(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); 1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

let A be a set of all positive rational number such that [itex]p^2<2[/itex]

B be a set of all positive rational number such that [itex]p^2>2[/itex]

2. Relevant equations

n/a

3. The attempt at a solution

Set A is clearly non empty, and is a subset of real number, anyway i can choose 3 is upperbound, therefore upperbound exist, so by completeness axiom, supremum exist.

But the book here said

"Set A is bounded above, in fact every element in B a the upperbound of A. Since B has no smallest element, A has no least upper bound/ supremum in Q."

i'm really sure i'm not wrong. But am i wrong?

p/s; i just realised that this book define least-upper-bound property(more general case from completeness axiom), and also above example are the counterexample that proves Q does not have least-upper-bound property(follows from what the book have shown, not mine).

But aren't this contradicting the completeness axiom?

since Q is a subset of R, and any non-empty subset of Q that bounded from above has supremum(from completeness axiom), therefore Q has the least-upper-bound property.

help, where i gone wrong T_T

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

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!

# Completeness axiom

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**