Equivalent formulations of completeness

  • Thread starter Bipolarity
  • Start date
  • #1
775
1
So far, I have encountered the following formulations of completeness and was wondering whether they are all equivalent:

1) Supremum principle: Every nonempty bounded subset of ℝ has a supremum.
2) Infimum principle: Every nonempty bounded subset of ℝ has an infimum.
3) Monotone sequence property: Every monotonic bounded sequence in ℝ converges to an element of ℝ
4) Dedekind completeness: If S and T form a Dedekind cut of ℝ such that S < T, then either S has a largest element or T has a smallest element.
5) Cauchy completeness: Every Cauchy sequence in a metric space converges to an element of that metric space.
6) Nested interval property: The (infinite) intersection of every nested sequence of closed balls (in an arbitrary metric space) whose radii tend to zero is nonempty.

I have proved equivalence of 1, 2 and 4. I have also proved that 1 implies 3. Is it true that 3 implies 1? Clearly, 5 and 6 are defined for arbitrary metric spaces, but do they become equivalent statements to the others if we regard ℝ as a metric space with the standard Euclidean metric?

Thanks for clarifications. Do not state proofs. I just want to know whether they're equivalent. I will do proofs myself, thanks!

BiP
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
14,865
12,380
I would try to prove ##4 \Longleftrightarrow 6##. Since ##5## and ##4## should be equivalent, only ##3 \Longrightarrow n## will be left with any ##n\neq 3##. It's probably easiest to prove ##n =1## or ##n=2##.
 

Related Threads on Equivalent formulations of completeness

  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
908
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Top