Greatest Lower Bound: Prove It!

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

The discussion centers on proving that a nonempty set of real numbers bounded from below has a greatest lower bound (infimum). Participants clarify the definition of a lower bound and the completeness axiom, which states that any set of real numbers with an upper bound has a least upper bound. They suggest using the set -A, derived from A, and applying the completeness axiom to establish the greatest lower bound. The conversation emphasizes the foundational role of this result in mathematical analysis, particularly referencing Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis."

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of real numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with the completeness axiom
  • Knowledge of lower bounds and greatest lower bounds (infimum)
  • Concepts of Dedekind cuts and Cauchy sequences
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the completeness axiom in detail
  • Explore Dedekind cuts and their role in real analysis
  • Learn about Cauchy sequences and their significance in defining real numbers
  • Read Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" for foundational concepts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, educators teaching foundational concepts in analysis, and anyone interested in the properties of real numbers and their 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
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
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