MHB Proof of Bolzano-Weierstrass on R .... .... D&K Theorem 1.6.2 .... ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding a specific aspect of the proof of Theorem 1.6.2 from "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by Duistermaat and Kolk. The key point is that for a given δ > 0, only a finite number of points x_k can satisfy the condition x_k > a + δ, as this would contradict the definition of a as an upper bound for the set A. In contrast, there are infinitely many points x_k that satisfy a - δ < x_k because a - δ is not an upper bound for A, ensuring the existence of such points. The explanation clarifies the relationship between the bounds and the points in the set A. This understanding is crucial for grasping the proof's implications in real analysis.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk ...

I am focused on Chapter 1: Continuity ... ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Theorem 1.6.2 ...

Duistermaat and Kolk"s Theorem 1.6.2 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 7708In the above proof we read the following:

" ... ... By the definition of supremum, only a finite number of $$x_k$$ satisfy $$a + \delta \lt x_k$$, while there are infinitely many $$x_k$$ with $$a - \delta \lt x_k$$ ... ... "Can someone please explain (very slowly and simply if you will ... :) ... ) how/why only a finite number of $$x_k$$ satisfy $$a + \delta \lt x_k$$, while there are infinitely many $$x_k$$ with $$a - \delta \lt x_k$$ ... ... Help will be much appreciated ... ...

Peter
==========================================================================================

MHB members reading the above post may be assisted by having access to Theorem 1.6.1 and the notes succeeding the Theorem ... ... so I providing the same ... as follows ... ...https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7709Hope that helps ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Given $\delta > 0$, $a - \delta$ is not an upper bound for $A$. So there must be a point $x\in A$ such that $a - \delta < x$. Since $x\in A$, $x < x_k$ for infinitely many $k$. Therefore $a - \delta < x_k$ for infinitely many $k$.

To see that only finitely many $x_k$ are greater than $a + \delta$, suppose otherwise. Then $x_k > a + \delta$ for infinitely many $k$, which implies $a + \delta \in A$. Since $a$ is an upper bound for $A$, we would obtain $a + \delta \le a$, a contradiction.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K