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
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
4 replies · 9K views
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.