Analysis Question: Find the supremum and infimum of S,where S is the set S = {√n − [√


by Simkate
Tags: , , √n, analysis, infimum, supremum
Simkate
Simkate is offline
#1
Oct3-10, 05:40 PM
P: 26
Find the supremum and infimum of S, where S is the set

S = {√n − [√n] : n belongs to N} .

Justify your claims. (Recall that if x belongs to R, then [x] := n where n is the largest integer less than or equal to x. For example, [7.6] = 7 and [8] = 8)



----I found my infimum to be 0 and my supremum to be 1, but how do i go about proving them? Help please.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Cougars' diverse diet helped them survive the Pleistocene mass extinction
Cyber risks can cause disruption on scale of 2008 crisis, study says
Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes
Dick
Dick is online now
#2
Oct3-10, 06:52 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,174
It's pretty obvious that all of the elements in S are in [0,1), right? And you shouldn't have any trouble showing the infimum is 0. Just find a n where f(n)=sqrt(n)-[sqrt(n)] is 0. Showing the supremum is 1 is a little harder. You want to find a sequence of integers a_n such that f(a_n) approaches 1.
╔(σ_σ)╝
╔(σ_σ)╝ is offline
#3
Oct3-10, 07:06 PM
╔(σ_σ)╝'s Avatar
P: 851
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=433380

JonF
JonF is offline
#4
Oct3-10, 07:10 PM
P: 617

Analysis Question: Find the supremum and infimum of S,where S is the set S = {√n − [√


I actually don’t think an ε proof will work for this, since n must be a natural number, unless you restrict ε to naturals too.

I’m not sure on this by any means but this is the approach I would take. First because S is a subset of the reals it must have a LUB. Arguing that 1 is an upper bound is easy. I would try to show that if √n − [√n]<1 you can find an √m − [√m] that’s even closer to 1 which would make 1 the smallest upper bound. These three facts together ill show that 1 is the LUB.
╔(σ_σ)╝
╔(σ_σ)╝ is offline
#5
Oct3-10, 08:05 PM
╔(σ_σ)╝'s Avatar
P: 851
Quote Quote by JonF View Post
I actually donít think an ε proof will work for this, since n must be a natural number, unless you restrict ε to naturals too.

Iím not sure on this by any means but this is the approach I would take. First because S is a subset of the reals it must have a LUB. Arguing that 1 is an upper bound is easy. I would try to show that if √n − [√n]<1 you can find an √m − [√m] thatís even closer to 1 which would make 1 tihe smallest upper bound. These three facts together ill show that 1 is the LUB.
You are correct an epsilon argument would not work here.

Originally, I was going to use density of R. But since there are countably many irrationals in the set proposed it is obvious that I can't use it.

Since the set proposed is a subset of all irrational numbers between (0,1).


Your approach is similar to the epsilon argument and I doubt it would work.

Even the sequence approach suggested is a little hairy as it requires an epsilon argument to show convergence. And one cannot guarantee there are no "jumps". Eg. sqrt(1023) = 31.98437118..... and then sqrt(1024)=32.
JonF
JonF is offline
#6
Oct3-10, 08:46 PM
P: 617
Quote Quote by ╔(σ_σ)╝ View Post
Since the set proposed is a subset of all irrational numbers between (0,1).
Not true since transcendental numbers fall in [0,1)



But I got it, man did this take me awhile, but my idea can work. I don't wanna give it away, but here's the general idea.

For contradiction sake, assume that there is a n in N, and for all other m in N that: 1 –(√n − [√n]) < 1 – (√m − [√m]).

Simplify this, then pick a clever m in terms of n that will get rid of the radicals that cause problems.
╔(σ_σ)╝
╔(σ_σ)╝ is offline
#7
Oct3-10, 09:14 PM
╔(σ_σ)╝'s Avatar
P: 851
Quote Quote by JonF View Post
Not true since transcendental numbers fall in [0,1)
What exactly about my statement is not true ?

I said "Since the set proposed a subset of all irrational numbers between (0,1)."

Transcendentals are irrationals right ?

I don't see where I went wrong.


But I got it, man did this take me awhile, but my idea can work. I don't wanna give it away, but here's the general idea.

