Least upper bound analysis proof

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that if A is a nonempty set bounded above and B is a nonempty subset of A, then B is also bounded above, and the least upper bound of B is less than or equal to that of A. It is established that since every element of B is also in A, any upper bound of A is also an upper bound for B. The least upper bound of B must therefore be less than or equal to the least upper bound of A, as any upper bound for A serves as an upper bound for B. Suggestions for improving the mathematical rigor of the argument are provided, emphasizing clarity and precision in the proof. The overall consensus is that the argument can be expressed more succinctly and mathematically.
dancergirlie
Messages
194
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Assume that A and B are nonempty sets, that A is bounded above, and that B is contained in A. Prove that B is bounded above and that the least upper bound of B is less than or equal to the least upper bound of A.

Homework Equations



Definition: Least Upper bound: Let s be the least upper bound then:
1)s is an upper bound (a set A contained in R is bounded above if there exists an element b in R such that a is less than or equal to b for all elements a in A.)
2)if b is any upper bound of A then s is less than or equal to b.

The Attempt at a Solution


a
Assume A and B are nonempty sets and that A is bounded above. Meaning, A is contained in R and that there exists an element c in R so that c is greater than or equal to a, for all a in A.
Now assume that B is contained in A, meaning every element in B is also an element of A. Since A has an upper bound (c) and every element of B is also an element of A, that means c is also an upper bound for for B. Therefore B is bounded above
**not sure if this is a good argument or not**

If B is contained in A that means, that there are no element in B that are greater than any of the elements in A. Therefore, the least upper bound of B must be less than or equal to the least upper bound of A.

**this seems rather short, I feel like i need to say more**


Any help/tips would be appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dancergirlie said:

Homework Statement



Assume that A and B are nonempty sets, that A is bounded above, and that B is contained in A. Prove that B is bounded above and that the least upper bound of B is less than or equal to the least upper bound of A.

Homework Equations



Definition: Least Upper bound: Let s be the least upper bound then:
1)s is an upper bound (a set A contained in R is bounded above if there exists an element b in R such that a is less than or equal to b for all elements a in A.)
2)if b is any upper bound of A then s is less than or equal to b.

The Attempt at a Solution


a
Assume A and B are nonempty sets and that A is bounded above. Meaning, A is contained in R and that there exists an element c in R so that c is greater than or equal to a, for all a in A.
Now assume that B is contained in A, meaning every element in B is also an element of A. Since A has an upper bound (c) and every element of B is also an element of A, that means c is also an upper bound for for B. Therefore B is bounded above
**not sure if this is a good argument or not**

If B is contained in A that means, that there are no element in B that are greater than any of the elements in A. Therefore, the least upper bound of B must be less than or equal to the least upper bound of A.

**this seems rather short, I feel like i need to say more**


Any help/tips would be appreciated!

Your first paragraph is correct but I would phrase it more mathematically. You are given:

B \subset A \subset R.

c is an upper bound for A means that for all a \in A, a \leq c.

Now suppose b \in B. Then b \in A since B \subset A. Therefore b <= c since c is an upper bound for A. Hence c is an upper bound for B.

Notice that I haven't changed your argument at all, just expressed it more mathematically.

For the second part, your statement "If B is contained in A that means, that there are no element in B that are greater than any of the elements in A" is very imprecise. You might have better luck with an indirect argument. Start by assuming by way of contradiction that the least upper bound of B is greater than that of A and see what goes wrong.
 
You don't need an indirect argument for the second part. What you've essentially shown in the first part is that any upper bound for A is going to be an upper bound for B. In particular, the least upper bound of A is an upper bound of A and hence an upper bound for B. Now what can you say about the least upper bound for B?
 
Let \alpha be the least upper bound for A. Then \alpha is an upper bound for A. Since B is a subset of A, \alpha is an upper bound for B. Therefore, the least upper bound for B is ...

That's even shorter!
 
thanks for the help everyone, it makes a lot more sense now :)
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K