1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal 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!

Lower bound proof/definition

  1. Aug 22, 2007 #1
    in my book this is called the lower bound but it implies that it might be called the greatest lower bound elsewhere.

    lower bound: some quantity m such that no member of a set is less than m but there is always one less than m + [itex]\epsilon[/itex]

    definition using Dedekind section

    there are quantities a such that no member of a set is less than any a. there are quantities b such that some members of a set are less than any b. all a(s) are less than all b(s)[anyone have a problem with this???]. and all quantities of the same dimension are either a(s) or b(s). a(s) define the L class and b(s) define the R class. now make a partition, m, that has to be in L. for if it were in R then there would be some member of the set, k, less than it and and there would be no a(s) between m and k and hence it wouldn't partition correctly. m is then the greatest lower bound. m + [itex]\epsilon[/itex] is in R which by prior definition must have a member less than it.

    the part in brackets i'm not sure about specifically besides not being sure about the whole thing, despite the fact that i basically followed the Dedekind proof/defition for least upper bound. this is the first mathematical proof by argument i have ever done and boy was it more abstract than any physics problem i've ever done.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 23, 2007 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    You are right. If your book really does define "lower bound" that way, it is very peculiar. The definition of "lower bound" I have always seen is "a number that is less than or equal to any member of the set". If there is always a a value less than [itex]m+\epsilon[/itex] there cannot be any number larger than m which is also an lower bound and so m is the greatest lower bound. A set can have an infinite number of lower bounds but only one greatest lower bounmd.

    What, exactly, are you trying to prove? That if a set has a lower bound, then it must have a greatest lower bound? I would not "copy" the proof of the least upper bound. I would start with a set having a lower bound, multiply everything by -1 and then USE the least upper bound property.
     
  4. Aug 23, 2007 #3
    i was trying to define the greatest lower bound using a dedekind cut. in writing this definition i was guided by the definition of the least upper bound in the book
     
  5. Aug 23, 2007 #4

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Actually, I find your use of "L" and "Q" a bit peculiar. I learned the definition of Dedekind cut (from Rudin) as a set of rational numbers satisfying:
    1) It is non-empty
    2) It does not contain all rational numbers
    3) If a< b and b is in the cut, then so is a
    4) It has no largest member

    In other words, what I would call a Dedekind cut corresponds only to your set "L" which is guarenteed to be non-empty by 1. Your set "R" is the complement of L (in the rational numbers).
    The proof that a set of real numbers with an upper bound has a least upper bound consists of taking the union of all dedekind cuts (your "L" sets) in the set and showing that that is itself a dedekind cut and is the least upper bound.
    To find the greatest lower bound of a set having a lower bound, you probably want to look at the union of all the "R" sets. Take its complement (in the rational numbers) and call that "L". Does that make a cut in your sense? Is it the greatest lower bound>?
     
  6. Aug 23, 2007 #5
    I learned the definition of Dekekind cut as follows: A pair of subsets [tex] A,B [/tex] of [tex] \mathbb{Q} [/tex] such that (i) [tex] A \cup B = \mathbb{Q}, A \neq \emptyset, B \neq \emptyset, A \cap B = \emptyset [/tex], (ii) if [tex] a \in A [/tex] and [tex] b \in B [/tex] then [tex] a < b [/tex] and (iii) [tex] A [/tex] contains no largest element. Denote the cut by [tex] x = A|B [/tex].
     
  7. Aug 24, 2007 #6

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Basically, the same, then. Your "A" is, as I said, what I would consider "the cut" and your "B" is its complement in the rational numbers.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Lower bound proof/definition
  1. Lower bound (Replies: 0)

Loading...