1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Am I correctly using the properties of the supremum in this proof?

  1. Aug 28, 2011 #1
    Hi, I was wondering if I correctly applied the properties of the supremum of a set to solve the following proof. I feel like I "cheated" in the sense that I said, "Let s = Sup(B) - epsilon.

    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    If [itex]\sup A < \sup B[/itex], then show that there exists an element [itex]b \in B[/itex] that is an upper bound for [itex]\sup A[/itex].


    2. Relevant equations
    None


    3. The attempt at a solution
    proof3.jpg
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 28, 2011 #2
    You are essentially correct but here are some thoughts. This element s you claim is any arbitrary upper bound for A. Being any arbitrary upper bound for A there is no guarantee that s is less than sup B (hence epsilon is positive). You would need to argue that such an s exists between sup A and sup B. This isn't hard. But take this even further: recall sup A itself is already an upper bound for A, so instead of using this extra s, your proof works fine using just sup A (which we don't need to argue is less than sup B because it is given to us).

    Your intuition that you cheated is so probably because there are a few small steps in reasoning jumped over by invoking lemma 1.3.7. If you think through lemma 1.3.7 as well, I believe you will feel more confident in your argument. (The crux of the lemma, of course, is that sup B is the least upper bound for B, hence there must be elements in B arbitrarily close to sup B.)
     
  4. Aug 28, 2011 #3
    Thank you for taking the time to help me. I'm not sure what you mean by disregard s. I reworked my proof and found I needed to use an s. What are your thoughts on the new proof?


    proof4.jpg
     
  5. Aug 29, 2011 #4
    Yes, this works. Here is what I meant by not using s, however. See if this also makes sense as a simplification:

    We know sup A < sup B. Let ε = sup B - sup A, which is positive. By Lemma 1.3.7, there exists a b ∈ B such that b > sup B - ε = sup A. Thus, b is an upper bound for A.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Am I correctly using the properties of the supremum in this proof?
Loading...