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!

Can a set include negative infinity and be bounded below

  1. Oct 13, 2017 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Prove that {##x \epsilon \mathbb{R} : x^2 \ge 1##} is "not" bounded below.
    EDIT: I Looked closely and realized there is a "not" that we all had to write in...sorry if you lost some time..

    2. Relevant equations
    Defintion: We say a nonempty subset ##A## of ##\mathbb{R}## is bounded below, if there is a real number ##m## such that ##m \le x## for all ##x \epsilon A##. We call such an ##m## an lower bound of ##A##.

    3. The attempt at a solution
    I don't think this is bounded below.

    Proof: This will be a proof by contradiction. Suppose ##m## is a lower bound of the set A ={##x \epsilon \mathbb{R} : x^2 \ge 1##}. Then ##m \le x## for all ##x \epsilon A##. But ##m - 1 < m## and ##m - 1 \epsilon A##.(Not sure how to prove that last statement). Therefore ##m > (m-1)## and ##(m-1) \epsilon A##. Therefore m is not a lower bound, a contradiction. We conclude there does not exist a lower bound of A and A is not bounded below. []

    Edit: in class we proved that the statement was True and had 3 cases but I don't see why the proof makes sense.

    Consider 3 cases:

    Case 1: Let ##m < -1## Let ##x = m - 1##. Then ##x = m - 1 < m##.

    Case 2: Let ##m \epsilon [-1,1]##. Let ##x = m-4##. Then ##x = m - 4 < m##.

    Case 3: Let ##m > 1##. Then ##x = -m##. Then ##x = -m < m##.

    So we showed for any real number m, there exists an x such that x < m. Which I guess fulfills the definition. But i'm saying since the ##A## is going toward negative infinity, then I can always find a ##k## such that ##k < x##.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 13, 2017 #2

    FactChecker

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Are you considering the negative numbers x where x2 ≥ 1? How low can those go?
     
  4. Oct 13, 2017 #3
    To negative infinity
     
  5. Oct 13, 2017 #4

    FactChecker

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sorry, I didn't realize why there were three cases in the proof and didn't notice exactly what you were asking. Yes, your intuition is right that you can get as great a negative number as you want, but the complication of which region m is in was handled in 3 cases.
    He could have just said something like a = -|m|-200 ∈ A and a < m. That would have taken care of all cases.
     
  6. Oct 13, 2017 #5
    So basically, if a = -|m| - 200 ##\epsilon## A and a < m, it follows that there is no lower bound, because for all elements m ##\epsilon## A, there exists an a ##\epsilon## A, such that a < m.

    edit: had some questions.. but rereading your post a few times answered them...
     
  7. Oct 14, 2017 #6

    FactChecker

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes. And a = -|m| - 200 << -1 is always such a large negative number that it is guaranteed to be in A and lower than m. So there is no need to have 3 cases.
     
  8. Oct 14, 2017 #7

    SammyS

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The title of your thread is misleading - or worse.
    "Can a set include negative infinity and be bounded below" ?​

    The set you describe is a subset of ℝ, the real numbers.

    Neither −∞ , nor ∞ is a real number, so your set does not include −∞ .
     
  9. Oct 14, 2017 #8
    That is my mistake, I see that −∞ is not in (−∞, ∞). What I meant was "If an interval is approaching −∞, can it also be bounded below?". I'm sorry for the carelessness.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted