Codex @codex  0

A group representation on a vector space $V$ over a field $K$ is a group homomorphism $R:G\to \mathrm{GL}(V)$. In particular, $R(gh)=R(g)R(h)$, $R(e)=I$ and $R(g^{-1})=R(g{)}^{-1}$. Choosing a basis identifies it with a matrix representation.

Two group representations $R$ on $V$ and $S$ on $W$ are equivalent representations when an invertible linear map $T:V\to W$ satisfies $TR(g)=S(g)T$ for every $g$. Thus $S(g)=TR(g)T^{-1}$; they differ only by a choice of basis.

A nonzero group representation is a reducible representation if there is a vector subspace $U$ with $0\ne U\ne V$ and $R(g)U\subseteq U$ for every $g$. It is an irreducible representation if it has no such invariant subspace. Reducibility alone does not assert the existence of an invariant complementary vector subspace; that stronger conclusion says that the representation is a semisimple representation.

The Schur lemma states that an intertwiner $T$ between irreducible representations is either zero or an isomorphism. Consequently an intertwiner between inequivalent irreducible representations is zero. For a finite-dimensional irreducible representation over the complex numbers, every commuting endomorphism is scalar:For the first assertion, the kernel and image of $T$ are invariant subspaces, so a nonzero $T$ is injective and surjective. For the scalar conclusion, choose an eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $T$. The intertwiner $T-\lambda I$ has a nonzero kernel, so it must vanish. The finite-dimensional complex hypothesis matters: the scalar conclusion need not hold over the real numbers, as a real planar rotation through $\pi /2$ is an irreducible representation of the cyclic group of order four, while the rotation itself is a commuting nonscalar endomorphism.

The change of variables in b diagonalizes the complexified action into $z\mapsto Uz$ and $\bar{z}\mapsto \bar{U}\bar{z}$. Consequently the conventional complex branching rule isPrecisely, this is a statement about the complexification of a real vector space carrying the real defining representation. Over the real numbers, the six-dimensional space is the realification of a complex representation $3$; the conjugate summands above are not separate three-dimensional real invariant subspaces.

The block embedding $SO(6)\hookrightarrow SO(7)$ fixes the seventh coordinate. It adds a trivial representation, givingThe dimensions are complex dimensions after complexification of a real vector space, or equivalently $6+1$ as real dimensions before it.

For each complex coordinate, exchanging the factors of a wedge product of differential forms reverses its sign, givingConsequently the Kähler form is $\omega =d{x}_{14}+d{x}_{25}+d{x}_{36}$, and $\omega \wedge d{x}_7=d{x}_{147}+d{x}_{257}+d{x}_{367}$. Expanding the holomorphic volume form givesThe sign of $d{x}_{426}$ changes on exchanging $4,2$, while reordering $4,5,3$ to $3,4,5$ requires two exchanges. This verifies every sign inUnder $z\mapsto Uz$, unitarity preserves $\omega$:The determinant is the factor by which a transformation acts on a top exterior power, so ${\Omega }^{\prime }=(\det U)\Omega =\Omega$ for $U\in SU(3)$. Extend the real embedding by fixing $y$. It preserves $\omega$, $dy$ and $\Omega$, and therefore $\varphi$. ThusThe induced seven-dimensional representation is exactly the restriction already computed in c. In the conventional complex notation its branching rule isOver the real numbers, the six-dimensional summand is the underlying real space of the complex fundamental representation, and the last real line is the fixed $y$ axis.

Augustin-Louis Cauchy's importance lies in the interaction of foundations, methods and applications. He made the justification of limits, series and integrals a programme for teaching and research; developed complex analysis into a source of powerful general methods; and contributed to permutation groups, geometry and continuum mechanics. His work is best assessed through particular achievements and their limitations, rather than by treating every theorem now bearing his name as a modern statement he already possessed. His engineering training and subsequent mathematical career also make a rigid separation of pure and applied work historically unhelpful.^[ref]

