Infimun and supremum of empty set

Edwinkumar
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Why do we define(by convention) that infimum of an empty set as \infty and supremum as -\infty?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not a convention -- it follows directly from the definition of the supremum as the least upper bound and the infimum as the greatest lower bound.
 
Remember that we say M is an upper bound for X if for all x in X... so if X is the empty set then this is never true. Now, "false implies true is true", i.e. all possible real numbers are upper bounds for the the empty set.
 
Thanks Hurkyl and matt grime for your replies. Yes I got it now!
 
For original Zeta function, ζ(s)=1+1/2^s+1/3^s+1/4^s+... =1+e^(-slog2)+e^(-slog3)+e^(-slog4)+... , Re(s)>1 Riemann extended the Zeta function to the region where s≠1 using analytical extension. New Zeta function is in the form of contour integration, which appears simple but is actually more inconvenient to analyze than the original Zeta function. The original Zeta function already contains all the information about the distribution of prime numbers. So we only handle with original Zeta...
Back
Top