Category Archives: Integer numbers

The whole numbers are the natural numbers that include negative numbers

Integer numbers

Integer numbers

With natural ones we can add numbers, but we can't always subtract. We will use the whole numbers to be able to subtract any pair of natural

Although natural numbers seem obvious, mathematicians had a hard time treating negative numbers equally to positive numbers. Historically, the use of negative numbers is far after the use of fractions or even irrational positives

An example of complications from negative numbers for both Greek Diophanto and European Renaissance algebrists, an equation of the x^2+b\cdot x+c=0 (in which for us parameters b and c can be both positive and negative and the resolution method remains the same) was not unique, but should be analyzed in four cases \begin{cases}x^2+b\cdot x+c=0 \\ x^2+b\cdot x=c \\ x^2+c=b\cdot x \\ x^2=b\cdot x+c \end{cases} with b and c always positive (even more cases if we allow the possibility that b or c are worth zero) and each case had its own method of resolution

Note: the rating x^n has usual sense x^n=\underbrace{x\cdots x}_{\text{n times}}, \forall n \in\mathbb{N} and x belongs to any of the sets of numbers we consider (natural, integer, rational, and real). Also when no. 0 we have to x^0=1

It was the Dutch mathematician Simon Stevin, at the end of the 16th century, who first recognized the validity of negative numbers by accepting them as a result of the problems he worked with. In addition, it recognized the equality between subtracting a positive number and adding a negative number (i.e., a-b-a+(-b), with a, b > 0). For this reason, just as Brahmagupta is considered to be the father of zero, Stevin is regarded as the father of negative numbers (in fact, Stevin made many more contributions to the world of numbers, in the field of real numbers)

In \mathbb{N}_0 can add numbers, but we can't always subtract. That is why the need arises to create a new set of numbers with which to subtract any pair of natural numbers; this new set is that of integers and is denoted as \mathbb{Z}

It is totally elementary to see that this relationship is of equivalence, and that allows us to define whole numbers as the quotient set \mathbb{Z}=\mathbb{N}_0\times\mathbb{N}_0/\sim

Natural differences and integers

Natural differences and integers

Differences between natural and whole:

The set of integers it is not a set well-ordered (since the subset of negative integers has no minimum)

Any subset not empty of \mathbb{Z} lower bound has minimum (and multiplied by (-1), if bound above, has maximum)

To multiply integers we have to distinguish between positive and negative, applying the so called rule of the signs:

\begin{cases} \text{positive }\cdot\text{positive = positive} \\ \text{positive }\cdot\text{negative = negative} \\ \text{negative }\cdot\text{positive = negative} \\ \text{negative }\cdot\text{negative = positive} \end{cases}

The order of \mathbb{Z} is a total order, but it should be noted that any negative number is less than any positive. In addition, these properties must be taken into account for operations:

\tiny\begin{cases} a \leq b \Rightarrow a + c \leq b + c \\ a \leq b, c \geq 0 \Rightarrow a \cdot c \leq b \cdot c \\ a \leq b, c < 0 \Rightarrow a \cdot c \geq b \cdot c & \text{if multiplied by a negative number} \end{cases}

We have at our disposal the absolute value function (or module):

\|a\|=\begin{cases} a & \text{if } a \geq 0 \\ (-a) & \text{if } a < 0 \end{cases}

From the absolute value function and thanks to its geometric implications, we also have at our disposal the Triangular inequality:

\|a + b\| \leq \|a\| + \|b\|

Operations of integers

Inclusion of the natural numbers in the integers

We're going to see the operations of integers

\mathbb{N}_0 includes in \mathbb{Z} associating to each a\in\mathbb{N}_0 the equivalence class of (a, 0)

The natural number 0 in \mathbb{Z} is (0, 0), which is the kind of equivalence given by \{(a, a) | a \in\mathbb{N}_0\}, which is the element of the sum in \mathbb{Z}

The natural 1 in \mathbb{Z} is (1, 0), and its kind of equivalence, which is the neutral element of the product in \mathbb{Z}

Unlike in \mathbb{N}_0, in \mathbb{Z}, given a number, you can always find another one that adds to the first give zero (the neutral element of the sum). If we have (a, b), just take (b, a) and it is fulfilled:

(a, b)+(b, a)=(a + b, a + b)\sim (0, 0)

This number (b, a), which is the opposite (a, b), and we denote it as -(a, b). Which allows us to define the subtraction:

(a, b) - (c, d)=(a + b) + (-(c, d))=(a, b)+(d, c)=(a + d, b + c)

Or equivalently:

(a, b) - (c, d)=(r + s) \Longleftrightarrow (a, b)=(r, s) + (c, d)