The Cours d'analyse by Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1821) makes convergence a condition requiring argument. A series is studied through its partial sums; a limit describes a variable approaching a fixed value; an infinitesimal is a variable tending to zero, rather than simply a mysterious fixed quantity smaller than every positive number. The introduction explicitly challenges unrestricted transfers of rules from finite expressions to infinite ones. This is not an abandonment of calculation: it seeks to identify when calculations are valid.^[ref]

For example, the Cauchy criterion for series asks whether tails can all be made small:This is a modern formulation of the convergence requirement, with the completeness of the real numbers understood. Merely requiring $a_n\to 0$ is weaker. In the harmonic series, grouping the terms from $2^j+1$ to $2^{j+1}$ gives a block of at least $1/2$, so its tails cannot satisfy the criterion. In contrast, the root test compares a tail with a geometric series: if $\mathrm{limsup}|a_n{|}^{1/n}<q<1$, then eventually $|a_n|\le q^n$, which proves absolute convergence. Such arguments explain the usefulness of convergence tests instead of reducing Augustin-Louis Cauchy's contribution to a vocabulary of definitions.

His Résumé des leçons sur le calcul infinitésimal by Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1823) extends the programme to differentiation and integration. For a continuous function on a compact interval, an integral can be approached through sums of values times subinterval lengths. A modern justification uses uniform continuity: for a partition of mesh at most $\delta$, two choices of sample points give sums differing by at most $(b-a){\omega }_f(\delta )$, where the modulus of continuity ${\omega }_f(\delta )$ tends to zero. Refinement then establishes the common limit. This reconstruction makes clear why control of error, rather than a geometrical picture of area alone, is decisive. It does not attribute the later full Riemann integral theory for discontinuous functions to the 1823 text.^[ref]

The achievement has limits. The 1821 Sum theorem of Cauchy asserts continuity of sums of convergent series of continuous functions in terms that, under a pointwise reading, are insufficient. The original proof treats the tail as negligible without establishing the uniform control needed near the point concerned. A modern diagnostic is $f_n(x)=x^n$ on $[0,1]$: every $f_n$ is continuous, but its pointwise limit is zero for $x<1$ and one at $1$. Thus a proof must distinguish pointwise convergence from uniform convergence. Augustin-Louis Cauchy's use of variable and infinitesimal language deserves historical interpretation, but it does not license silently importing modern hypotheses into his printed theorem.^[ref]

In complex analysis, the Mémoire sur les intégrales définies, prises entre des limites imaginaires by Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1825) exemplifies a new productive setting for integration. A contour integral depends on a path in the complex plane; deforming that path and accounting for isolated singularities can evaluate otherwise difficult definite integrals. In modern form, Cauchy's integral theorem applies to a holomorphic function on a suitable domain and Cauchy integral formula states, for a circle enclosing $z$ and lying with its interior in that domain,The importance is structural: local values and derivatives are determined by data on a surrounding path. Historical proofs and hypotheses should be distinguished from later general forms of the theorem.^[ref]

A short modern consequence measures the power of this method. For an entire function bounded by $M$, the derivative version of Cauchy integral formula on a circle of radius $R$ gives $|f^{\prime }(z)|\le M/R$. Since $R$ is arbitrary, $f^{\prime }=0$, proving Liouville's theorem. If a nonconstant polynomial $P$ had no root, then $1/P$ would be an entire function, bounded outside a large disc by the leading term and inside the disc by compactness. Liouville's theorem would force it to be constant, a contradiction. This proves the fundamental theorem of algebra. The chain is an assessment of the reach of the methods, not a claim that Augustin-Louis Cauchy alone originated every named result.

