| New Reply |
Prove that a set S of numbers has a maximum iff it is bounded above and sup S ε S |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Apr27-12, 10:27 PM | #1 |
|
|
Prove that a set S of numbers has a maximum iff it is bounded above and sup S ε S
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
Sorry that should read and sup S[itex]\in[/itex]S 2. Relevant equations just the definitions of sup, inf, boundedness, and max 3. The attempt at a solution I have tried a few different things, but this question is posted for advice, not just an answer. I am trying to think of a good way to start and we don't use contrapositive proofs in my class. I was thinking I could try proof by contradiction, but then I will have to do 2 cases, first assuming S is not bounded, then assuming supS is not in S. I understand the definitions of the terms, and I could explain why this is true verbally, but I am stuck trying to do it formally. Again, I am not just fishing for an answer, I really need to get these down or I wont pass anyway. 1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data 2. Relevant equations 3. The attempt at a solution |
| Apr27-12, 10:44 PM | #2 |
|
|
This depends on your precise definition of maximum. If you assume S has a maximum, then what do you know about it?
Similarly, if S is bounded above, and the sup S, call it s0, is an element inside of S, then what do we know about s0? |
| Apr27-12, 11:27 PM | #3 |
|
|
[QUOTE=mrchris;3887601]I understand the definitions of the terms, and I could explain why this is true verbally[/b]
Then that's how you should start. Write down explicitly exactly what the definitions are; what you are supposed to assume; and what it is you are required to prove. Then write down your intuitive verbal explanation. When you're stuck those are two things to do to get started. |
| May4-12, 12:08 AM | #4 |
|
|
Prove that a set S of numbers has a maximum iff it is bounded above and sup S ε S
Case 1: S is not bounded above. So this is a direct contradiction to the definition given for a maximum in the book, "a member c of S is called the max of S provided that it is an upper bound for S". Since S is assumed to be unbounded, no number c exists s.t. c is an upper bound for S.
Case 2: Sup S is NOT in S. Then we know for every x in S, x<c, but x can never equal c, since we have assumed sup S is NOT in S. Then we take any positive number epsilon= |(c-x_0)/2|, which can never be equal to 0 because c can never equal x. If we assume some number x_0 is the max of S, then we can take (x_0 + epsilon), where x_0 < (x_0 + epsilon) < c. This is a contradiction to the choice of x_0 as the choice of a maximum. Basically, if Sup S is not in S, then no matter what number x_0 in S that you choose, there exists a number x_0 + |(c-x_0)/2|, s.t. x_0 < (x_0 + |(c-x_0)/2| ) < c. This will contradict any choice of x_0 as a maximum of S. |
| New Reply |
| Tags |
| boundedness, maxima, proof by cases, supremum |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Prove that a set S of numbers has a maximum iff it is bounded above and sup S ε S
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Is the maximum wavelength of light bounded by the size of the universe? | General Physics | 6 | ||
| Prove the formula for the maximum of two numbers | Precalculus Mathematics Homework | 12 | ||
| Prove that f is bounded | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 4 | ||
| prove sequence is bounded | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 3 | ||
| Prove D U D' is bounded | Calculus | 1 | ||