MHB Proof of $A\subseteq B\implies\sup A\le\sup B$

  • Thread starter Thread starter alexmahone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
alexmahone
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
Prove: $A\subseteq B\implies\sup A\le\sup B$

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

By the definition of subset,

$x\in A\implies x\in B$

$\sup B$ is an upper bound of $B$.

$x\in B\implies x\le\sup B$

So, $x\in A\implies x\le\sup B$

ie $\sup B$ is an upper bound of $A$.

But $\sup A$ is the least upper bound of $A$.

So, $\sup A\le\sup B$

-----------------------------------------------------

Is the above proof ok?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Alexmahone said:
Prove: $A\subseteq B\implies\sup A\le\sup B$

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

By the definition of subset,

$x\in A\implies x\in B$

$\sup B$ is an upper bound of $B$.

$x\in B\implies x\le\sup B$

So, $x\in A\implies x\le\sup B$

ie $\sup B$ is an upper bound of $A$.

But $\sup A$ is the least upper bound of $A$.

So, $\sup A\le\sup B$

-----------------------------------------------------

Is the above proof ok?
Yes, but above your prove, say a word about the Axiom of completeness.
 
this looks fine to me. But the problem should state that A and B are non empty subsets of \( \mathbb{R}\) that are bounded above. Only in that case , it makes sense to talk about supremum's...

Edit: it seems somebody already said what I wanted to...hmm
 
I posted this question on math-stackexchange but apparently I asked something stupid and I was downvoted. I still don't have an answer to my question so I hope someone in here can help me or at least explain me why I am asking something stupid. I started studying Complex Analysis and came upon the following theorem which is a direct consequence of the Cauchy-Goursat theorem: Let ##f:D\to\mathbb{C}## be an anlytic function over a simply connected region ##D##. If ##a## and ##z## are part of...
Back
Top