Register to reply

Open and closed intervals and real numbers

by reb659
Tags: intervals, numbers, real
Share this thread:
reb659
#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
Guidelines for enhancing solar cells using surface plasmon polaritons
Trees and shrubs invading critical grasslands, diminish cattle production
Climate change will threaten fish by drying out Southwest US streams, research predicts
tiny-tim
#2
Oct16-10, 07:06 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,148
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
#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
#4
Oct16-10, 07:20 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,148
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
#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
#6
Oct18-10, 01:43 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,148
Yup, that's the proof!
reb659
#7
Oct19-10, 11:45 AM
P: 64
Yay!

How exactly does uniqueness follow though? It seems like its trivial to prove.
tiny-tim
#8
Oct19-10, 12:24 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
tiny-tim's Avatar
P: 26,148
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