Real Analysis- least upper bound and convergence

In summary, Epsilon is a small real number used in the definition of convergence to quantify the concept of "closer and closer". In the given problem, it is used to show that for any given epsilon, there exists an element in the set S that is close enough to the least upper bound b. This helps in proving that b is the least upper bound by assuming the opposite and showing a contradiction.
  • #1
Scousergirl
16
0
I'm having a little difficulty understanding Epsilon in the definition of convergence. From what the book says it is any small real number greater than zero (as small as you can imagine?). Also, since I don't quite grasp what this epsilon is and how it helps define convergence, I am having difficulty applying it to the following problem:

Let b=Least upper bound of a set S (S is a subset of the real numbers) that is bounded and non empty. Then Given epsilon greater than 0, there exists an s in S such that (b-Epsilon)<= s <= b.

I started by proving that there exists an s in S, but I cannot figure out how to relate this all to epsilon.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I understand the definitions of cauchy sequences and the cauchy criterion, but I don't see how I can relate them to this problem. I think what I am confused with is what kind of S we are dealing with here. FOr example, doesn't S={1*, b} satisfy these conditions but i don't see how i can use the cauchy sequence etc with the subset...
 
  • #3
You know that b is the least upper bound. So b-1, for example, isn't an upper bound. Neither is b-1/2, or b-1/4, etc... b-epsilon will not be an upper bound for any choice of epsilon>0.

Now, since b-epsilon is not an upper bound, there must be an s in S such that b-epsilon<=s, or else b-epsilon would be a lesser upper bound.

The set S is arbitrary (well, it has to be nonempty if b is not to be [itex]-\infty[/itex]). I don't know what you mean by 1* (it's the real number 1, defined in some way from the rational number 1?), but I assume you mean 1*<b. Then S has the the least upper bound b. That's right. But note that S will not always contain b. For example, the set {-1,-1/2,-1/3,-1/4,...} has the least upper bound 0, but 0 is not in the set.

Cauchy sequences don't enter into this problem, don't worry about them.

Does that answer your questions? :)
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Scousergirl said:
I'm having a little difficulty understanding Epsilon in the definition of convergence. From what the book says it is any small real number greater than zero (as small as you can imagine?). Also, since I don't quite grasp what this epsilon is and how it helps define convergence, I am having difficulty applying it to the following problem:

Let b=Least upper bound of a set S (S is a subset of the real numbers) that is bounded and non empty. Then Given epsilon greater than 0, there exists an s in S such that (b-Epsilon)<= s <= b.

I started by proving that there exists an s in S, but I cannot figure out how to relate this all to epsilon.
The point of convergence of a sequence is that the numbers in the sequence get "closer and closer" to the limit. The purpose of [itex]\epsilon[/itex] is to quantify, make clear, what "closer and closer" means. Saying "Given [itex]\epsilon[/itex]> 0 , there exist N such that if n> N, then |an- L|< [itex]\epsilon[/itex]" means that we can get as close as we please (< [itex]\epsilon[/itex]) to L just by going far enough on the sequence (n> N).

Now, your problem here is only indirectly related to convergence. The assertion is "Given [itex]\epsilon> 0[/itex], there exist some s in S such that b-[itex]\epsilon< s \le b[/itex]". Since b is an upper bound on S, there are no members of S larger than b: that gives you the "[itex]s \le b[/itex]" part. Suppose there were NO members of s larger than [itex]b-\epsilon[/itex]. What does that make [itex]b-\epsilon[/itex] and how does that contradict the fact that b is the least upper bound?
 
  • #5
Thank you so much this helps a lot. I guess that the proof would be easiest assuming there is no such s and then show that b-epsilon is thus greater than all s thus giving a contradiction to b being the least upper bound. This problem seems almost trivial now i know how to tackle it. :)
 

What is the definition of a least upper bound in real analysis?

A least upper bound, also known as a supremum, is the smallest element in a set that is greater than or equal to all other elements in the set. In other words, it is the upper bound that is closest to the set without being a member of the set itself.

How is the least upper bound used in real analysis?

The least upper bound is an important concept in real analysis because it allows us to prove the existence of a limit for a sequence. It is also used to define important properties such as completeness and continuity.

What is the difference between a real number and a limit in real analysis?

A real number is a specific value on the number line, whereas a limit is a concept that describes the behavior of a function as its input approaches a certain value. A limit can be thought of as the "target" value that a function is approaching.

What is the definition of convergence in real analysis?

Convergence in real analysis refers to the behavior of a sequence or function as its input approaches a certain value. A sequence is said to converge if its terms become closer and closer to a specific value as the sequence progresses.

How is the concept of convergence used in real analysis?

Convergence is used in real analysis to determine the behavior of a sequence or function and to prove the existence of a limit. It is also used to study the convergence of infinite series, which are important in many areas of mathematics and science.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
970
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
624
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
848
Replies
4
Views
978
Back
Top