open and closed intervals and real numbers


by reb659
Tags: intervals, numbers, real
reb659
reb659 is offline
#1
Oct16-10, 06:48 PM
P: 64
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

Show that:

Let S be a subset of the real numbers such that S is bounded above and below and
if some x and y are in S with x not equal to y, then all numbers between x and y are in S.


then there exist unique numbers a and b in R with a<b such that S is one of the intervals (a,b), [a,b), (a,b], or [a,b].




2. Relevant equations



3. The attempt at a solution

Assume if x and y are elements of S with x not equal to y, then all numbers between x and y are in S and S is bounded above and below.

Thus there exists a M, N such that M is greater than or equal to the maximal element of S and N is smaller than the minimal element of S. Also all elements between x and y are inside (M,N).
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
SensaBubble: It's a bubble, but not as we know it (w/ video)
The hemihelix: Scientists discover a new shape using rubber bands (w/ video)
Microbes provide insights into evolution of human language
tiny-tim
tiny-tim is offline
#2
Oct16-10, 07:06 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,167
hi reb659!

i think i'd start by proving that there must be a greatest lower bound and a least upper bound, and then call them a and b, and carry on from there.
reb659
reb659 is offline
#3
Oct16-10, 07:12 PM
P: 64
Good idea.

Isn't it an axiom that if a nonempty subset of R has an upper bound, then it has a least upper bound/sup(S)?

tiny-tim
tiny-tim is offline
#4
Oct16-10, 07:20 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,167

open and closed intervals and real numbers


I don't think it's an axiom, I think it's the Dedekind-completeness theorem:

A bounded real-valued function has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound.

(See Rolle's theorem in the PF Library )
reb659
reb659 is offline
#5
Oct17-10, 11:54 PM
P: 64
So far:

Since S is bounded above and below, by Dedekind completeness there exists a supremum of S. Call it b. Again by dedekind completeness we can say there exists an infimum of S. Call it b. By definition of sup and inf, a<b. We are left to show a,b are unique and that S is exactly one of the intervals in the OP.

To show this, can't we consider four simple different cases in which a,b are either in S or outside of it?
tiny-tim
tiny-tim is offline
#6
Oct18-10, 01:43 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,167
Yup, that's the proof!
reb659
reb659 is offline
#7
Oct19-10, 11:45 AM
P: 64
Yay!

How exactly does uniqueness follow though? It seems like its trivial to prove.
tiny-tim
tiny-tim is offline
#8
Oct19-10, 12:24 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,167
as you said, "by Dedekind completeness there exists a supremum of S"

there can't be two supremums, can there?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Every open set in R is a countable union of open intervals. Prove. Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 1
Open subsets are a union of disjoint open intervals Calculus & Beyond Homework 2
Bounded Open Subset as Open Intervals Calculus & Beyond Homework 4
Countably Many Subdivisions of the Real Line into Open Intervals Calculus & Beyond Homework 7
Real Analysis -Open/Closed sets of Metric Spaces Calculus & Beyond Homework 6