The least upper bound property and the irrationals.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on whether the set of irrational numbers possesses the least upper bound (LUB) property, exploring implications of this property in relation to bounded sets and completeness within the real numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if the irrational numbers have the least upper bound property.
  • Another participant argues that the set of irrationals less than zero is nonempty and bounded above, yet lacks a least upper bound, suggesting that irrationals do not satisfy the LUB property.
  • This participant notes that while zero serves as a LUB for the set of irrationals less than zero in the reals, zero itself is not irrational, highlighting a key aspect of the LUB concept.
  • A further contribution generalizes the discussion by stating that for any rational number, the LUB of a subset of real numbers is a limit point of that set, and if a subset does not contain all its limit points, it can be constructed to not contain its LUB.
  • This point connects the LUB property to the completeness of a set.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are competing views regarding the LUB property of irrational numbers and its implications.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the definitions of bounded sets and limit points, and the implications of completeness in relation to the LUB property, which remain unresolved.

RediJedeye
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi

Does anybody know if the irrational numbers have the least upper bound property?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
RediJedeye said:
Hi

Does anybody know if the irrational numbers have the least upper bound property?

The set of irrationals less than zero is nonempty (it contains -pi, for example) and is bounded above (by pi, for example) yet has no least upper bound. So the irrationals do not satisfy the LUB property.

Of course zero is a LUB for that set in the reals, but 0 is not irrational. That's the beauty of the LUB concept. It encapsulates the intuition of there being "no holes" in a given set.
 
Cool that makes perfect sense thanks for the help.
 
To generalize SteveL's answer, for any rational q,

consider the intervals (-oo,q) . Notice that the LUB of a subset of real numbers is

a limit point of that set S . So if a subset S of R does not contain all its limit points you

can constructuct a subset of S that does not contain its LUB-- so that closed subsets

contain their LUB's. Think of the relation with completeness of a set...
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K