The definition of 'Bounded above' states that:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

If E⊂S and S is an ordered set, there exists a β∈S such that x≤β for all x∈E. Then E is bounded above.

The 'Least Upper Bound Property' states that:

If E⊂S, S be an ordered set, E≠Φ (empty set) and E is bounded above, then supE (Least Upper Bound) exists in S.

My question is that why doesn't the definition of 'Bounded Above' include E≠Φ? Is there a problem when E=Φ? If not, then why does it matter when E=Φ for the 'Least Upper Bound Property'?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# About definition of 'Bounded above' and 'Least Upper Bound Property'

Loading...

Similar Threads - definition 'Bounded above' | Date |
---|---|

B Question about a limit definition | Feb 27, 2018 |

I Bounded above definition | Apr 10, 2016 |

Definite integrals with -infinity low bound | Feb 21, 2012 |

Confused by separate definitions of sets which are bounded above | Aug 23, 2011 |

Confused about the definition of a bounded sequence. | Feb 25, 2011 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**