Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Intro Physics Homework Help
Advanced Physics Homework Help
Precalculus Homework Help
Calculus Homework Help
Bio/Chem Homework Help
Engineering Homework Help
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Intro Physics Homework Help
Advanced Physics Homework Help
Precalculus Homework Help
Calculus Homework Help
Bio/Chem Homework Help
Engineering Homework Help
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Homework Help
Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Least Upper Bound Property ⇒ Archimedean Principle
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Someone2841, post: 6213769, member: 364392"] 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 [I]least[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Homework Help
Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Least Upper Bound Property ⇒ Archimedean Principle
Back
Top