cleaner is by use of the so called Dedeking cuts. Also in this case I shall present only the main
ideas without details. The interested reader can consult [RU, Appendix to Chapter 1].
Definition 6.1 (Dedeking cuts.) A Dedeking cut of Q is a subset A ⊂ Q with the following
properties.
(a) 6 o 6= A 6= Q;
(b) If x ∈ A and y ∈ Q with y < x, then y ∈ A;
(c) If x ∈ A then there exists y ∈ A such that y > x.
We are ready to give another construction of the real number system.
Proof. (Really it is another draft of a possible proof of Theorem 2.9.) We define R to be the set
of all Dedeking cuts. We order R by:

A ≤ B if A ⊆ B.

It is not too hard to see that this is an order on R and that R with this order had the LUB property.
We then define a sum on R by

A + B := {x + y : x ∈ A and y ∈ B}.

The set A + B is a cut and this defines an associative sum with the cut 0 = {x ∈ Q : x < 0}
playing the role of 0. The inverse of A is the cut defined by:

−A := {x ∈ Q : there exists r > 0 such that − x − r ∈

/ A}.

Defining a multiplication on R is more complicated and it is done in steps. First a multiplica-

tion is defined on R+ = {x ∈ R : x > 0}, by:

AB := {x ∈ Q : there exist r ∈ A, s ∈ B such that r, s > 0 and x ≤ rs}.

The multiplication is then extended to the whole R by setting A · 0 = 0 · A = 0 and


 (−A)(−B) if A, B < 0;
AB := −((−A) · B) if A < 0 and B > 0, and;
−(A · (−B)) if A > 0 and B < 0.


It is a fact which we do not prove that R with this order, this sum and this product is an ordered
field with the LUB property. It is also a fact that any two ordered fields with the LUB property

7
 THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM

are isomorphic, so this construction (or any other which produces a field with such a property)
characterises completely the real number system.

References.
[GO] Roger Godement, “Algebra”, Herman, Paris etc., 1968.
[RU] Walter Rudin, “Principle of mathematical analysis” (third edition), McGraw–Hill Book Co.,
Auckland etc., 1976.

STEFANO FERRI, DEPARTAMENTO DE MATEMÁTICAS, UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES, CARRERA

1.A 18 A 10, BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA. APARTADO AÉREO 4976, OFFICE H210.
TELEPHONE +57-1-3394949 EXT. 2724, FAX +57-1-3324340. E–MAIL stferri@uniandes.edu.co