Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: 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


    User Avatar
    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook