Home » Blog » Prove that any real number lies between exactly one pair of consecutive integers.

Prove that any real number lies between exactly one pair of consecutive integers.

by RoRi

Prove that for fixed x \in \mathbb{R}, there is exactly one n \in \mathbb{Z} such that n \leq x < n+1.

First, we prove a lemma.

Lemma: 1 is the smallest element of \mathbb{Z}^+.
Proof. Consider the set S = \{ x \in \mathbb{R} \mid x \geq 1 \}. Then, S is an inductive set since 1 \in S and for all x \in S, x+1 \in S. Thus, \mathbb{Z}^+ \subseteq S (since, by definition, \mathbb{Z}^+ is the set of elements common to every inductive set). But, for any n \in \mathbb{Z}, if n < 1, then n \notin S and hence n \notin \mathbb{Z}^+. Thus, 1 is the least element of \mathbb{Z}^+.

Now, for the theorem of the exercise.
Proof. First, we prove existence.
Let S = \{ n \in \mathbb{Z} \mid n \leq x \}. We know S is non-empty since by I.3.12, Exercise #2 we know there exist integers m and n such that m < x < n. This m must be in our set S. We also know S is bounded above since x is an upper bound by our definition of S. Therefore, by the least upper bound axiom (Axiom 10, p. 25), we know \sup S exists.
Then, by Theorem I.32, we know that for any positive real number h, there is some n \in S such that

    \[ n > \sup S - h. \]

Letting h = 1, we have

    \[ n > \sup S - 1 \implies \sup S < n+1. \]

Therefore, since the supremum of S is an upper bound, we know n+1 \notin S; therefore, x < n+1 by definition of S. But we already know n \in S, and so by definition of S we must have n \leq x. Therefore, we have found an integer n such that

    \[ n \leq x < n+1. \]

Now, for uniqueness. Suppose there are integers n, n' \in \mathbb{Z} with this property. Then we have

    \begin{alignat*}{3} &n &\leq x &< n+1 \qquad &\text{and} \qquad &n' &\leq x &< n'+1.\\ \implies& -n &\geq -x &> -n-1 \qquad &\text{and} \qquad &n'+1 &> x &\geq n. \end{alignat*}\end{align*}

Then, adding the terms of these inequalities we have,

    \[ n' + 1 -n > 0 > n'-n-1 \quad \implies \quad 1 > n'-n > -1. \]

Without loss of generality, assume n' \geq n. Then this inequality implies, 0 \leq n' - n < 1. But since 1 is the smallest element of \mathbb{Z}^+ (from the lemma above) and \mathbb{Z} is closed under subtraction, we must have n'-n = 0, i.e., n = n'. Thus, any such n is unique. \qquad \blacksquare

12 comments

  1. yitzhak says:

    I can’t understand how this can be correct let us say x is 5 then there are multiple ‘n’ that is valid with the equation such as:
    4.9<5<5.9
    4.8<5<5.8…..and so on. how is it possible for only one such 'n' to exist?

    • Anonymous says:

      I guess that if the theorem applies to all sets of reals, then it has to apply to all sets of integers because integers are reals.

  4. Pankaj Bhanu says:

    The statement `Then, by Theorem I.32, we know that for any positive real number h, there is some n in S such that n > sup S – h` is incorrect since S only contains integers and is not dense. consider the following example. take x = 4.7 and h = 0.1. sup S – h = 4.6. No n bigger than 4.6 exists

    • Daniel Nagase says:

      I think it’s also unnecessary, since if n' is any other integer less than x, then n' \in S, so n' \leq \mathrm{sup}S.

      It’s also possible to eliminate the appeal to the lemma: suppose m is another integer such that m \leq x 0, then m+1 \leq m+y = n \leq x, so m+1 \leq x, contradicting the hypothesis. Therefore, y = 0 and m = n, as required.

      • Daniel Nagase says:

        Hmm, the text of my comment got a little truncated. Here’s what I wanted to say:

        Suppose m is another integer such that m \leq x < m+1. Then m \in S, so m \leq n (since n is the supremum). Hence, 0 \leq n-m; set y = n-m (such a y exists by Theorem I.2). Then 0 \leq y. If 0 < y, then m+1 \leq m+y = n \leq x, so m+1 \leq x, contradicting the hypothesis. So 0=y and n=m.

      • Anonymous says:

        But does have to do with proving the uniqueness of n. In the first part of the proof, to prove that at least one n exists such that n \leq x < n+1, theorem I.32 is used, which is not valid since it is applied no S, which only has integers.
        The user that posted the comment showed a counterexample.

    • Shubham says:

      Actually, it does work because in the S taken sup S is 4 and not x = 4.7.

      This is because by definition of sup, if you take sup S to be 4.7, there is a number 4 which is less than 4.7 and greater/equal to all other elements of S.

Point out an error, ask a question, offer an alternative solution (to use Latex type [latexpage] at the top of your comment):