1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Show infimum

  1. Jul 23, 2011 #1
    Description attached.
    Solution attached.

    Is my solution correct?
    Thank you for your help.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 23, 2011 #2
    I don't understand the relevance of the solution from third line and onwards. First two lines are correct. Then you should go like:

    Consider x in R s.t. x > 0. Then x is not a lower bound for S since x is not less than or equal to all the elements of x; specifically x > 0 while 0 is in S. Thus 0 is the infimum of S.
     
  4. Jul 23, 2011 #3
    Hi. Thank you for your help.

    Is there a specific reason you chose to work with x in R in order to prove the problem?
    Probably I indeed wrote the nonsense, but I followed the book's solution for the supremum. It said that infimum is solved similarly. For the supremum, the book used not an x, but an outsider v to prove that v is not the lowest upper bound. Likewise, I chose an outsider t to prove that t is not the greatest lower bound.
    Thank you for your help.
     
  5. Jul 23, 2011 #4
    I believe that it is correct. What the 3rd line and onwards shows is:
    while we can obviously see that 0 is a lower bound to the set, if any other lower bound were to exist, it cannot be larger than 0 ( by proof from the link ). Thus, if t is a lower bound to our set S, t <= 0 and so 0 is our inf.
    It can be worded better though maybe
     
  6. Jul 23, 2011 #5
    Right, this is the meaning I was trying to express in my proof. I just don't know how successful I was in that.
     
  7. Jul 23, 2011 #6
    How to show that the set does not have upper bounds?

    I said that the set is not bounded above, thus it does not have upper bounds. There is no u such that for any x in R, x is less or equal to u.
     
  8. Jul 23, 2011 #7
    If this were for an assignment ( especially if you are assumed to be new at proofs ), I would be a bit more "wordy" -- especially since the question asks you to state "in detail".
    So, you must say things like, " suppose t is an arbitrary lower bound.." and show how it relates to your problem, and how what you said even proves anything ( i.e. "therefore, by definition, if t <= c for all lower bounds t.." )
     
  9. Jul 23, 2011 #8
    Try a proof by contradiction. Sometimes, if something is super obvious but you cannot prove it somehow, a contradiction proof might work.

    ( i.e. answer the question: can something bound the set? what happens if you "try"? )
     
  10. Jul 23, 2011 #9
    I took another look and your solution was fine beside a small mistake. In the fourth line it should be [itex]x' \in S_{1}[/itex] not [itex]x'\in \mathbb{R}[/itex]. Then solution is fine.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Show infimum
  1. Infimum of a set. (Replies: 3)

  2. Supremum and infimum (Replies: 3)

  3. Infimum axiom (Replies: 24)

Loading...