Proving on the completeness theorem of real number

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lily@pie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the completeness theorem of real numbers, specifically examining whether the supremum of the set D, defined as D = {2a | a ∈ A}, equals 2 times the supremum of set A. Participants clarify that the supremum (sup) is not necessarily the largest value in a set but rather the least upper bound. The proof by contradiction is established, demonstrating that if b ∈ D exceeds 2S, it leads to a contradiction regarding the upper bound of A. Thus, it is concluded that sup D = 2 sup A holds true.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the completeness axiom in real analysis
  • Familiarity with the concept of supremum (least upper bound)
  • Basic knowledge of set theory and notation
  • Experience with proof techniques, particularly proof by contradiction
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the completeness axiom in detail to understand its implications in real analysis
  • Learn about supremum and infimum in the context of bounded sets
  • Explore proof techniques, especially proof by contradiction, in mathematical analysis
  • Investigate examples of bounded sets and their suprema to solidify understanding
USEFUL FOR

Students of real analysis, mathematicians focusing on set theory, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of real numbers and their completeness.

Lily@pie
Messages
108
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let A be a non empty subset of R that is bounded above

Set D:={2a|a (belongs to) A}
Is it necessarily true that the sup D = 2 sup A? Either prove or provide a counterexample.


Homework Equations


The completeness axiom


The Attempt at a Solution


I am seriously clueless on how to approach... but I still tried something
Let sup D = y and sup A = x
d=2a; d<=y; a<=x

or can I say choose a as the largest value in A, so 2a=d is the largest value in D. Since both are the upper bound for each set and for all upper bound and real number, they are the smallest. so, d is sup D and a is sup A.
Therefore, d=2a => sup D = 2 sup A


But these method seems a bit weird...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, you can't say "choose a as the largest value in A". The whole point of "sup" is that the set may not have a largest value. And you can't say "Let sup D = y and sup A = x d=2a; d<=y; a<=x" because you didn't say what "a" was.

"sup" has two properties- it is an upper bound (so there are no member of the set larger than the sup) and there is no smaller upper bound (so there are members of the set within any "[itex]epsilon[/itex]" distance of the sup.

Let S be the sup of set A. We can prove that 2S is an upper bound for 2A by contradiction:
suppose there exist b in 2A such that b> 2S. But b= 2a for some a in A. That says 2a> 2S so that a> S which contradicts the fact that S is an upper bound for A.

Similarly, you can prove by contradiction that there is no upper bound less than 2S.
 
But how do we relate this to the prove of sup D = 2 sup A?

Does 2S means D?

Sorry, I'm a bit confused now
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
10K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K