Due to cancelled classes, I have not had time to cover most of the material which was going to form the core of this assignment, and so the selection of problems is somewhat interesting. This assignment is optional. Any points earned will be added as bonus points to your other assignments.
Suppose that $(M, d), (X, d_X)$, and $(Y, d_Y)$ are metric spaces, and that $i_X : M \hookrightarrow X$ and $i_Y : M \hookrightarrow Y$ are isometries of $M$ into $X$ and $Y$ respectively. Let us also suppose that $X$ and $Y$ are complete: that is, that every Cauchy sequence in $X$ converges to a limit in $X$, and similar for $Y$. Finally, assume that $i_X(M) = \set{i_X(a) \mid a \in M}$ is dense in $X$ (that is, $X = \overline{i_X(M)}$).
Two metric spaces $(X, d_X)$ and $(Y, d_Y)$ are called isometric if there are isometries $I : X \hookrightarrow Y$ and $J : Y \hookrightarrow X$ which are inverses of one another. What we have now shown is that any two complete metric spaces containing $M$ as a dense manner are isometric to each other, in a way that aligns the copy of $M$ inside each. This fact is often stated as "the completion of $M$ is unique up to isometry".
Recall that earlier in the course, we merely asserted that an ordered field with the least upper bound property existed, but we didn't prove it. It is tempting to use this as our definition of what the real numbers are: to define $\R$ as $\overline{\Q}$. After making this definition, it is not so bad to show that $\R = \overline{\Q}$ has the properties of an ordered field and has the least upper bound property.
However, there is a subtle flaw with doing this. Why is it not valid to define $\R$ as $\overline{\Q}$ in this way? What could we do to avoid this problem? (No proofs needed here; just explain the problem and give a suggestion about how to avoid it.)