The problem is attached. The official solution to this problem is a proof from the contrary.
I decided to go the straight-forward way. Would you check if I am correct? Thank you in advance.
You said earlier that in my last sentence, it does not necessarily imply that one follows another. And you deleted the post. Did you change your mind?
Wait, what?! There were two deleted posts? I thought that last bit was directed towards me.
First: to say that a nonempty set of reals T is bounded below means that there exists a [itex]v[/itex] such that [itex] v\leq t[/itex] for all [itex]t\in T[/itex]. You evidently know this, but you've just worded it strangely.
You see, I am awfully bad with wording; and this is my biggest weakness. I don't know if I can ever improve that. Thanks for the note!