1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min 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!

Bounded set proof

  1. Feb 28, 2008 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    If A and B are bounded sets, then A U B is a bounded set.
    (Prove this statement)


    2. Relevant equations

    Definition of Union is a given.

    A set A is bounded iff there exists some real value m such that lxl < m for all element x found in A.


    3. The attempt at a solution

    This makes sense to me. If set A is bounded by M and set B is bounded by N, then A U B will be bounded by which value is higher. I have to keep in mind that the definition of a bounded set has the "iff" term.

    My attempt (this is quite odd looking to me, I don't know how to make it more straightfoward)

    Let x exist in A. Then that means there is a value m where m>lxl by definition of a bounded set.

    Let y exist in B. Then that means there is a value n where n>lyl by definition of a bounded set.

    Thus, x and y exist in A U B by definition of union.

    We know lxl and lyl are < whichever value of m or n is the larger of the two.


    Thus, A U B is a bounded set.

    The bolded step seems oddest, but critique on any part of the proof is welcome. Help!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 28, 2008 #2
    You should really start by assuming that x is in A U B. Then say why there is a constant K such that |x| < K.
     
  4. Feb 28, 2008 #3
    But I'm suppose to prove the implication the other way (if A and B are bounded, then A U B is bounded.), not the other way around. Regardless of whether or not the statement is actually biconditional.
     
  5. Feb 28, 2008 #4
    You are proving a statement about A U B, so you need to start with an arbitrary element in A U B. You can then invoke the known properties of A and B individually to prove the statement regarding the union.
     
  6. Feb 28, 2008 #5
    Reworked:

    Let X exist in A U B
    Thus X exists in A or B by definition of union.
    Cases:
    If x exists in A, then lxl < some real value m by the definition of bounded
    If x exists in B, then lxl < some real value n by the definition of bounded.
    If x exists in both A and B, then X is less than both m and n.
    Subcases (in the case that x is in both A and B)
    If m>n , x must be < n to fit the definition of bounded for both sets.
    If n>m, x must be less then m to fit the definition of bounded for both sets.


    Thus, for all possibities, the value x is less than some real value m or n. Thus, AUB is bounded since x exists in AUB.


    THat seems to make more sense, even if it is a tad convuluted. Is that more fitting?
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2008
  7. Feb 28, 2008 #6
    That's more like it, but the fact that x lies in the union simply means that |x| < max (m,n) which I would call K.
     
  8. Feb 28, 2008 #7
    Wouldn't it be min (m,n)?

    Edit: Never mind, I see, the larger bound of A or B will become the bound of AUB by definition of union.
     
  9. Feb 28, 2008 #8
    - you need to find a single value M s.t. for all x in A u B, we have |x| < M.
    - i don't know why you are saying exists, a more common phrasing is,
    suppose x is in A u B, or, assume x is in A u B, etc

    your idea is right, but to help you out, i'll put parentheses around things that aren't part of the proof.

    Proof. Suppose A and B are bounded. (now we write down what this means). Then there are M and N s.t. for all x in A, |x| < N, and for all x in B, |x| < M. Now suppose x is in A u B. (again, write down what this means). Then x is in A or x is in B.

    (now think for a moment, looking at what you have already done, you know that if x is in A, then |x| < N, and you know that if x is in B, then |x| < M. We need some number K that is bigger than both N and M, so we want the larger of the two, well we can say it in words, let K be the larger of the two, or just K = max{M, N})

    Set K = max{M, N}.

    If x is in A, then |x| < N <= K.
    If x is in B, then |x| < M <= K.

    In any case, |x| < K, so A u B is bounded.

    Edit: Note that it's important to specify a single value K because the definition requires it. There are times when you can't take a maximum and find a single value K(like if you had an infinite union of bounded sets, A U B U C U ..., it's not always possible to find a maximum, depends what the sets are)
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2008
  10. Feb 28, 2008 #9
    Re-reworked

    (The problem on my homework already states to suppose that A and B are bounded with that definition, so I wont need to restate that )

    Let X exist in A U B. Also, let K= max (m,n)
    Thus X exists in A or B by definition of union.
    Cases:
    If x is in A, then lxl < m thus lxl< K
    If x is in B, then lxl < n thus lxl< K
    If x is in both A and B, then lxl over both sets is always less than max (m, n) or lxl < K.


    Thus, for all possibities, the value lxl is less than some real value K. Thus, AUB is bounded since x exists in AUB.

    AM i getting closer?
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2008
  11. Feb 29, 2008 #10

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Since you are dealing with both x in A and x in B, you don't need to deal with "x in A and B" separately.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Bounded set proof
  1. Bounded sets (Replies: 7)

Loading...