Augustin-Louis Cauchy's algebra concerns concrete permutations as well as analytical formulas. His 1845 investigations developed the theory of substitutions; Cauchy theorem for groups says that a prime number dividing a finite group order occurs as an element order. One can appreciate its generality from a modern argument: rotate the coordinates of the tuples $(g_1,\dots ,g_p)$ satisfying $g_1\cdots g_p=e$. Rotation preserves this condition, since $g_2\cdots g_p{g}_1=g_1^{-1}(g_1\cdots g_p)g_1=e$. There are $|G{|}^{p-1}$ such tuples; nonfixed rotation orbits have $p$ elements, and fixed tuples correspond to $g^p=e$. When $p\mid |G|$, the number of fixed tuples is divisible by $p$, so besides $e$ there is an element of element order $p$. This is explanatory mathematics, not Augustin-Louis Cauchy's original proof. The dating itself needs care: Peter Michael Neumann's archival argument places the major burst of work in 1845 despite an 1844 date traditionally attached to a volume.^[ref]

Finally, Augustin-Louis Cauchy's work on elasticity shows the strength of making a local mathematical object out of physical interactions. Instead of describing only a force perpendicular to a surface, one studies the traction on a plane through a point, with its direction dependent on the plane's unit normal. In modern notation the relation is $\mathbf{t}(\mathbf{n})=\mathbf{\sigma }\mathbf{n}$, where the Cauchy stress tensor contains the necessary directional information. Together with balance of linear momentum, this yields equations for the internal motion of a body. The modern tensor notation is later explanatory language; the conceptual contribution is the reduction of the forces on arbitrary internal planes to a finite collection of local components.^[ref]

Augustin-Louis Cauchy's lasting contribution was a powerful research programme, not a finished foundation. His insistence on justified passage to a limit reshaped analysis, while complex integration, substitutions and local stresses opened methods whose value extended beyond their first applications. The inadequacy of a pointwise convergence hypothesis, the need to state domains in complex analysis, and the later construction of the real numbers show that nineteenth-century rigour remained a collective and revisable achievement. These qualifications strengthen an assessment of his influence by identifying what later mathematicians could extend and repair.

Standards of mathematical proof changed between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries because both the objects studied and the operations performed on them changed. A finite geometrical construction, an infinite expansion, and an abstract group raise different questions about justification. There was no universal seventeenth-century indifference to rigour followed by its sudden nineteenth-century invention. The more defensible thesis is that successful methods repeatedly exposed unstated assumptions; later work made some of those assumptions into explicit definitions, hypotheses and existence arguments.

Pierre de Fermat's adequality illustrates the distinction between an effective method and its justification. For $F(a)=a(L-a)$, comparing neighbouring expressions givesDividing by $e$ and suppressing the remaining term in $e$ produces $a=L/2$. There is an independent finite verification:Thus the result can be secure even when the general procedure raises a question: why is the increment first nonzero for division and then discarded? In the parabola construction of question 2, the same issue appears in replacing a strict geometrical comparison by adequality and extracting the subtangent. A historical explanation must describe this operation on its own terms rather than silently equate it with a modern derivative.^[ref]

Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz supplied different languages for the new calculus. Isaac Newton's Introduction to the Quadrature of Curves by Isaac Newton, first published with the 1704 Opticks, presents quantities generated by motion and considers their rates of change. Its mature language of first and last ratios seeks exact relations as increments vanish; it should not be confused with simply asserting that a small error is harmless. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's 1684 Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz presents a calculus of differentials and operational rules. Their common problem was to explain why procedures using vanishing increments establish exact results, while their chosen objects and modes of explanation differed.^[ref][ref]

George Berkeley's The Analyst by George Berkeley (1734) exposes the logical pressure point. For the cube,The finite identity does not become a legal division at $h=0$. The modern repair is to keep $h\ne 0$ throughout the identity and prove that its right-hand side tends to $3x^2$. That limit is different from a quotient evaluated at zero. George Berkeley's criticism therefore concerns the grounds of inference, not whether the established rules often produce correct answers. His theological polemic also reminds us that standards of mathematical proof could be contested outside specialist calculation.^[ref]

The infinite introduced another burden. Joseph Fourier's 1822 use of trigonometric series to represent arbitrary functions greatly extended what calculations in mathematical physics could express. But deriving Fourier coefficients by orthogonality only shows what those coefficients must be if the proposed operations are legitimate. It does not prove convergence, equality with the initial data, or interchange of an integral and an infinite sum. The example of a constant expanded in a Fourier sine series makes a hidden qualification visible: the terms all vanish at the endpoints, even when the assigned data do not. The correct theorem must specify the domain and mode of representation.^[ref]

Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet's 1829 memoir supplies a particularly precise example of changing proof obligations. It criticises a convergence argument of Augustin-Louis Cauchy's which used complex substitution into an arbitrary function and an insufficient comparison between signed series. Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet supplies the instructive pairThe first series converges by the alternating series test; the second diverges because their difference is the harmonic series. Nevertheless $b_n/a_n=1+(-1{)}^n/\sqrt{n}\to 1$. Thus asymptotic equality of terms does not transfer convergence between conditionally convergent signed series. A comparison principle valid for positive terms needs additional justification when cancellation is involved. The example refutes a mode of inference rather than merely correcting a numerical answer.^[ref]

Augustin-Louis Cauchy's own foundations programme is part of this change. The 1821 Cours d'analyse by Augustin-Louis Cauchy makes limits, continuity and series convergence central to elementary reasoning. Yet its Sum theorem of Cauchy also shows why announcing rigour does not make every proof adequate. In modern terminology, continuous functions can have a discontinuous pointwise limit. An explicit series version isEach term is a polynomial and the partial sum is $x-x^{N+1}$. The convergence does not hold in uniform convergence: with $x_N=1-1/N$, the error $x_N^{N+1}$ tends to $e^{-1}$ rather than zero. The modern uniform limit theorem repairs the inference by requiring one bound on the error to work throughout the domain. This example diagnoses the missing control under a pointwise reading; it does not settle every historical interpretation of Augustin-Louis Cauchy's infinitesimal language.^[ref]

The issue is the order of dependence in quantifiers. Pointwise convergence permits the threshold $N$ to depend on both the error tolerance and the point. Uniform convergence requires a threshold depending only on the tolerance. If $f_N$ is continuous near $x_0$ and the convergence is uniform, choose $N$ so that $|f-f_N|<\epsilon /3$ nearby, then use the continuity of this fixed $f_N$ to make $|f_N(x)-f_N(x_0)|<\epsilon /3$. The triangle inequality proves $|f(x)-f(x_0)|<\epsilon$. Writing out this proof reveals what a vague statement that the tail is small leaves unproved.

Another nineteenth-century development concerns the foundations of the real numbers themselves. Richard Dedekind's Continuity and Irrational Numbers by Richard Dedekind (1872) asks for an arithmetical account of the continuity often borrowed from a drawn line. A Dedekind cut separates the rational numbers into lower and upper classes. For instance,defines a gap in the rational numbers corresponding to $\sqrt{2}$. The cut is determined without assuming that a rational number fills it. The extended number system then supports existence theorems that a geometrical picture alone had suggested.^[ref]

This matters for apparently elementary proofs. Suppose $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$ with $f(a)<0<f(b)$. Repeated bisection constructs nested intervals whose endpoint values have opposite signs and whose lengths tend to zero. To conclude that there is a common limiting point, one needs the completeness of the real numbers. Continuity then forces its value to be zero. Over the rational numbers, $f(q)=q^2-2$ changes sign between $1$ and $2$ but has no rational zero. Thus even a proof that avoids pictures must explain the existence of its limiting object. Richard Dedekind's account makes that requirement an explicit part of the mathematical setting, rather than an intuition about a continuous line.^[ref]

There is a parallel change in algebra. Heinrich Weber's 1882 definition in question 6 describes arbitrary elements through laws of composition. To assess such a definition one proves implications between axioms. The passage's finite set hypothesis implies that cancellative multiplication has an identity element and inverse elements; without that hypothesis, the positive integers under addition supply a counterexample. This is a new kind of proof obligation: one must establish that a proposed abstract definition has the intended consequences, rather than rely on their familiarity in particular numerical or permutation examples.^[ref]

The principal change was towards explicit control of operations, hypotheses and existence. Effective symbolic algorithms persisted, and geometric reasoning remained valuable. What became increasingly demanding was the passage from success in examples to a general claim: an infinitesimal step needed justification, an infinite expansion needed a convergence theorem, a limiting point needed a complete number system, and an abstract definition needed its consequences proved. The examples also prevent a simple progress story: nineteenth-century mathematicians disagreed about admissible reasoning, and a programme devoted to rigour could itself become the object of a successful critique.

