Proof dealing with bounded sets

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that for nonempty bounded subsets A and B of \mathbb{R}, the supremum of their sum set A + B equals the sum of their suprema: sup(A + B) = sup(A) + sup(B). The proof begins by defining the sets A and B and establishing that the supremum of A, denoted as a_t, and the supremum of B, denoted as b_s, serve as upper bounds for their respective sets. The discussion highlights the necessity of considering both finite and infinite cases to ensure the proof's validity, particularly addressing the misconception that sup(A) and sup(B) must belong to the sets A and B.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of supremum and bounded sets in real analysis.
  • Familiarity with the properties of real numbers and their order.
  • Knowledge of set operations, particularly the sum of sets.
  • Ability to differentiate between finite and infinite sets in mathematical proofs.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of supremum in the context of infinite sets.
  • Learn about the completeness property of real numbers and its implications.
  • Explore examples of bounded sets and their suprema in real analysis.
  • Investigate the implications of the least upper bound property in mathematical proofs.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of supremum properties and bounded sets.

bonfire09
Messages
247
Reaction score
0
1. Homework Statement
Let A and B be nonempty bounded subsets of [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex], and let [itex]A + B[/itex] be the set of all sums [itex]a + b[/itex] where [itex]a ∈ A[/itex] and [itex]b ∈ B[/itex].
(a) Prove [itex]sup(A+B) = supA+supB[/itex].

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Let Set [itex]A=(a_1,...,a_t: a_1<...a_i<a_t)[/itex] and let set [itex]B=(b_1,...,b_s: b_1<...<b_s)[/itex] Then set [itex]A+B=(a_i+b_k: 1≤ i≤ t \text{and} 1≤ k ≤ S)[/itex] It follows that [itex]a_t= sup(A)[/itex] and [itex]b_s=sup(B)[/itex] since [itex]a_i ≤a_s[/itex] and [itex]b_s ≥ b_k[/itex] for all [itex]a_i ε A[/itex] and [itex]b_k ε B[/itex] where [itex]1≤ k ≤s[/itex] and [itex]1≤ k ≤s[/itex]. Now [itex]sup(A+B) = a_t+b_s[/itex] since [itex]a_t+b_s≥ a_i+b_k[/itex]
Thus [itex]sup(A+B) = a_t+b_s= sup(A)+ sup (B)[/itex]. Now I don't know whether I should argue that [itex]a_t[/itex] and [itex]b_s[/itex] is the greatest least lower bound because I already have the elements in sets A and B are in increasing order. Other than that would my proof be correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see anything in the hypothesis that A and B must be finite sets which your proof assumes. Also you seem to be assuming that sup(A) is in A and sup(B) is in B which is true for finite sets but not for infinite sets.

Basically, you want to prove that sup(A)+ sup(B) is the least upper bound of A+ B so you need to prove, first, that it is an upper bound on A+ B. Suppose x is in A+ B. Then, by definition of "A+ B", x= a+ b where a is in A and b is in B. [itex]a\le sup(A)[/itex] and [itex]b\le sup(A)[/itex] so that [itex]a+ b\le sup(A)+ sup(B)[/itex] showing that sup(A)+ sup(B) is an upper bound on A+ B.

It remains to show that any other upper bound on A+ B is larger than sup(A)+ sup(B).
 
Thanks. I knew something was wrong. I should break it up into two cases then one for finite sets and one for infinite sets then.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K