Proving Existence of Upper Bound for A if sup A < sup B

  • Thread starter Thread starter kathrynag
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
9 replies · 5K views
kathrynag
Messages
595
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If sup A<sup B, then show that there exists an element b[tex]\in[/tex]B that is an upper bound for A.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


This one is really frustrating me. I'm having trouble even beginning.
I know sup A implies s[tex]\leq[/tex]b where c is an upper bound for A.
Similarily sup B implies s[tex]\leq[/tex] d where d is an upper bound for B.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[tex]sup B= sup A+ \epsilon[/tex]

Remember what sup b is and it's closeness to elements of B.
 
Last edited:
╔(σ_σ)╝ said:
[tex]sup A= sup B+ \epsilon[/tex]

Remember what sup b is and it's closeness to elements of B.

I have no clue how you got to that.
 
Well if x < y that means y= x+b where b= y-x.
 
so x<x+b
x<x+y-x
So that statement alone shows that b is an upper bound?
 
I made an error while writing the latex. Please review my edit.
 
[tex]sup B- \epsilon= sup A[/tex]
Since sup B is the least upper bound what can we say about
[tex]sup B- \epsilon_{0}[/tex] ?
Is it in B?

The point it that if we pick [tex]\epsilon_{0}[/tex] small enough we can find a number that is both in B and is an upper bound of A.
 
╔(σ_σ)╝ said:
[tex]sup B- \epsilon= sup A[/tex]
Since sup B is the least upper bound what can we say about
[tex]sup B- \epsilon_{0}[/tex] ?
Is it in B?

The point it that if we pick [tex]\epsilon_{0}[/tex] small enough we can find a number that is both in B and is an upper bound of A.

[tex]sup B- \epsilon_{0}[/tex] must be an upper bound also?
 
kathrynag said:
[tex]sup B- \epsilon_{0}[/tex] must be an upper bound also?

Do you know the definition of [tex]sup(B)[/tex] ?

Given that sup(B) is the least upper bound this means that it is the smallest number that is an upper bound of the set B.

That means given any [tex]\epsilon_{0}[/tex], no matter how small, there exist [tex]b_{0}\inB[/tex] such that
[tex]b_{0} > sup(B) -\epsilon_{0}[/tex].

Lets start again.

[tex]sup(B) - sup(A) = \alpha >0[/tex]

If we pick any [tex]\epsilon_{0}[/tex] such that [tex]\epsilon_{0} < \alpha[/tex] we can find an element in B such that
[tex]b_{0} > sup(B) -\epsilon[/tex]. So [tex]b_{0}[/tex] is an upper bound of A.
 
You could prove this by contradiction as well. Assume there is no element in B that is an upper bound for A, and then show it leads to the conclusion sup(A)>sup(B), which contradicts the condition sup(A)<sup(B).