Definition of supremum and infimum using epsilons ?

  • Level: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AxiomOfChoice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Supremum
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
5 replies · 12K views
AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1
Is this what it is:

"For every [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] there exists [itex]x\in A[/itex] such that [itex]x \leq \inf A + \epsilon[/itex]."

...and similarly for the supremum?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, that's not quite it. Any number y which is greater than all numbers in A would satisfy your definition.
 
Well in the first definition the OP said "there exists", so really the concern of upper bounds isn't really important. This is a useful proposition, and sometimes the inequality is strict, though that doesn't matter all that much.
 
What "first definition"? Are you talking about something other than:

"For every [tex]\epsilon > 0[/tex] there exists [tex]x\in A[/tex] such that [tex]x \leq \inf A + \epsilon .[/tex]"?

While that is true about the infinimum, it won't do for the definition for the reason I gave.
 
LCKurtz said:
What "first definition"? Are you talking about something other than:

"For every [tex]\epsilon > 0[/tex] there exists [tex]x\in A[/tex] such that [tex]x \leq \inf A + \epsilon .[/tex]"?

While that is true about the infinimum, it won't do for the definition for the reason I gave.

That's correct. We must also state that inf A is a lower bound.
 
Yeah I realized I was thinking of the theorem that states that if L is a lower bound for a set A in R, then L = inf A iff for every epsilon > 0, there is an x in A with x - L < epsilon. My apologies, of course it's not a definition.