Operation sum

Given that (a, b) it is the way that we have in \mathbb{Z} to indicate the subtraction a-b and in the same way, (c, d) represents c-d, there's nothing more to think about (a-b)+(c-d)=(a+c)-(b+d) to give a proper definition of the sum:

(a, b)+(c, d)=(a+c, b+d)

Operation product

Similarly, to define the product we have to (a-b)\cdot(c-d)=(a\cdot c + b\cdot d)-(a\cdot d+b\cdot c), therefore the appropriate definition for the product:

(a,b)\cdot (c,d)=(a\cdot c+b\cdot d, a\cdot d+ b\cdot c)

Relationship of equivalence

For the definitions in \mathbb{N}_0\times\mathbb{N}_0 given above are valid in \mathbb{Z}=\mathbb{N}_0\times\mathbb{N}_0/\sim, we need to prove that they are compatible with the relationship of equivalence, that is, if we have (a_1,b_1)\sim(a_2, b_2)\text{ y }(c_1,d_1)\sim(c_2, d_2) it is fulfilled that:

\begin{cases} (a_1,b_1)+(c_1,d_1)\sim(a_2,b_2)+(c_2,d_2) \\ (a_1,a_1)\cdot(c_1,d_1)\sim(a_2,b_2)\cdot(c_2,d_2) \end{cases}

Order relationship

There is also to define the order relationship in \mathbb{Z}. To define when (a,b)\leq(c,d), let's think once again about (a,b) as in \displaystyle a-b and in (c,d) as c-d. Then just look at that a-b\leq c-d is equivalent to a+d\leq b+c to realize that the definition that we seek has to be (a,b)\leq (c,d)\Leftrightarrow a+d\leq b+c

As in the sum and the product, we must check the compatibility of that definition with the equivalence ratio, that is, if we have (a_1,b_1)\sim(a_2,b_2)\text{ y }(c_1,d_1)\sim(c_2,d_2), is fulfilled that:

(a_1,b_1)+(c_1,d_1)\sim(a_2,b_2)+(c_2,d_2)

Inequalities

Inequalities

Below you are going to list some inequalities that are useful or that have not been mentioned

Up to now we have shown some properties that are verified in the various sets of numbers

Considering that each numerical set we have defined above contains the previous one and the set of real ones contains them all, all of them (except the principle of good sorting of natural numbers) are checked for the actual numbers

For example, using some of the inequalities mentioned above, it is possible to prove that:

  • 0\leq a \leq b \Rightarrow a^2 \leq b^2
  • 0 < a \leq b \Rightarrow \frac{1}{b} \leq \frac{1}{a}

Absolute value of a real number

It is defined for a real number in the same way that it has already been made for integers, but it also meets some inequalities that deserve to be pointed out

  • -\|a\| \leq a \leq \|a\|
  • \|a\| \leq b \Leftrightarrow -b \leq a \leq b
  • \|a\| \geq b \Leftrightarrow \begin{cases} a \geq b \\ a \leq -b \end{cases}
  • \|a\cdot b\| = \|a\|\cdot \|b\|
  • a^2 \leq b^2 = \|a\| \leq \|b\|

Keep in mind that in the equality \sqrt{a^2}=\|a\|, will only be true \sqrt{a^2}=a if a \geq 0

Distance

Dice a, b \in \mathbb{R}, is called distance between a and b to the actual non negative number \|a-b\|

This notation is fundamental to interpret inequalities of the form \|x-a\| \leq b, such as the distance of x to a is less than or equal to b

Triangular inequality

We've seen it before, but because it's an important inequality we remember it for real numbers

Dice a, b \in \mathbb{R} is true that \|a+b\| \leq \|a\|+\|b\|

Demonstration: triangular inequality

We take \begin{cases} -\|a\|\leq a \leq \|a\| \\ -\|b\|\leq b \leq \|b\| \end{cases}

We add both inequalities and we obtain -(\|a\|+\|b\|) \leq a+b \leq \|a\|+\|b\|

And therefore \|a+b\| \leq \|a\|+\|b\|

Inequality triangular reverse

Dice a, b \in \mathbb{R} is true that \|a\|-\|b\| \leq \|a-b\|

Demonstration: reverse triangular inequality

The inequality triangular inverse is equivalent to prove that -(a-b) \leq \|a\|-\|b\| \leq \|a-b\|

