Greatest Lower Bound: Prove It!

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mariouma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bound
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the statement that a nonempty set of real numbers bounded from below has a greatest lower bound. The scope includes mathematical analysis and foundational concepts related to real numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests help in proving the statement regarding the greatest lower bound.
  • Another participant prompts for the definition of the greatest lower bound and asks for the inquirer's thoughts on the question.
  • A definition of a lower bound and greatest lower bound is provided, explaining the conditions for an element to qualify as such.
  • A suggestion is made to consider the set -A and use the completeness axiom to find the least upper bound on -A, which may aid in finding the greatest lower bound of A.
  • A participant emphasizes that the topic is mathematical analysis rather than number theory and references a textbook for further reading.
  • There is a discussion about the completeness axiom, with one participant questioning whether it can be assumed that a set with an upper bound has a least upper bound.
  • Another participant suggests that the completeness axiom can be proven from the Dedekind cut definition of real numbers, mentioning that it is straightforward.
  • Dedekind cuts and Cauchy sequences are mentioned as methods to prove the statement regarding the completeness axiom.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the completeness axiom can be assumed or needs to be proven, indicating a lack of consensus on this point.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the definitions and properties of real numbers, particularly regarding the completeness axiom and its implications for lower bounds.

mariouma
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
please i need your help!

prove: "A nonempty set of real numbers bounded from below has a greatest lower bound."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This looks like homework. What thoughts do you have on the question? What is the definition of the greatest lower bound of a set?
 
A lower bound of a non-empty subset A of R is an element d in R with d <= a for all a A.
An element m in R is a greatest lower bound or infimum of A if
m is a lower bound of A and if d is an upper bound of A then m >= d.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so here A is bounded below, so this tells you that there exists a lower bound to A. It may now be helpful to consider the set
-A:={-x:x∈A}, and use the completeness axiom to find the least upper bound on -A. The relationship between A and -A should help you find the greatest lower bound of A.
 
this is not number theory

this is not number theory, but it is instead mathematical analysis.

it is a very basic result that has been used to construct the real numbers and i think you will find it in any standard intro to analysis textbook (i personally recommend principles of mathematical analysis by Walter Rudin).

hope it helps

Aditya Babel
 
Mariouma and Cristo are assuming that you are allowed to use the fact that "if a set of real numbers has an upper bound then it has a least upper bound"- what Cristo called the "completeness axiom". Is that true?

adityab88 is, I think, assuming that you have to prove that completenss axiom from the definition of the real numbers. It very easy to do that from the Dedekind cut definition of the real numbers.
 
dedekind cuts/ cauchy sequences

HallsofIvy said:
Mariouma and Cristo are assuming that you are allowed to use the fact that "if a set of real numbers has an upper bound then it has a least upper bound"- what Cristo called the "completeness axiom". Is that true?

adityab88 is, I think, assuming that you have to prove that completenss axiom from the definition of the real numbers. It very easy to do that from the Dedekind cut definition of the real numbers.

precisely. dedekind cuts or even cauchy sequences can be used prove such a statement.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K