Infimum and supremum of empty set

strobeda
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I can't wrap my mind around this:

inf∅= ∞
sup∅= - ∞

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
inf∅ is artificially defined to be ∞ so that inf will work well. Suppose we had defined inf∅ = 998 and we had a set with one element, 999. Then we want inf({999}) = 999. But since ∅ is also a subset of {999}, we would have inf({999}) = inf∅ = 998. The only way to avoid this problem is to make inf∅ greater than any possible number. So inf∅ = ∞. Similarly we have to define sup∅ smaller than any possible number. So sup∅ = -∞.

In a sense, this is just getting ∅ out of the way of the calculation of inf and sup.
 
Indeed, it gets ∅ out of the way!

Thank you very much, FactChecker!
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top