Proofing Bounds of Natural Numbers Set in Math: Is it Clear?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fishturtle1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounds Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof regarding the bounds of the set of natural numbers, denoted as ##\mathbb{N} = \{0, 1, 2, ...\}##. It is established that ##\mathbb{N}## is not bounded above, as any proposed upper bound leads to a contradiction. Conversely, ##\mathbb{N}## is bounded below with the infimum being 0, which is also the minimum of the set. The proof is confirmed to be clear and correct.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and natural numbers
  • Familiarity with mathematical notation, specifically supremum and infimum
  • Knowledge of proof techniques, particularly proof by contradiction
  • Basic concepts of bounds in real analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of supremum and infimum in real analysis
  • Learn about proof techniques in mathematics, focusing on proof by contradiction
  • Explore the properties of bounded and unbounded sets
  • Investigate the implications of the completeness property of the real numbers
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in foundational concepts of set theory and real analysis.

fishturtle1
Messages
393
Reaction score
82

Homework Statement


Consider the sets below. For each one, decide whether the set is bounded above. If it is, give the supremum in ##\mathbb{R}##. Then decide whether or not the set is bounded below. If it is, give the infimum. Finally, decide whether or not the supremum is a maximum, and whether to not the infimum is a minimum.

c) the natural numbers ##\mathbb{N}##

Homework Equations


In my class ##\mathbb{N} = {0, 1, 2, ... }##

The Attempt at a Solution


Proof: ##\mathbb{N}## is not bounded above. We will show this with a contradiction. Suppose M is an upper bound on ##\mathbb{N}##. Then (##\lceil M \rceil + 1) \space \epsilon \space \mathbb{N}## and ##\lceil M \rceil + 1 > M##, a contradiction. Therefore ##\mathbb{N}## does not have an upper bound and is not bounded above.

We will now show ##\mathbb{N}## is bounded below. Let ##U = 0## and let ##x \space \epsilon \space \mathbb{N}##. Then ##U = 0 \le x##. Therefore ##0## is a lower bound on ##\mathbb{N}##.

In order to show inf##\mathbb{N} = 0## we must show 0 is the greatest lower bound. We proceed by contradiction. Suppose ##m## is a lower bound on ##\mathbb{N}## such that ##m > 0##. But ##0 \space \epsilon \space \mathbb{N}## so m is not a lower bound, a contradiction. We conclude that there does not exist a lower bound ##m## such that ##m > 0## and so inf##\mathbb{N} = 0##.

In order to show min##\mathbb{N} = 0##. we must show 0 is a lower bound on ##\mathbb{N}## and ##0 \space \epsilon \space \mathbb{N}##. We've already shown 0 is a lower bound on ##\mathbb{N}## and ##0 \space \epsilon \space \mathbb{N}## is a true statement. Therefore min##\mathbb{N} = 0##. []

My question: Is this proof clear and easy to follow?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, this is correct.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fishturtle1

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
8K