Supremum = least upper bound, anything > supremum?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of supremum, also known as the least upper bound, and whether there exists anything greater than a supremum. Participants explore the definitions and implications of upper bounds, maximums, and the nature of infinity in relation to sets of numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the supremum is defined as the "least" upper bound, suggesting that there could be a "most" upper bound or something larger than the least upper bound.
  • Others clarify that the least upper bound (LUB) is not the same as a maximum, as it is the minimum of all upper bounds.
  • One participant provides an example using decimal fractions, stating that any number greater than or equal to 1 is an upper bound, with the least upper bound being 1.
  • Another participant questions whether the least upper bound for all real numbers could be infinity, leading to a discussion about the nature of infinity and its status as a real number.
  • It is noted that infinity is not a real number, and thus there is no least upper bound for all real numbers within the real number set, although it could be considered in the context of extended real numbers.
  • A participant discusses the open interval (0, 1), explaining that it has infinitely many upper bounds and that the least upper bound is 1, which is also the supremum of that interval.
  • Another participant suggests that including infinity in the definitions of sup and inf is more convenient and standard in mathematics, allowing for unique definitions of these concepts for arbitrary sets of real numbers.
  • Examples are provided illustrating sets with clear least upper bounds, such as {0, 1, 2, 3, 4} having a least upper bound of 4, and the set [0, 1] having a least upper bound of 1.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the supremum for all real numbers can be considered infinity, leading to differing views on the nature of upper bounds and the role of infinity in these discussions.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on the definitions of upper bounds and the nature of infinity, which may vary depending on the mathematical context (e.g., real numbers vs. extended real numbers). The discussion also highlights the distinction between upper bounds and maximums, as well as the implications of including infinity in mathematical definitions.

pyroknife
Messages
611
Reaction score
4
The supremum is defined as the "LEAST" upper bound. The word "least" makes me think, there is a "MOST" upper bound, or at least something bigger than a "least" upper bound.

For a set of numbers, is there anything larger than a supremum? Supremum is analogous to a maximum, but I don't understand what it's called "least" upper bound.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Companion to least upper bound is greatest lower bound.

LUB is not like a maximum. It is the minimum of upper bounds.
 
PAllen said:
Companion to least upper bound is greatest lower bound.

LUB is not like a maximum. It is the minimum of upper bounds.
Thanks, Could you illustrate this with a set of numbers? I still do not understand.
 
pyroknife said:
Thanks, Could you illustrate this with a set of numbers? I still do not understand.
Sure. Consider the set of numbers defined by decimal fractions beginning with a decimal point. Any number greater than or equal 1 is an upper bound. The least upper bound is 1.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pyroknife
PAllen said:
Sure. Consider the set of numbers defined by decimal fractions beginning with a decimal point. Any number greater than or equal 1 is an upper bound. The least upper bound is 1.
Oh I think I understand. In this example, we considered only the set of numbers beginning with a decimal point.
If we consider all real numbers, is the least upper bound = upper bound = ##\infty##?
 
pyroknife said:
Oh I think I understand. In this example, we considered only the set of numbers beginning with a decimal point.
If we consider all real numbers, is the least upper bound = upper bound = ##\infty##?
Infinity isn't a real number. So there is no LUB for all real number among the real numbers. If you consider the reals as a subset of an extended real number set, then you can make this statement true.
 
Consider the open interval I = ]0,1[. Then, for example, that x ≤ 2, for all x ∈ I. It is also true that x ≤ 5, for all x ∈ I. This means, by definition, that 2 and 5 are upper bounds of I. A set which has (at least) one upper bound is said to be bounded above. Thus, I is bounded above, while for example [0,∞[ is not: the latter has no upper bound.
There, are, of course, infinitely many upper bounds of I. Indeed, any number u ≥ 1 is an upper bound of I. The set of all upper bounds of I is then the interval [1,∞[. This set has a smallest (least) element: s=1, which is then the least upper bound of I. This least upper bound s of I is also called the supremum of I.

The axiom of a least upper bound says that every set of real numbers which is bounded above (i.e. it has an upper bound) has a least upper bound, or a supremum. If the set is not bounded above, then it has no upper bound at all, and hence no least upper bound.
 
For the purpose of least upper bound i.e., the sup (and greatest lower bound, i.e. the inf) of any set of numbers, it's more convenient, and standard in math, to include the possibility of either +∞ or -∞ (the plus sign is optional), if one of them is the appropriate answer. It's less convenient — and less informative — to have to say that the sup or inf is "undefined".

This way the sup and inf of an arbitrary set of real numbers is uniquely defined.

So Yes, the sup of the set of all real numbers is ∞, and its inf is -∞.

It's good to note that the sup or inf might or might not belong to that set.

(((It will probably be surprising to learn that the sup of the empty set is normally taken to be -∞, just as the inf of the empty set is normally taken to be +∞.)))
 
The set {0, 1, 2, 3, 4} has every number larger than or equal to 4 as upper bound. The least upper bound is 4.

The set [0, 1], the set of all real numbers from 0 to 1 including both 0 and 1 has all real numbers larger than or equal to 1 as upper bounds. The least upper bound is 1.

The set (0, 1), the set of all real numbers from 0 to 1 but not including 0 and 1 still has all real numbers larger than or equal to 1 as upper bounds. The least upper bound is 1.

If an upper bound of a set is also in the set, as in the first two examples above, the upper bound is the least upper bound and is also a "maximum" for the set.

In the third example above, the set has NO maximum, or largest member, so the least upper bound is not in the set.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K