Find Sup and prove it only using the basic definition

  • Thread starter Thread starter mkln
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves finding the supremum of a set A defined by a recursive sequence and proving that this value is indeed the supremum using only the basic definition from Rudin's Chapter 1. The context is rooted in real analysis, specifically dealing with properties of sequences and upper bounds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the method of finding the supremum and express confusion about proving that the identified supremum is the least upper bound. Questions arise regarding the assumptions made about the sequence and the implications of not using limits or convergence concepts.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the reasoning behind identifying the supremum, while others emphasize the need to adhere strictly to the definitions and constraints outlined in the homework. There is an ongoing exploration of how to demonstrate the properties of the supremum without relying on advanced concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the constraint of using only the material from Rudin's Chapter 1, which limits the tools available for proving the properties of the supremum. This restriction has led to discussions about the implications of the sequence's behavior and the definitions of upper bounds.

mkln
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone. I am trying to solve this problem, but I cannot manage to get a satisfactory solution. It's actually interesting, if only it was for self-knowledge and not for a grade.

Homework Statement


Let A be in R and such that:
[itex]A:=\{a_1, a_2, ...\}[/itex]
with
[itex]a_1 = 1;[/itex]
[itex]a_{k+1} = 1+ a^{1/2}_k[/itex]

find supA. (easy: [itex]supA= \frac{3+5^{1/2}}{2}[/itex])

Homework Equations



prove that what you found is actually the sup of A by using the definition of supremum, that is:
(i) it is an upperbound
(ii) it is smaller than or equal to any other upper bound

or (ii)' any smaller number is not an upper bound

The Attempt at a Solution




I'm stuck! I can show that [itex]\frac{3+5^{1/2}}{2}[/itex] is an upper bound.

Assuming that A has a supremum, and calling it [itex]\gamma[/itex] then I cannot show that [itex]\gamma = \frac{3+5^{1/2}}{2}[/itex]

The problem to me is proving that there can be no element of A between [itex]\gamma[/itex] and [itex]\frac{3+5^{1/2}}{2}[/itex]

I know there are elements of A just before [itex]\gamma[/itex] and I also know that there are no elements of A after [itex]\frac{3+5^{1/2}}{2}[/itex]
I cannot show that if [itex]\gamma < \frac{3+5^{1/2}}{2}[/itex] then there will be a "jump" from one element of A smaller than gamma to an element of A larger than gamma.
I'm left with this "gap".

Constraint: I am supposed to show this using ONLY Rudin, Chapter 1 (so no limits, no convergence, no sequence concepts. Just sets and supremum


Thank you!

M.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you are not to use limits, how did you find sup(A) so "easily"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
Well, how did you determine that the supremum was [itex](3+ \sqrt{5})/2[/itex]? I would bet that you did it by showing that [itex]\{a_n\}[/itex] was an increasing sequence having, say, 3, as upper bound and so converges. Once you know it has an upper bound, it must be true, by taking the limit on both sides of [itex]a_{k+1}= 1+ \sqrt{a_k}[/itex], that the upper bound, [itex]\gamma[/itex] satisfies [itex]a= 1+ \sqrt{a}[/itex]. That is the same as [itex]a- 1= \sqrt{a}[/itex] and, squaring both sides, [itex]a^2- 2a+ 1= a[/itex] so [itex]a^2- 3a= -1[/itex]. Completing the square, [itex]a^2- 3a+ 9/4= -1+ 9/4= 5/4[/itex]. So [itex]a- 3/2= \pm\sqrt{5}[/itex] and [itex]a= (3\pm\sqrt{5})/2[/itex]. Since [itex]\{a_n\}[/itex] starts with 1 and increases, it cannot converge to [itex](3- \sqrt{5})/2< 1[/itex] so it must converge to [itex](3+ \sqrt{5})/2[/itex].
Is that what you did- or did you use the quadratic formula?

But "converges to" means "for any [itex]\epsilon> 0[/itex] there exist N such that if n> N, [itex]|a_n- (3+\sqrt{5})/2|< \epsilon[/itex]. Since [itex]\{a_n\}[/itex] is an increasing sequence, [itex]a_n< (3+ \sqrt{5})/2[/itex] and that reduces to [itex](3+ \sqrt{5})/2-a_n< \epsilon[/itex].

Okay, if there exist an upper bound, [itex]\gamma< (3+ \sqrt{5})/2[/itex], take [itex]\epsilon= (3+ \sqrt{5})/2- \gamma[/itex] and show that you get a contradiction.
I found the supremum thinking of the expression as being a difference equation, but this does not matter.
The problem with this problem (sic) is that we are supposed to limit ourselves to sets and the definition of supremum.
Therefore we cannot use concepts such as sequences, or limits.
In particular, let me quote:

Note that ... you can use
the monotone convergence theorem ... in order to figure out the answer.

... you need to verify that this number is indeed sup A
using only material from Chapter 1, i.e. you need to verify
the properties (i) and (ii) in Definition 1.8.

In other words, I need to show that that number is an upper bound smaller than or equal to all other upper bounds.

I really wish I could use limits, but the problem explicitly excludes this possibility.
 
HallsofIvy said:
If you are not to use limits, how did you find sup(A) so "easily"?

We're not even supposed to show how we find that number. We are only asked to prove it is the supremum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
920
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K