Finding Upper and Lower Bounds for Subsets in R and Q

  • Thread starter laminatedevildoll
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Bound
In summary, for the subset M in R and Q (real and rational numbers), the set of all upper bounds for M is {x : x is an element of R and x >= 1}. The least upper bound for M is 1. The set of all lower bounds for M is {x : x is an element of R and x <= 0}. The greatest lower bound for M is 0.
  • #1
laminatedevildoll
211
0
For the subset M in R (real numbers)

If M={1+1/n : n is an element on N)

then,

- All upper bounds are {x:x an element of R and x > 1}
- Least upper bound is 1
- All lower bounds are {x:x an element of R and x < 0}
- Greatest lower bound is 0

I am not sure if I have the above correct, but for the same problem, how do I find the upper bounds/least upper bound or lower bounds/greatest lower bound if M is a subset in Q (rational numbers)?

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, you have to tell which M subset of Q you mean...If you take the one you defined above, then it is by definition a subset of Q..
 
  • #3
laminatedevildoll said:
For the subset M in R (real numbers)

If M={1+1/n : n is an element on N)
I assume you mean 1 + (1/n) = (n + 1)/n. As kleinwolf said, M is a subset of Q, since (n + 1) and n are integers.
then,

- All upper bounds are {x:x an element of R and x > 1}
- Least upper bound is 1
- All lower bounds are {x:x an element of R and x < 0}
- Greatest lower bound is 0
No. First, the least upper bound you've listed isn't in your set of upper bounds. The least upper bound is an upper bound! :) So take another look at your definitions:
Let S be an ordered set and T be a subset of S. If there exists an s in S such that s > t for all t in T, then T is bounded above and s is an upper bound of T. If there exists an s in S such that
1) s is an upper bound of T and
2) if s > x, then x is not an upper bound of T,
then s is the least upper bound of T.

Now, M = {(n + 1)/n : n is in N}. So M is a subset of R and Q, but remember that Q doesn't have the least upper bound property, so if a least upper bound exists, you have a better chance of finding it in R. So plug M and R into your definitions:
Let R be an ordered set and M be a subset of R. M = {(n +1)/n : n is in N}. If there exists an r in R such that r > m for all m in M, then M is bounded above and r is an upper bound of M. If there exists an r in R such that
1) r is an upper bound of M and
2) if r > x, then x is not an upper bound of M,
then r is the least upper bound of M.

Do the same for lower bounds and greatest lower bounds. Since n is in N, you know that (n + 1) > n, and dividing both sides by n you get: (n+1)/n > 1. So m > 1 for every m in M. Look at your definitions, and see if this fits the upper bound, least upper bound, lower bound, or greatest lower bound definitions.
As a hint for the next step, plug in a few small and large values for n and see what happens. Can you find your answers now?
 
  • #4
You're answers are way off. Let's look at the numbers we'll get in the set:

1 + 1/1 = 2
1 + 1/2 = 1.5
1 + 1/3 = 4/3
.
.
.
1 + 1/9999999999999 = (approximately) 1

In dealing with Q, look at the following:

- All upper bounds are {x:x an element of R and x > 1}
- Least upper bound is 1
- All lower bounds are {x:x an element of R and x < 0}
- Greatest lower bound is 0


Replace the underlined stuff, "R", with "Q". However, that's not all, because the stuff in bold also needs to be replaced, not only for the Q-question but for the original one dealing with the reals, as I hoped the stuff above suggested (the stuff that said that you'll get 2, 1.5, 4/3, ... in the set). I hope it showed up, but I also put ">" and "<" in bold. You have to be careful. There's a difference between saying that all x > 1 are upper bounds, and saying that all x > 1 are upper bounds. In the first case, there is no least upper bound (but there always must be for real numbers) and in the second, there is, namely 1. Of course, 1 is not the LUB in your example.
 
  • #5
M is a subset of R
- All upper bounds are {x:x an element of R and x >= 2}
- Least upper bound is 2
- All lower bounds are {x:x an element of R and x <= 1}
- Greatest lower bound is 1

M is a subset in Q
- All upper bounds are {x:x an element of Q and x >= 2}
- Least upper bound (Does Not Exist?)
- All lower bounds are {x:x an element of Q and x <= 1}
- Greatest lower bound (Does Not Exist?)

