Can You Prove the Inequality of Supremums Theorem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter *melinda*
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the Inequality of Supremums Theorem, specifically the statement that for any non-empty sets A and B of real numbers, the supremum of their intersection, sup(A ∩ B), is less than or equal to the supremum of A, sup(A). Participants explore the proof structure, starting with the trivial case where A ∩ B is empty, leading to the conclusion that sup(A ∩ B) ≤ sup(A). The conversation emphasizes the need for a formal proof rather than relying on visual intuition from number line diagrams.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of real number sets and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concept of supremum (least upper bound)
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical proof techniques
  • Ability to work with inequalities in real analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the formal definition of supremum in real analysis
  • Learn about the properties of upper bounds and their implications
  • Explore proof techniques in real analysis, such as contradiction and direct proof
  • Investigate examples of supremum inequalities in different contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of supremums and their applications in proofs.

*melinda*
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Theorem:

For every non empty set E of real numbers that is bounded above there exists a unique real number sup(E) such that

1. sup(E) is an upper bound for E.

2. if y is an upper bound for E then y \geq sup(E).


Prove:

sup(A\cap B)\leq sup(A)

I can show a special case of this,

if A\cap B=\emptyset, then sup(A\cap B)\leq sup(A).

Nothing is less than something, right?

Now here's my problem...
Beyond the trivial case, all I have been able to do is draw pictures of sets on a number line. The pictures make the inequality really obvious, but I don't think that pictorial intuition counts as a real proof.

Could anyone give me a pointer on how to set up a real proof?

thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok break that inequality into two parts
first prove the equal to part. How would you do that . Assume the su pof A and B are something and that they are equal. That way you can prove the equality part
Then assume that the sup of A is greater than the Sup B. Now what is sup (a inter B) ? What is it less than?
 
Ok, this is what I have for the equality part if I'm understanding you right.

let sup(A)=sup(B)

then sup(A\cap B)=sup(A)


And the inequality would look like this?

let sup(B)\leq sup(A)

then sup(A\cap B)\leq sup(A)


Is that right?
It seems too simple...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
826
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K