1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Intro to Real Analysis Proof

  1. Sep 28, 2008 #1
    I am really having a hard time in this intro to real analysis class. I feel as if I'm the only one in class who isn't getting it. I have an extremely hard time thinking abstractly and constructing my own proofs. I know I need a lot of practice. Here is the problem we have to prove:


    Claim: Let A be a nonempty subset of R (all real numbers -- how do I type the symbol for real numbers?). If α = sup A is finite, show that for each ε > 0, there is an a in A such that α – ε < a ≤ α.

    My attempt of a proof: Assume α = sup A is finite. Then A is bounded above because it is not empty and its supremum is finite (by the definition that if E is a nonempty subset of R (all reals), we set sup E = ∞ if E is not bounded above). [my question is where does the “ε” come from?] By definition of supremum, there is an element ß in R such that ß < α and ß is not an upper bound. In this case let ε be the ß where ε > 0. Knowing α is the supremum, ε < α, so there is an element a in A such that ε < a ≤ α or α – ε < a ≤ α.

    *I also need to prove the converse of this statement which is:
    "Let A be a nonempty subset of R (all real numbers) that is bounded above by α. Prove that if for every ε > 0 there is an a in A such that α – ε < a ≤ α, then α = sup A."

    When proving the converse, isn't it just basically working backwards?
    So I would write: Assume that for every ε > 0 there is an a in A such that α – ε < a ≤ α.
    A is nonempty and bounded above by α (given). Then α = sup A is finite by the definition of supremum.

    I feel really confused and lost here. I'm really afraid of this class. I need to pass it because it is only offered every 2 years.

    Any help, suggestions, and guidance is greatly appreciated.
    Thank you.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 28, 2008 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Your basic idea is good but you cannot say "let [itex]\epsilon[/itex] be" something. You have to show that this is true no matter what [itex]\epsilon[/itex] is. I would have started a little differently:
    Given any [itex]\epsilon> 0[/itex], α- [itex]\epsilon[/itex]< α so is not an upper bound on A. Since it is not an upperbound, there exist x in A such that x> α-[itex]\epsilon[/itex].
     
  4. Oct 10, 2010 #3
    I have to prove this same question for my real analysis class. My is at the graduate level and I feel like a complete idiot (however, I know I am not) Help me too.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Intro to Real Analysis Proof
  1. Intro to Real Analysis (Replies: 4)

  2. Intro to real analysis (Replies: 1)

Loading...