Solving Supremum of Sets Homework Statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lily@pie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets Supremum
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a set A of real numbers that is bounded above and a subset B such that the intersection of A and B is non-empty. The objective is to show that the supremum of the intersection of A and B is less than or equal to the supremum of A.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to prove the statement by contradiction, questioning whether their reasoning about the relationship between the supremum of the sets is valid.
  • Some participants point out that the intersection C may not be a proper subset of A and discuss the implications of this on the proof.
  • There is a suggestion to clarify the relationship between the supremum of A and the elements of C, particularly in the context of upper bounds.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the problem and the validity of the original poster's approach. Some guidance has been offered regarding the nature of the sets involved and the conditions under which a contradiction might arise.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of the intersection of sets and the definitions of supremum, with some uncertainty about the assumptions regarding the relationship between A and B.

Lily@pie
Messages
108
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let A be a set of real numbers that is bounded above and let B be a subset of real numbers such that A (intersect) B is non-empty.
Show that sup (A(intersect)B) <= sup A


The Attempt at a Solution


I don't know how to start but tried this...
Let C = A (intersect) B
So sup C = sup (A (intersect) B)

Then I thought of trying to prove it by contradiction,
show sup C > sup A leads to a contradiction.

Since for all a in A, a <= sup A.
a < sup C,
can I say that this leads to a contradiction as there exist an a that is larger than c because not all elements in A are in C...

but it seems a bit weak...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The crucial point here is that [itex]C= A\cap B[/itex] is a subset of A. But it does NOT follow that C is a proper subset of A. It might happen that B= A, in which case [itex]A\cap B= A\cap A= A[/itex].

It is not just that a< sup a< sup C but that there must exist a member, x, of C such that [itex]sup A< c\le sup C[/itex]
 
Hmm... but is my approach correct?? Because I am totally clueless about this now...
 
You can certainly come up with a proof by contradiction, but HallsofIvy's point is that your proposed contradiction isn't really a contradiction. As he noted, if C=A, then all elements of A are in C, so you can't assume there's an element x∈A that's not in C.

Let a = sup(A) and c = sup(C), and assume c>a. Show that a is an upper bound of C and explain why this leads to a contradiction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K