Least Upper Bound Property ⇒ Archimedean Principle

Someone2841
Messages
43
Reaction score
6
Hello! I was wondering if this proof was correct? Thanks in advance!

Given: A totally ordered field, ##\mathbb{F}##.
Claim: Least Upper Bound Property (l.u.b.) ⇒ Archimedean Principle (AP)

---
Proof. I will show that the contrapositive is true; that is, if ##\mathbb{F}## does not have the AP, it does not satisfy l.u.b.

By assumption, ##\mathbb{F}## has some element S such that for each ##n \in \mathbb{N}, n < S## (that is, it does not satisfy AP). It follows from the totally ordered field axioms that ##kS^{-1} < k/n## for all ##n, k \in \mathbb{N}##. The set ##\{S^{-1},2S^{-1},3S^{-1},4S^{-1},\cdots\}## is then bounded from above (setting ##n=k## shows that ##kS^{-1}## is always less than ##1##) but does not have an upper bound in ##\mathbb{F}##.

Suppose that it does have a least upper bound ##l \in \mathbb{F}##, and so for any two upper bounds ##l, l’ \in \mathbb{F}, l≤l’##. Then ##l## must hold to the inequality ##kS^{-1} < l## for all ##k## (otherwise, ##l## wouldn’t be an upper bound for ##S##). But then ##2kS^{-1}< l ## implies that ##kS^{-1}< l/2 < l##, and ##l/2## is a smaller upper bound for ##S##, contrary to ##l## being the least upper bound. This means that our supposition that ##S## has an upper bound is false, and the l.u.b. does not hold for ##\mathbb{F}##. □

---
Definitions and Notes:

l.u.b. holds for ##\mathbb{F}## iff every non-empty set ##S \in \mathbb{F}## that is bounded from above has a least upper bound.

AP holds iff for any element ##s \in \mathbb{F}## there exists an ##n \in \mathbb{N}## such that ##s ≤ n.##

1 is the addition identify element for field addition, and multiplication by natural numbers is shorthand for repeated field addition. E.g., ##2S^{-1} = S^{-1} + S^{-1}##, and ##kS^{-1} = S^{-1} + S^{-1} + ... S^{-1}##, k times. If a natural number ##n## is used as an element of ##\mathbb{F}##, it is assumed to be repeated addition of the identity element n times.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This post got moved to abstract algebra (I was thinking of ##\mathbb{F}## as a generalization of the real numbers), and so I realize now that I could have just proven that any linearly-ordered group ##\mathbb{G}## that is not Archimedean does not have the least upper bound property. It can be done similarly but more concisely:

If ##G## is non-Archimedean linearly-ordered group, then there exists some ##g, h \in G## such that ##g^n < h## for all ##n \in \mathbb{N}##. This means that the set ##H=\{g^n : n \in \mathbb{N}\}## is both non-empty and bounded by ##h##.

Now suppose ##H## has a least upperbound ##l \in G##. As a upper bound, ##g^{n+1}<l## for all ##n## (since ##n## is arbitrary). But this means that ##g^n < g^{-1}l < l##, and ##g^{-1}l## is a lower least upper bound for ##H##, which is a contradiction. Therefore, if ##G## is a non-Archimedean linearly-ordered group, it does not satisfy the least upper bound property. □
 
Prove $$\int\limits_0^{\sqrt2/4}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x-x^2}}\arcsin\sqrt{\frac{(x-1)\left(x-1+x\sqrt{9-16x}\right)}{1-2x}} \, \mathrm dx = \frac{\pi^2}{8}.$$ Let $$I = \int\limits_0^{\sqrt 2 / 4}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x-x^2}}\arcsin\sqrt{\frac{(x-1)\left(x-1+x\sqrt{9-16x}\right)}{1-2x}} \, \mathrm dx. \tag{1}$$ The representation integral of ##\arcsin## is $$\arcsin u = \int\limits_{0}^{1} \frac{\mathrm dt}{\sqrt{1-t^2}}, \qquad 0 \leqslant u \leqslant 1.$$ Plugging identity above into ##(1)## with ##u...
Back
Top