Put $b(v,w)=\phi (w)(v)$. Each $\phi (w)$ belongs to the dual space $V^{\prime }$, so it is a linear functional. For real numbers $a,b_0$ and vectors $v_1,v_2,w$, this givesThe linearity of $\phi$ gives linearity in the second argument as well:Thus $b$ is a bilinear form.

Its right radical of a bilinear form is exactly $\ker \phi$, becauseIf $b$ is a nondegenerate bilinear form, this kernel is zero. Since $V$ is a finite-dimensional vector space and $\dim V^{\prime }=\dim V$, the rank-nullity theorem makes $\phi$ surjective.

Conversely, if $\phi$ is surjective, the same dimension equality makes it injective, so the right radical is zero. If $v$ lies in the left radical, then $f(v)=0$ for every $f\in V^{\prime }$, because every $f$ is some $\phi (w)$. A nonzero $v$ can be included in a basis and detected by its coordinate functional, so this forces $v=0$. Both radicals vanish, proving

Writeon $V=W\times W^{\prime }$, where $W^{\prime }$ is the dual space. The dual pairing is linear separately in the vector and the linear functional. For example, for real numbers $a,b$,Thus $\omega$ is a bilinear form. It is also an alternating bilinear form, since

To prove that this is a nondegenerate bilinear form, suppose $(v,f)$ pairs to zero with every $(w,g)$. Setting $g=0$ gives $f(w)=0$ for every $w\in W$, hence $f=0$. Setting $w=0$ gives $g(v)=0$ for every $g\in W^{\prime }$. If $v\ne 0$, basis extension supplies a coordinate functional with $g(v)=1$, a contradiction. Thus $v=0$. The left radical is zero, and the displayed change of sign implies the right radical is zero as well. Hence $\omega$ is a nondegenerate bilinear form, making $V$ a symplectic vector space.

For the required example take the coordinate subspaceUsing the definition of the bilinear orthogonal complement in part (b),ThereforeThis is a Lagrangian subspace. Its dimension is $\dim W$, exactly half of $\dim V=2\dim W$, so part (b)(i) is satisfied.

There is no contradiction with part (b)(ii): that part asks whether a direct sum is guaranteed, and the answer is already no. Moreover, when $W\ne 0$, the present alternating bilinear form is not a symmetric bilinear form. Choose $v\ne 0$ and $f\in W^{\prime }$ with $f(v)=1$; thenIt therefore does not satisfy the symmetry hypothesis of part (b)(ii). If $W=0$, then $V=U=0$, and both $U=U^{\perp }$ and $V=U\oplus U^{\perp }$ hold trivially.

Direct matrix multiplication gives $A^2=0$. Denote the columns by $c_1,\dots ,c_4$; they satisfyThus the matrix rank is at most two. Over the real numbers or complex numbers, the upper-left two-by-two minor is $-3\ne 0$, so the matrix rank is exactly two. Every Jordan block has size at most two because $A^2=0$, and each size-two Nilpotent Jordan block contributes one to the matrix rank. ConsequentlyEquivalently the nullities are $(2,4)$ and the minimal polynomial is $x^2$.

There is a field qualification in the source: Question 2 initially allows an arbitrary field, and part (c) does not specify a new one. The preceding answer holds over every field whose characteristic is not three. In characteristic three, the first row vanishes and the other three rows all become $(2,1,0,2)$, giving matrix rank one while $A^2=0$. Under that reading the answer is instead

Throughout Question 3, the inner product is linear in its first argument and conjugate-linear in its second. Over the real numbers, conjugation has no effect. The symbol $T^{\ast }$ now denotes the adjoint operator for this inner product.

The set $D=\mathbb{Q}+i\mathbb{Q}$ is countable and dense in $\mathbb{C}$. Restriction to $D$ is injective on continuous functions $\mathbb{C}\to \mathbb{R}$: if two such functions agree there, their equality set is closed and contains a dense set, so is all of $\mathbb{C}$. Equivalently a sequence of points of $D$ converging to any chosen point and continuity determine its value uniquely.

