Proof of the least upper bound

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a given maximum element \( x_0 \) of a set \( S \) of real numbers is also the least upper bound (supremum) of that set. Participants are exploring the definitions and implications of upper bounds in the context of real numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are examining the relationship between the maximum of a set and its supremum, questioning whether any upper bound can exist that is less than \( x_0 \). They discuss the implications of assuming \( x_0 \) is not the supremum and explore potential contradictions arising from that assumption.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and questioning the definitions involved. Some have suggested that the definitions lead to contradictions if \( x_0 \) is not considered the supremum, indicating a productive exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of understanding the definition of the least upper bound in the context of their homework, emphasizing the learning aspect rather than seeking a direct solution.

furi0n
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



LEt S is supset of real numbers and suppose that there is X0 is member of S such that x0>=x for all x which is member of S(i.e. x0 is the maximum of S). show that x0=supS

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution




Not: this seems too easy question but i can't understand how ı can prove it please help me it's my important homework.. :(
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well x_0 is the maximum of x. Suppose a was an upper bound of S but a was not equal to x_0.

The a>x_0 right ?

Thus is there any upper bound smaller than x_0 ?
 
So we define x_0 as a value such that x_0>=x for all x in S. Now, suppose x_0 was not the sup of S (i.e. x_0 is not equal to supS). Well then this must imply the existence of a value b in S such that x_0 < b <= supS. Notice the contradiction? how did we define x_0 again?
 
Yes, it is an easy question! Since x_0\ge x for all x in the set, it is an upper bound on the set. Is it possible for any other upper bound to be less than x_0? No, because x_0 is in the set and saying M&lt; x_0 would contradict the definition of "upper bound".
 
thank you everybody, why i ask for this question is to learn how to prove this because we know already everything there is not anything which we can prove but today İ understood Teacher asked this Question in order to understand whether we learn to definition of least upper bound :D thank you again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K