How to Prove that l is the Least Upper Bound of a Set S of Real Numbers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter roam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity Limit
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a given real number \( l \) is the least upper bound (lub) of a nonempty set \( S \) of real numbers. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the requirements of the proof, particularly the condition involving \( \epsilon \). Participants are exploring the implications of the definition of least upper bounds and the nature of upper bounds in relation to the set \( S \).

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of assuming that \( l \) is not the least upper bound, leading to a contradiction. There are questions about the relationship between \( l \) and \( l - \epsilon \), as well as the relevance of limits and functions in the context of the proof.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided hints and suggestions for approaching the proof, particularly the idea of proof by contradiction. There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions and relationships involved, but no consensus has been reached on the specifics of the proof.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the use of limits and functions, which are not explicitly mentioned in the original problem statement. The participants are also grappling with the implications of the definitions of upper bounds and least upper bounds.

roam
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
12
Let [tex]l \in R[/tex] be the least upper bound of a nonempty set S of real numbers.
Show that for every [tex]\epsilon < 0[/tex] there is an [tex]x \in S[/tex] such that
[tex]x > l - \epsilon[/tex]




I don't understand this question very well, I appreciate it if you could give me some hints.



l is the l.u.b on S, therefore it is greater than or equal to any [tex]s \in S[/tex]

By the definition of the limit; |f(x)-l| < ε if 0 < |x-a| < δ

l-ε < x < l+ε

|f(x)-l| < ε

"?"
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose it's NOT true. Then there is an epsilon such that x<=l-epsilon for all x in S. Can l really be lub(S)?
 
Thanks, so that's how you derive the contradiction.

But could you explain it in more detail please(especially the last bit)?

I appreciate that.
 
l is supposed to be the LEAST upper bound. If x<=l-epsilon for all x in S, then l-epsilon is ALSO an upper bound. What the order relation between l and l-epsilon?
 
roam said:
Let [tex]l \in R[/tex] be the least upper bound of a nonempty set S of real numbers.
Show that for every [tex]\epsilon < 0[/tex] there is an [tex]x \in S[/tex] such that
[tex]x > l - \epsilon[/tex]




I don't understand this question very well, I appreciate it if you could give me some hints.



l is the l.u.b on S, therefore it is greater than or equal to any [tex]s \in S[/tex]

By the definition of the limit; |f(x)-l| < ε if 0 < |x-a| < δ

What limit and what f(x) are you talking about? There is no function nor limit of a function mentioned in the problem

l-ε < x < l+ε

|f(x)-l| < ε

"?"
Dick has given the hint you need: use proof by contradiction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K