Prove $\inf \{\overline{m}-x: x\in S\}=0$

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alexmahone
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around proving the statement that the infimum of the set $\{\overline{m}-x: x\in S\}$, where $S$ is a non-empty bounded set of real numbers and $\overline{m}=\sup S$, equals zero. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and the application of definitions related to supremum and infimum.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Post 1 introduces the problem and defines the terms involved, specifically stating that $\overline{m}=\sup S$.
  • Post 2 asserts that 0 is a lower bound of the set $\{\overline{m}-x: x\in S\}$ and claims that any positive number cannot be a lower bound.
  • Post 3 reiterates the argument that 0 is a lower bound and provides a contradiction for any positive number being a lower bound, concluding that this implies $\inf\{\overline{m}-x: x\in S\}=0$.
  • Post 4 expresses agreement with the reasoning presented in Post 3.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the infimum is zero, with explicit agreement from one participant on the validity of the argument presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion relies on the definitions of supremum and infimum without invoking additional identities or properties that could simplify the argument.

alexmahone
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
Let $S$ be a non-empty bounded set of real numbers, and $\overline{m}=\sup S$. Prove that $\inf \{\overline{m}-x: x\in S\}=0$.

[Use only the definitions of supremum and infimum, and not identities like $\inf(A+B)=\inf A+\inf B$ and $\inf(-S)=-\sup(S)$.]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Show that 0 is a lower bound of $\{\overline{m}-x\mid x\in S\}$ and that any positive number is not a lower bound.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Show that 0 is a lower bound of $\{\overline{m}-x\mid x\in S\}$ and that any positive number is not a lower bound.

$\overline{m}=\sup S$

$x\le\overline{m}$ for all $x\in S$.

$\overline{m}-x\ge 0$ for all $x\in S$.

So, 0 is a lower bound of $\{\overline{m}-x: x\in S\}$. ------ (1)

Assume, for the sake of argument, that $a>0$ is a lower bound of $\{\overline{m}-x: x\in S\}$.

$\overline{m}-x\ge a$ for all $x\in S$.

$x\le\overline{m}-a$

This contradicts the fact that $\overline{m}$ is the least upper bound of $S$.

So, any $a>0$ is not a lower bound of $\{\overline{m}-x: x\in S\}$.

Together with (1), this implies that $\inf\{\overline{m}-x: x\in S\}=0$.

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

Is that ok?
 
Last edited:
Yes, this is fine.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K