For contradiction sake, assume that there is a n in N, and for all other m in N that: 1 –(√n − [√n]) < 1 – (√m − [√m]).

Simplify this, then pick a clever m in terms of n that will get rid of the radicals that cause problems.
Hmm...
What exactly are you getting a contradiction from ? I don't follow your argument.


Using your argument, I suceeded in showing that

(√n − [√n]) is not bounded above by any number of the form (√m − [√m]). Maybe I am missing something but that doesn't prove suprema.
Dick
Dick is online now
#8
Oct3-10, 09:34 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,174
Uh, pick a_n=n^2-1. That's the worst case in some sense. What is [n^2-1]? What's the limit as n->infinity of the difference? And for Simkate, please don't double post again, ok?
╔(σ_σ)╝
╔(σ_σ)╝ is offline
#9
Oct3-10, 09:41 PM
╔(σ_σ)╝'s Avatar
P: 851
Quote Quote by Dick View Post
Uh, pick a_n=n^2-1. That's the worst case in some sense. What is [n^2-1]? What's the limit as n->infinity of the difference? And for Simkate, please don't double post again, ok?
Either it is too late at night and my brain it shut off or I just don't understand what you mean.

Did you not say

f(n) = sqrt(n) - [sqrt(n)]

Then

f(a_n) = sqrt(n^2 -1) - [ sqrt(n^2 -1)]



Seems to me like this may not even converge.

For some large n we could find f(a_n) =0
Dick
Dick is online now
#10
Oct3-10, 09:54 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 25,174
Quote Quote by ╔(σ_σ)╝ View Post
Either it is too late at night and my brain it shut off or I just don't understand what you mean.

Did you not say

f(n) = sqrt(n) - [sqrt(n)]

Then

f(a_n) = sqrt(n^2 -1) - [ sqrt(n^2 -1)]



Seems to me like this may not even converge.

For some large n we could find f(a_n) =0
Possibly it is too late. f(a_n) is only going to be equal to zero if sqrt(n^2-1) is an integer. What is [sqrt(n^2-1)]? There's a pretty simple answer.
╔(σ_σ)╝
╔(σ_σ)╝ is offline
#11
Oct3-10, 10:02 PM
╔(σ_σ)╝'s Avatar
P: 851
Quote Quote by Dick View Post
Possibly it is too late. f(a_n) is only going to be equal to zero if sqrt(n^2-1) is an integer. What is [sqrt(n^2-1)]? There's a pretty simple answer.
I see it . n-1.

It is defintely too late for me to be thinking :(.


Your solution works. Hopefully OP can use it.
In the analysis books I have seen limits appear after suprema and the like.
Mine is certainly like that.
Inferior89
Inferior89 is offline
#12
Oct3-10, 10:31 PM
P: 129
Quote Quote by ╔(σ_σ)╝ View Post
I see it . n-1.

It is defintely too late for me to be thinking :(.


Your solution works. Hopefully OP can use it.
In the analysis books I have seen limits appear after suprema and the like.
Mine is certainly like that.
Edit: Oh lol.. I go to bed now. Missed the []
--------------------------------
sqrt(n^2 + 1) = n-1 wooot?
I think he meant that it is never an integer because for it to be an integer it need to be a quadratic number which n^2 + 1 never is.
╔(σ_σ)╝
╔(σ_σ)╝ is offline
#13
Oct3-10, 10:36 PM
╔(σ_σ)╝'s Avatar
P: 851
Quote Quote by Inferior89 View Post
Edit: Oh lol.. I go to bed now. Missed the []
--------------------------------
sqrt(n^2 + 1) = n-1 wooot?
I think he meant that it is never an integer because for it to be an integer it need to be a quadratic number which n^2 + 1 never is.
We both need sleep

btw it was
[sqrt(n^2 -1) ] = n-1

Haha...sleeeeeeppppppppppp.:)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Find the supremum and infimum of S, where S is the set S = {√n − [√n]} Calculus & Beyond Homework 8
arcsin(sin√5) Calculus & Beyond Homework 9
v=√(GM/(R+h) at any direction? General Astronomy 3
Find the point on the curve y=√(4x) that is closest the the point (3,0) Calculus & Beyond Homework 3
[SOLVED] √x-3 + √x = 3 more simple algebra Precalculus Mathematics Homework 11