I am probably making this even more complicated.

I understand if

M={1/n: n in N} The set of all lower bounds of M is {x:x in R and x<= 0}, and the greatest lower bound is 0. The set of all upper bounds of M is {x:x in E and x>=1} and the least upper bound is 1.
 
  • #6
I'm not sure what your last sentence is related to. Anyways, with the Q problem, why are you having trouble finding the LUB and GLB? Look at your answers for the real case. 2 and 1. Those are rational numbers, right?
 
  • #7
AKG said:
I'm not sure what your last sentence is related to. Anyways, with the Q problem, why are you having trouble finding the LUB and GLB? Look at your answers for the real case. 2 and 1. Those are rational numbers, right?

So, I guess the reals and the q's are the same for LUP and GLB.
 
  • #8
laminatedevildoll said:
So, I guess the reals and the q's are the same for LUP and GLB.
In this case, yes. Moving from R to Q doesn't change the LUB or GLB of your set; It's just that the LUB or GLB may be an irrational number, so they may not exist in Q. If the LUB or GLB of M were irrational numbers, then M wouldn't have a LUB or GLB in Q.
 
  • #9
honestrosewater said:
In this case, yes. Moving from R to Q doesn't change the LUB or GLB of your set; It's just that the LUB or GLB may be an irrational number, so they may not exist in Q. If the LUB or GLB of M were irrational numbers, then M wouldn't have a LUB or GLB in Q.

In this new case,

M={1/n: n in N} The set of all lower bounds of M is {x:x in R and x<= 0}, and the greatest lower bound is 0. The set of all upper bounds of M is {x:x in E and x>=1} and the least upper bound is 1.

Will the LUB AND GUB be the same for both R and Q?
 
  • #10
laminatedevildoll said:
In this new case,

M={1/n: n in N} The set of all lower bounds of M is {x:x in R and x<= 0}, and the greatest lower bound is 0. The set of all upper bounds of M is {x:x in E and x>=1} and the least upper bound is 1.

Will the LUB AND GUB be the same for both R and Q?
If the LUB (or GLB) is a member of set S, then the LUB (or GLB) exists in S. ;) The values of the LUB and GLB don't change when you move from superset to superset. If the LUB (or GLB) of M exists in two sets, then the LUB (or GLB) of M is the same in both sets. 0 and 1 are members of Q and R.
 
  • #11
honestrosewater said:
If the LUB (or GLB) is a member of set S, then the LUB (or GLB) exists in S. ;) The values of the LUB and GLB don't change when you move from superset to superset. If the LUB (or GLB) of M exists in two sets, then the LUB (or GLB) of M is the same in both sets. 0 and 1 are members of Q and R.

I see it now. Thank you for the explanation.
 

What is an upper bound?

An upper bound is a mathematical concept that refers to the maximum value that a variable or function can have. It is typically denoted by the symbol "U" or "UB" and is often used in the context of sets or intervals.

What is a lower bound?

A lower bound is the minimum value that a variable or function can have. It is usually represented by the symbol "L" or "LB" and is commonly used in the realm of sets or intervals.

How do you determine the upper and lower bound of a data set?

To determine the upper and lower bound of a data set, you can arrange the data in ascending or descending order and then identify the highest and lowest values. These values will represent the upper and lower bound, respectively.

Why are upper and lower bounds important in mathematics?

Upper and lower bounds are important in mathematics because they help us understand the range of possible values that a variable or function can have. They also allow us to establish limits and make predictions about the behavior of a system or process.

What is the difference between an upper bound and a supremum?

An upper bound is the maximum value that a variable or function can have, while a supremum is the least upper bound. In other words, the supremum is the smallest number that is greater than or equal to all elements in a set. In some cases, the supremum and upper bound may be the same, but in other cases, the supremum may not be a part of the set itself.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
0
Views
963
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
927
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
776
Back
Top