MHB Supremum and Infimum of $S$: $a < b < c < d$

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Supremum
Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
$S = \{x : (x - a)(x - b)(x - c)(x - d) < 0\}$, where $a < b < c < d$

This questioned shouldn't be to difficult but would it be best to multiply out?

And how is the $a < b < c < d$ going to affect it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dwsmith said:
$S = \{x : (x - a)(x - b)(x - c)(x - d) < 0\}$, where $a < b < c < d$

This questioned shouldn't be to difficult but would it be best to multiply out?

And how is the $a < b < c < d$ going to affect it?
What is asked?
 
dwsmith said:
$S = \{x : (x - a)(x - b)(x - c)(x - d) < 0\}$, where $a < b < c < d$

This questioned shouldn't be to difficult but would it be best to multiply out?

And how is the $a < b < c < d$ going to affect it?

Hi dwsmith, :)

It's clear that the set \(S\) contains elements \(a<x<b\) or \(c<x<d\). Otherwise, \((x - a)(x - b)(x - c)(x - d) >0\). That is,

\[S=\{x : a<x<b \mbox{ or }c<x<d\}=(a,b)\cup(c,d)\]

Now I suppose it is obvious as to what is the supremum and what is the infimum. Isn't? :)

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.
 
Sudharaka said:
Hi dwsmith, :)

It's clear that the set \(S\) contains elements \(a<x<b\) or \(c<x<d\). Otherwise, \((x - a)(x - b)(x - c)(x - d) >0\). That is,

\[S=\{x : a<x<b \mbox{ or }c<x<d\}=(a,b)\cup(c,d)\]

Now I suppose it is obvious as to what is the supremum and what is the infimum. Isn't? :)

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.

$\text{inf} \ S = a + c$ and $\text{sup} \ S = b + d$
 
dwsmith said:
$\text{inf} \ S = a + c$ and $\text{sup} \ S = b + d$

\(a+c\) may not be a lower bound and \(b+d\) may not be an upper bound. A simple example to contradict your supremum and infimum would be, \(a=1,b=2,c=3,d=4\). Then,

\[S=(1,2)\cup(3,4)\]

Now it is clear that, \(1+3=4\) is not a lower bound of \(S\). \(2+4=6\) although an upper bound for this example is not the least upper bound.

The simplest way to think about this would be to draw the two intervals \((a,c)\) and \((b,d)\) on a real line(Note that, \(a<b<c<d\)) and see what are the upper bounds and lower bounds of \(S\).

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K