Proving Suprenum of A and B: Bob's Question

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob19
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the equality sup(A ∪ B) = max(sup A, sup B) for two non-empty sets A and B that are bounded above by R. The participants emphasize that the supremum (sup) is defined as the least upper bound of a set, and to validate the argument, one must demonstrate that max(sup A, sup B) is indeed an upper bound for A ∪ B and that it is the least upper bound. The conversation highlights the necessity of understanding the definitions and properties of supremum to effectively prove the statement.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of supremum and least upper bound concepts in real analysis.
  • Familiarity with set theory, specifically operations involving unions of sets.
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical proofs and logical reasoning.
  • Experience with bounded sets and their properties in the context of real numbers.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of supremum in real analysis to solidify understanding.
  • Learn how to construct formal proofs involving least upper bounds and unions of sets.
  • Explore examples of bounded sets and their supremums to gain practical insights.
  • Investigate counterexamples where the properties of supremum do not hold to deepen comprehension.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in real analysis, particularly those focusing on set theory and supremum properties.

Bob19
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Hello

I have two non-empty sets A and B which is bounded above by R.

Then I'm tasked with proving that

sup(A \cup B) = max(sup A, sup B)

which supposedly means that sup(A \cup B) is the largest of the two numbers sup A and sup B.

Can this then be written as sup(A) < sup(A \cup B) and sup(B) < sup(A \cup B) ?

Can this then be proven by showing that sup(A) < sup(A \cup B) is true?

Or am I totally on the wrong path here??

/Bob
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
correct your tex and just verify the definitions of sup.
 
matt grime said:
correct your tex and just verify the definitions of sup.
My definition of Supremum is a follows:
every non-empty, bounded above subset of R has a smallest upper bound.

Then sup(A \cup B) has a larger smallest upper bound than sup(A) and sup(B) according to the definition of Supremum ?
Does this prove the given argument in my first post?
/Bob

p.s. If my idear is true, can this then be proven by taking a number z, which I then prove z \in sup(A \cup B) but z \notin sup(A) and z \notin sup(B) ?

/Bob
 
Last edited:
why are you treating sup as a set (and taking elements in it?). Sup is not a set, it is an element of R.

Sup of a set is the least upper bound (when it exists)

obivously the least upper bound of AuB is the max of the least upper bounds, but you need to verify it, ie show it is an upper bound, and show it is the least upper bound. The first is easy, the second slightly harder.
 
matt grime said:
obivously the least upper bound of AuB is the max of the least upper bounds, but you need to verify it, ie show it is an upper bound, and show it is the least upper bound. The first is easy, the second slightly harder.


Okay those two aspects then prove the argument that

sup(AuB) = max(sup A, sup B) ?


/Bob
 
As I explained to someone else earlier tonight, I can easily see the answer because of experience, YOU need to demonstrate that you understand the answer by not having to let me fill in any blanks. If you don't see that an argument proves something then YOU need to do some work to rectify that, not me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K