Proving Existence of an Upper Bound for A Given Sup A < Sup B

  • Thread starter Thread starter Enjoicube
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the existence of an upper bound for set A given that the supremum of A is less than the supremum of B. The subject area is real analysis, specifically dealing with properties of supremums and upper bounds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the inequality Sup A < Sup B and discuss the choice of epsilon in relation to the supremums. There is an attempt to redefine epsilon to facilitate the proof.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the properties of supremums and the implications of choosing epsilon appropriately. There is recognition of the need to ensure that the chosen b from set B serves as an upper bound for A, but no consensus has been reached on a definitive solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the assumption that the sets involve real numbers and discuss the significance of the positive difference between the supremums of A and B.

Enjoicube
Messages
48
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


If Sup A<Sup B Then show that there exists a b[tex]\in[/tex]B which serves as an upper bound for A.
First off, I am not looking for a complete solution but rather a hint.

Homework Equations


SupA-[tex]\epsilon[/tex]<a for some a[tex]\in[/tex]A
SupB-[tex]\epsilon[/tex]<b for some b[tex]\in[/tex]B

The Attempt at a Solution


The only thing I have succeeded in so far is "locating one element of each set"
SupA-[tex]\epsilon[/tex]<a[tex]\leq[/tex]SupA for some a[tex]\in[/tex]A
SupB-[tex]\epsilon[/tex]<b[tex]\leq[/tex]SupB for some b[tex]\in[/tex]B

I know that if I can demonstrate that SupA[tex]\leq[/tex]SupB-[tex]\epsilon[/tex], then I can be done. Equivalently, if I can show that b[tex]\geq[/tex]SupA for some b[tex]\in[/tex]B I will also be done. However, right now this has me caught.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I might have a solution. Redefine Epsilon so that it is less than or equal to SupB-SupA. Then SupA[tex]\leq[/tex]SupB-[tex]\epsilon[/tex]. We can still guarantee an element of b SupB-[tex]\epsilon[/tex] and Sup B (same for a). Thus this element of b[tex]\geq[/tex]SupA and so b is an upper bound. If this incorrect, please tell me. Sorry to those of you who thought long and hard.
 
Firstly I assume we're talking about real numbers.

The key property we want to use: for every [tex]\varepsilon>0[/tex] there is a [tex]b\in B[/tex] such that [tex]\sup{B} - \varepsilon < b \leq \sup{B}[/tex].

Now what positive number to choose for epsilon? It's given (albeit subtly) in the question: we know that sup(B)-sup(A) > 0.
 
Many thanks, but I think I realized this just before you answered (in my post). Yeah, it was about the reals; what a great feeling when I recognized this. Again, Many thanks for being the first to help. Thread closed, because my homework has been turned in.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K