How to prove that something is the supremum of a set?

  • Thread starter AdrianZ
  • Start date
  • #1
AdrianZ
319
0

Homework Statement


well, the problem asks me to find the supremum(lub) of the set A={2x+sqrt(2)y : 0<x<1 , -1<y<2}. It's easy to show that for any x and y given in the defined domain, we have: -sqrt(2) < 2x+sqrt(2)y< 1+2sqrt(2). well, from this inequality, It's clearly seen that 1+2sqrt(2) is an upper bound for the set. but the question is how can I show that this is the supremum of the set or in other words how can I show that this is the least element of the set of the upper bounds of the set A? I know what a supremum means and stuff like that but I don't know what I should precisely do when a problem asks me to find the supremum of the set.

The Attempt at a Solution



-sqrt(2) < a < 1 +2sqrt(2). for any a in A.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,021
970
Did you mistype this? It is easy to see that [itex]1+ 2\sqrt{2}[/itex] is NOT an upper bound for the set [itex]\{2x+ \sqrt{2}y | 0< x< 1, -1< y< 1\}[/itex] because that set contains [itex]1.99+ 1.99\sqrt{2}[/itex] which is larger that [itex]1+ 2\sqrt{2}[/itex].
I assume you meant [itex]2+ 2\sqrt{2}[/itex]. (Or else the set is [itex]x+ y\sqrt{2}[/itex], not [itex]2x+ y\sqrt{2}[/itex].)
 
  • #3
AdrianZ
319
0
Yea, thanks for noting that. I mistakenly typed 1+sqrt(2)2 instead of 2+2sqrt(2).
Now How can I show that's the least upper bound of the set?
 
  • #4
ArcanaNoir
775
4
You might note that the function has no critical points and thus is increasing or decreasing everywhere, then note that it is increasing, and then note that the upper endpoint is [itex] f(1,2) \scriptsize{\text{ which is }} \normalsize 2+2\sqrt2 [/itex]

but this is just a thought, I don't have experience proving something is a supremum of a set. I do know that a function is a set, and this is a function, so it seems reasonable.

Oh, extra thought:
Since the set contains a largest value, the largest value is the supremum. I would include that.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
vela
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
15,563
2,204
Since the set contains a largest value, the largest value is the supremum. I would include that.
The sup isn't in A the way A is defined.
 
  • #6
AdrianZ
319
0
but this is just a thought, I don't have experience proving something is a supremum of a set. I do know that a function is a set, and this is a function, so it seems reasonable.

Yea, that's my problem as well. I know what the supremum of A is. that part is obvious. but I don't know how to write it in a formal way.

The sup isn't in A the way A is defined.
True.

well, this is what I've thought of. we know that because A is a bounded subset of R the supremum exists. since for any a in A we have: -sqrt(2)<2x+sqrt(2)y<2+2sqrt(2) then if a>=2+2sqrt(2) or a<=-sqrt(2) then a is not a member of A. therefore the set U={a in R: a>=2+2sqrt(2)} is the set of the upper bounds. by definition of U, It's clear that 2+sqrt(2) is the minimum of the set and therefore is the least upper bound or the supremum that we want.

but I'm still not so satisfied with all these explanations!
 

Suggested for: How to prove that something is the supremum of a set?

  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
431
Replies
8
Views
549
Replies
18
Views
434
Replies
12
Views
599
Replies
12
Views
402
Replies
12
Views
232
Replies
12
Views
396
Replies
23
Views
508
Top