Thus the family has cardinality at mostFor the lower bound, every real number determines a different constant continuous function. Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein yieldsThe reduction to countably many values is the feature that separates this answer from unrestricted functions.

There is an injection from the power set of $\omega$ into the real numbers given byIf $S$ and $T$ first differ at $k$, the contribution at $k$ has magnitude $2/3^{k+1}$, while the entire later tail has magnitude at mostTheir real values are therefore different. This proves injectivity directly and avoids any ambiguity of numeral expansions.

Conversely, map a real number $x$ to the set $\{q\in \mathbb{Q}:q<x\}$. Distinct real numbers give distinct sets because the rational numbers are dense in the real line. Fixing a bijection between $\omega$ and the countable set $\mathbb{Q}$ turns this into an injection $\mathbb{R}\to \mathcal{P}(\omega )$. Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem now gives

The notation ${}^{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{R}$ means all functions from the real numbers to themselves, with no continuity restriction. Its cardinal isThe exponent law follows by viewing a function to a function set as one function on a Cartesian product. Cantor's theorem gives $2^{\mathfrak{c}}>\mathfrak{c}$, so this is strictly larger than the other continuum-sized examples here. Characteristic functions of subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ already supply the lower bound $2^{\mathfrak{c}}$.

Yes. The usual order on the real numbers is strict and linear, midpoints witness density, and translation by $\pm 1$ supplies points on either side. It therefore satisfies the same dense linear order without endpoints axioms.

Use the reduced-denominator function unbounded on every interval:Every value is a finite real number. In any nondegenerate interval $[a,b]\subseteq [0,1]$, its interior contains infinitely many rational numbers, whereas there are only finitely many reduced fractions in $[0,1]$ with denominator at most any fixed $M$. Some rational number in $(a,b)$ therefore has denominator exceeding $M$. Hence the function is unbounded on every such interval. It reverses the positive values of the Thomae function rather than requiring an infinite value at any point.

The limit of a sequence of real numbers is $a$ if, for every $\epsilon >0$, there is an integer $N$ such that $n\ge N$ implies $|a_n-a|<\epsilon$. It tends to positive infinity if, for every real $M$, there is an integer $N$ such that $n\ge N$ implies $a_n>M$.

If $a_n\to +\infty$, choose the latter threshold with $M=1/\epsilon$. Then $a_n>1/\epsilon >0$ eventually, so $|1/a_n|<\epsilon$. Thus $1/a_n\to 0$. The converse is false: $a_n=-n$ has reciprocal tending to zero and tends to negative infinity. The precise sign-free statement is given by reciprocal limits and escape in absolute value: $1/a_n\to 0$ is equivalent to $|a_n|\to \infty$.

If $a_n\to a\ne 0$, eventually $|a_n-a|<|a|/2$, and the triangle inequality gives $|a_n|>|a|/2$. ConsequentlyGiven $\epsilon >0$, take $N$ large enough that $|a_n-a|<\min (|a|/2,\epsilon |a{|}^2/2)$ for all $n\ge N$. This proves $1/a_n\to 1/a$ directly from the definition of the limit of a sequence.

A vector space over the real numbers is a set $V$ with an addition making it an abelian group and a scalar multiplication by $\mathbb{R}$ satisfying, for scalars $a,b$ and vectors $u,v$, the identities $a(u+v)=au+av$, $(a+b)v=av+bv$, $a(bv)=(ab)v$ and $1v=v$. A vector subspace is a nonempty subset closed under addition and scalar multiplication; a proper vector subspace is one unequal to $V$. A spanning set is a set whose finite linear combinations give every vector of $V$. A basis is a linearly independent spanning set. The dimension is the number of vectors in a basis, or its cardinality when the basis is infinite.

The sum of vector subspaces and their intersection of vector subspaces areBoth are vector subspaces: addition and scalar multiplication preserve the displayed forms or simultaneous membership. The intersection of vector subspaces is never empty because $0\in U\cap W$.