By the inequality triangle has to

\|a\|=\|a-b+b\| \leq \|a-b\|+\|b\|
\|a\|-\|b\| \leq \|a-b\|

with what the right-hand side of the inequality is proved

By the inequality triangle has to

\|b\|=\|b-a+a\| \leq \|b-a\|+\|a\|
\|b\|-\|a\| \leq \|b-a\|
-(a-b) \leq \|a\|-\|b\|

with what the left-hand side of the inequality is proved

Inequality between arithmetic and geometric mean

One of the most useful and popular inequalities is the inequality between the arithmetic and geometric mean (sometimes referred to as AM – GM). Which is defined as follows:

Dice a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_n \in \mathbb{R^+}

We define the arithmetic mean as M_{n, 1}=\frac{a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_n}{n}

It defines the average geomética as M_{n, 0}=\sqrt[n]{a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_n}

And inequality is defined as M_{n , 0} \leq M_{n, 1}

Demonstration: inequality between arithmetic and geometric mean

This demonstration was published in the magazine Mathematical Intelligencer in 2007, vol. 29, number 4 by M. D. Hirschhorn. It is simple to understand and is based on an induction on n

If n=1 then M_{1, 0}=M_{1, 1}

Suppose that it is true for n

Let's use the following observation, seemingly unrelated, to achieve the objective pursued:

x^{n+1}-(n+1)\cdot x + n \geq 0\text{, if }x > 0

The demonstration of this fact is evident by using the identity

x^{n+1}-(n+1)\cdot x +n=(x-1)^2\cdot(x^{n-1}+2\cdot x^{n-2}+\cdots +(n-1)\cdot x+ n)

It can also be tested by induction. If n=1 is inferred from the identity x^2-2\cdot x+1=(x-1)^2

Suppose that it is true for n

(x-1)^2\cdot (x^n+2\cdot x^{n-1}+\cdots + n\cdot x + n +1)= =(x-1)^2\cdot [x\cdot (x^{n-1}+2\cdot x^{n-2}+\cdots + (n-1)\cdot x + n) + n +1]= =x\cdot [(x-1)^2\cdot (x^{n-1}+2\cdot x^{n-2}+\cdots + (n-1)\cdot x + n)] + (x-1)^2\cdot (n +1)= =x\cdot (x^{n+1}-(n+1)\cdot x + n) + (x^2-2\cdot x + 1)\cdot (n +1)=

=x^{n+2}-(n+2)\cdot x + n+1

Now we take \begin{cases}a=\frac{a_1+a_2+\cdots+a_n+a_{n+1}}{n+1} \\ b=\frac{a_1+a_2+\cdots+a_n}{n}\end{cases}, using in the chosen identity x=\frac{a}{b} we will have to \begin{cases}(\frac{a}{b})^{n+1}-(n+1)\cdot\frac{a}{b}+n\geq 0 \\ a^{n+1}\geq ((n+1)\cdot a - n \cdot b)\cdot b^n \end{cases}

Which can be rewritten as

\begin{cases}(\frac{a_1+a_2+\cdots+a_n+a_{n+1}}{n+1})^{n+1}\geq a_{n+1}\cdot (\frac{a_1+a_2+\cdots +a_n}{n})^n \\ (M_{n+1, 1})^{n+1} \geq a_{n+1}\cdot (M_{n,1})^n \end{cases}

since M_{n,0}\geq M_{n,1}

you have to (M_{n+1,1})^{n+1})\leq a_{n+1}\cdot (M_{n,0})^n=a_{n+1}\cdot a_n \cdots a_1

that is equivalent to M_{n+1, 0} \leq M_{n+1,1}

So at the end of the demonstration met the argument of induction

Notes

It is interesting to observe that the equality M_{n,0}=M_{n,1} is true only if and only if a_1=a_2=\cdots=a_n. This fact follows in view of the fact that equality x^{n+1}-(n+1)\cdot x+n=0, for x > 0, is only true if x=1 and has been chosen as the argument of induction suitable

The arithmetic mean and the geometric mean are only two particular cases of a much wider class of means. \forall s \in \mathbb{R}, the mean order s of the positive actual values is defined
a_1,a_2,\cdots,a_n\text{ as }M_{n,s}=(\frac{a_{n}^{s}+\cdots+a_{1}^{s}}{n})^\frac{1}{s}\text{, }s\not=0
M_{n,0} as has already been done. Limit cases can also be considered \begin{cases}M_{n, -\infty}=min\{a_1,a_2\cdots,a_n\} \\ M_{n, +\infty}=max\{a_1,a_2\cdots,a_n\} \end{cases}

Inequality between arithmetic and geometric mean is, in turn, a particular case of a more general chain of inequalities: M_{n, s} \leq M_{n, r}\text{, if }s < r

The average M_{n, -1} is called the harmonic mean and can be inferred from elementary inequality M_{n, 0}\leq M_{n,1} that M_{n, -1}\leq M_{n,0}