For the two given hyperplanes, adding and subtracting their defining equations gives $x_1=x_2$ and $x_3=x_4$. HenceThese two nonzero vectors are orthogonal, and consequently form an orthogonal basis of the intersection of vector subspaces. Put $u=(1,-1,-1,1)$ and $w=(1,-1,1,-1)$. Direct substitution gives $u\in U$, $w\in W$. Their dot products with $b_1,b_2$ vanish, and $u\cdot w=0$. Each defining equation of $U$ or $W$ is one nonzero linear constraint in four variables, so each vector subspace has dimension three. Thus each space has the indicated orthogonal basis:The last four vectors are nonzero and mutually orthogonal, so they are a basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^4$. They lie in $U+W$, proving $U+W=V$. The dimension identity is therefore verified numerically:

Use the least-upper-bound property as the least upper bound axiom: every nonempty set of real numbers bounded above has a least upper bound in $\mathbb{R}$. It implies convergence of a bounded increasing sequence: if $L$ is the supremum of its terms, then for every $\epsilon >0$ some term exceeds $L-\epsilon$, and all subsequent terms lie between that term and $L$. A bounded decreasing sequence converges by applying this argument to its negative.

The alternating series test states that if $b_n\ge 0$, $b_{n+1}\le b_n$, and $b_n\to 0$, then ${\sum }_{n\ge 1}(-1{)}^{n-1}{b}_n$ converges. To prove it, let $S_N$ denote its partial sums. The even partial sums are increasing because $S_{2m+2}-S_{2m}=b_{2m+1}-b_{2m+2}\ge 0$. The odd partial sums are decreasing because $S_{2m+3}-S_{2m+1}=-b_{2m+2}+b_{2m+3}\le 0$. Moreover,Completeness of the real numbers therefore gives a limit of a sequence for each subsequence, denoted $L_e,L_o$ respectively for the even and odd subsequences. Their difference is $S_{2m+1}-S_{2m}=b_{2m+1}\to 0$, so $L_e=L_o$. Every sufficiently late partial sum belongs to one of these two subsequences, proving convergence of the full sequence of partial sums. Multiplying the terms by $-1$ leaves convergence unchanged.

No. The free Abelian lattice-ordered group on two generators is countable, since every element is represented by a finite term over a countable alphabet of operation symbols and the two generators. The additive group of all real-valued functions on the given half-plane is uncountable: it already contains a distinct constant function for every real number. A lattice-ordered group homomorphism that is an isomorphism would be a bijection, contradicting these cardinalities. The concrete free-group model consists of specially constrained integer-linear term functions, not all real-valued functions on a domain.

This is an equivalence relation. The difference $x-x=0$ is an even integer, proving reflexivity. If $x-y=2k$ then $y-x=-2k$, proving that the relation is symmetric. If $x-y=2k$ and $y-z=2\ell$ then $x-z=2(k+\ell )$, proving transitivity. Its equivalence classes are the translates $x+2\mathbb{Z}$; two real numbers need not be integers themselves to belong to the same class.

For a nonempty set $S\subseteq \mathbb{R}$, a real number $s$ is its supremum if every $x\in S$ satisfies $x\le s$ and every upper bound $u$ of $S$ satisfies $s\le u$. Equivalently, $s$ is an upper bound and, for every $\epsilon >0$, some $x\in S$ has $s-\epsilon <x\le s$. The least upper bound axiom states that every nonempty set of real numbers bounded above has a real supremum.

Suppose $(a_n)$ is nondecreasing and bounded above. Apply the least upper bound axiom to $S=\{a_n:n\ge 1\}$, obtaining $s=\sup S$. For any $\epsilon >0$, $s-\epsilon$ cannot be an upper bound, so there is $N$ with $a_N>s-\epsilon$. For every $n\ge N$, monotonicity givesso $|a_n-s|<\epsilon$. This is precisely the definition of a convergent sequence. If $(a_n)$ is nonincreasing and bounded below, apply the proved case to $(-a_n)$; its limit is the negative of the infimum of the original terms. Thus the bounded monotone sequence theorem follows directly from the axiom: