$A$ and $B$ nonempty subsets of $mathbb{R}$, if $sup(A)=sup(B)$ then $forall a in A, exists b in B$ such that...
$begingroup$
Let $A$ and $B$ nonempty subsets of $mathbb{R}$, such that $sup(A)=sup(B)$ and $sup(A) not in A$
Prove: $forall a in A, exists b in B$ such that $a<b$
I started out with the fact that:
$$ a< sup (A) = sup (B)$$
And of course we know that
$$b leq sup(B)= sup(A)$$
So now we know that $exists b$ that sort of "must be in the middle"
$$ a <b leq sup(B) $$
I don't know how to make this concrete, also is this element simply the supremum?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $A$ and $B$ nonempty subsets of $mathbb{R}$, such that $sup(A)=sup(B)$ and $sup(A) not in A$
Prove: $forall a in A, exists b in B$ such that $a<b$
I started out with the fact that:
$$ a< sup (A) = sup (B)$$
And of course we know that
$$b leq sup(B)= sup(A)$$
So now we know that $exists b$ that sort of "must be in the middle"
$$ a <b leq sup(B) $$
I don't know how to make this concrete, also is this element simply the supremum?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
What is your definition of the supremum, and what properties have you proven for it? For example, if your definition of $mathrm{sup}(X)$ is that it is a number $s$ such that (i) $s$ is an upper bound for $X$; and (ii) if $t$ is any upper bound for $x$, then $sleq t$; then from $altmathrm{sup}(B)$ you can conclude that $a$ is not an upper bound for $B$, and therefore...
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 2 '18 at 0:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $A$ and $B$ nonempty subsets of $mathbb{R}$, such that $sup(A)=sup(B)$ and $sup(A) not in A$
Prove: $forall a in A, exists b in B$ such that $a<b$
I started out with the fact that:
$$ a< sup (A) = sup (B)$$
And of course we know that
$$b leq sup(B)= sup(A)$$
So now we know that $exists b$ that sort of "must be in the middle"
$$ a <b leq sup(B) $$
I don't know how to make this concrete, also is this element simply the supremum?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
Let $A$ and $B$ nonempty subsets of $mathbb{R}$, such that $sup(A)=sup(B)$ and $sup(A) not in A$
Prove: $forall a in A, exists b in B$ such that $a<b$
I started out with the fact that:
$$ a< sup (A) = sup (B)$$
And of course we know that
$$b leq sup(B)= sup(A)$$
So now we know that $exists b$ that sort of "must be in the middle"
$$ a <b leq sup(B) $$
I don't know how to make this concrete, also is this element simply the supremum?
real-analysis
real-analysis
asked Dec 1 '18 at 23:54
Wesley StrikWesley Strik
1,667423
1,667423
1
$begingroup$
What is your definition of the supremum, and what properties have you proven for it? For example, if your definition of $mathrm{sup}(X)$ is that it is a number $s$ such that (i) $s$ is an upper bound for $X$; and (ii) if $t$ is any upper bound for $x$, then $sleq t$; then from $altmathrm{sup}(B)$ you can conclude that $a$ is not an upper bound for $B$, and therefore...
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 2 '18 at 0:00
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
What is your definition of the supremum, and what properties have you proven for it? For example, if your definition of $mathrm{sup}(X)$ is that it is a number $s$ such that (i) $s$ is an upper bound for $X$; and (ii) if $t$ is any upper bound for $x$, then $sleq t$; then from $altmathrm{sup}(B)$ you can conclude that $a$ is not an upper bound for $B$, and therefore...
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 2 '18 at 0:00
1
1
$begingroup$
What is your definition of the supremum, and what properties have you proven for it? For example, if your definition of $mathrm{sup}(X)$ is that it is a number $s$ such that (i) $s$ is an upper bound for $X$; and (ii) if $t$ is any upper bound for $x$, then $sleq t$; then from $altmathrm{sup}(B)$ you can conclude that $a$ is not an upper bound for $B$, and therefore...
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 2 '18 at 0:00
$begingroup$
What is your definition of the supremum, and what properties have you proven for it? For example, if your definition of $mathrm{sup}(X)$ is that it is a number $s$ such that (i) $s$ is an upper bound for $X$; and (ii) if $t$ is any upper bound for $x$, then $sleq t$; then from $altmathrm{sup}(B)$ you can conclude that $a$ is not an upper bound for $B$, and therefore...
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 2 '18 at 0:00
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The following argument utilizes the second characterization of the supremum found here:
Suppose $a in A$. Since $sup(A) notin A$, we know that $sup(A)-a>0$. So we select $varepsilon=sup(A)-a$. Now we have that there exists $b in B$ such that
begin{aligned} b&>sup(B)-varepsilon \& = sup(B)-left(sup(A)-aright) \& = sup(B)-sup(B)+a \& =a.
end{aligned}
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is a good tool, yes we had to prove this as an earlier exercise in the book. It's a little bit less used than " the minimum of all upper bounds" property, but very useful indeed. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 10:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By contradiction. Assume $exists a in A$ such that $forall b in B$, $bleq a$. Then $sup(B) leq a < sup(A)$, which is a contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know that $ ale sup A=sup B$, and because $sup A notin A$, $a< sup A=sup B$. In particular, because $sup B$ is the least upper bound of $B$, and $a$ is strictly less than it, there exists $bin B$ with $b>a$. If this were not the case, then $a$ would be a smaller lower bound for $B$, which is contradictory.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
oh. I get it now!
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 13:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Note that $a<sup(A)=sup(B)$, so $a$ is not an upper bound of $B$, because $sup(B)$ is the least upper bound of $B$. Therefore $a<b$, for some $bin B$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022021%2fa-and-b-nonempty-subsets-of-mathbbr-if-supa-supb-then-forall%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The following argument utilizes the second characterization of the supremum found here:
Suppose $a in A$. Since $sup(A) notin A$, we know that $sup(A)-a>0$. So we select $varepsilon=sup(A)-a$. Now we have that there exists $b in B$ such that
begin{aligned} b&>sup(B)-varepsilon \& = sup(B)-left(sup(A)-aright) \& = sup(B)-sup(B)+a \& =a.
end{aligned}
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is a good tool, yes we had to prove this as an earlier exercise in the book. It's a little bit less used than " the minimum of all upper bounds" property, but very useful indeed. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 10:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The following argument utilizes the second characterization of the supremum found here:
Suppose $a in A$. Since $sup(A) notin A$, we know that $sup(A)-a>0$. So we select $varepsilon=sup(A)-a$. Now we have that there exists $b in B$ such that
begin{aligned} b&>sup(B)-varepsilon \& = sup(B)-left(sup(A)-aright) \& = sup(B)-sup(B)+a \& =a.
end{aligned}
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is a good tool, yes we had to prove this as an earlier exercise in the book. It's a little bit less used than " the minimum of all upper bounds" property, but very useful indeed. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 10:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The following argument utilizes the second characterization of the supremum found here:
Suppose $a in A$. Since $sup(A) notin A$, we know that $sup(A)-a>0$. So we select $varepsilon=sup(A)-a$. Now we have that there exists $b in B$ such that
begin{aligned} b&>sup(B)-varepsilon \& = sup(B)-left(sup(A)-aright) \& = sup(B)-sup(B)+a \& =a.
end{aligned}
$endgroup$
The following argument utilizes the second characterization of the supremum found here:
Suppose $a in A$. Since $sup(A) notin A$, we know that $sup(A)-a>0$. So we select $varepsilon=sup(A)-a$. Now we have that there exists $b in B$ such that
begin{aligned} b&>sup(B)-varepsilon \& = sup(B)-left(sup(A)-aright) \& = sup(B)-sup(B)+a \& =a.
end{aligned}
answered Dec 2 '18 at 0:22
Matt A PeltoMatt A Pelto
2,502620
2,502620
1
$begingroup$
This is a good tool, yes we had to prove this as an earlier exercise in the book. It's a little bit less used than " the minimum of all upper bounds" property, but very useful indeed. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 10:27
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
This is a good tool, yes we had to prove this as an earlier exercise in the book. It's a little bit less used than " the minimum of all upper bounds" property, but very useful indeed. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 10:27
1
1
$begingroup$
This is a good tool, yes we had to prove this as an earlier exercise in the book. It's a little bit less used than " the minimum of all upper bounds" property, but very useful indeed. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 10:27
$begingroup$
This is a good tool, yes we had to prove this as an earlier exercise in the book. It's a little bit less used than " the minimum of all upper bounds" property, but very useful indeed. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 10:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By contradiction. Assume $exists a in A$ such that $forall b in B$, $bleq a$. Then $sup(B) leq a < sup(A)$, which is a contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By contradiction. Assume $exists a in A$ such that $forall b in B$, $bleq a$. Then $sup(B) leq a < sup(A)$, which is a contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By contradiction. Assume $exists a in A$ such that $forall b in B$, $bleq a$. Then $sup(B) leq a < sup(A)$, which is a contradiction.
$endgroup$
By contradiction. Assume $exists a in A$ such that $forall b in B$, $bleq a$. Then $sup(B) leq a < sup(A)$, which is a contradiction.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 0:04
mlerma54mlerma54
1,177148
1,177148
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know that $ ale sup A=sup B$, and because $sup A notin A$, $a< sup A=sup B$. In particular, because $sup B$ is the least upper bound of $B$, and $a$ is strictly less than it, there exists $bin B$ with $b>a$. If this were not the case, then $a$ would be a smaller lower bound for $B$, which is contradictory.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
oh. I get it now!
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 13:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know that $ ale sup A=sup B$, and because $sup A notin A$, $a< sup A=sup B$. In particular, because $sup B$ is the least upper bound of $B$, and $a$ is strictly less than it, there exists $bin B$ with $b>a$. If this were not the case, then $a$ would be a smaller lower bound for $B$, which is contradictory.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
oh. I get it now!
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 13:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know that $ ale sup A=sup B$, and because $sup A notin A$, $a< sup A=sup B$. In particular, because $sup B$ is the least upper bound of $B$, and $a$ is strictly less than it, there exists $bin B$ with $b>a$. If this were not the case, then $a$ would be a smaller lower bound for $B$, which is contradictory.
$endgroup$
We know that $ ale sup A=sup B$, and because $sup A notin A$, $a< sup A=sup B$. In particular, because $sup B$ is the least upper bound of $B$, and $a$ is strictly less than it, there exists $bin B$ with $b>a$. If this were not the case, then $a$ would be a smaller lower bound for $B$, which is contradictory.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 0:05
Antonios-Alexandros RobotisAntonios-Alexandros Robotis
9,90241640
9,90241640
$begingroup$
oh. I get it now!
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 13:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
oh. I get it now!
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 13:32
$begingroup$
oh. I get it now!
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 13:32
$begingroup$
oh. I get it now!
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 2 '18 at 13:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Note that $a<sup(A)=sup(B)$, so $a$ is not an upper bound of $B$, because $sup(B)$ is the least upper bound of $B$. Therefore $a<b$, for some $bin B$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Note that $a<sup(A)=sup(B)$, so $a$ is not an upper bound of $B$, because $sup(B)$ is the least upper bound of $B$. Therefore $a<b$, for some $bin B$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Note that $a<sup(A)=sup(B)$, so $a$ is not an upper bound of $B$, because $sup(B)$ is the least upper bound of $B$. Therefore $a<b$, for some $bin B$.
$endgroup$
Note that $a<sup(A)=sup(B)$, so $a$ is not an upper bound of $B$, because $sup(B)$ is the least upper bound of $B$. Therefore $a<b$, for some $bin B$.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 0:30
egregegreg
180k1485202
180k1485202
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022021%2fa-and-b-nonempty-subsets-of-mathbbr-if-supa-supb-then-forall%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
What is your definition of the supremum, and what properties have you proven for it? For example, if your definition of $mathrm{sup}(X)$ is that it is a number $s$ such that (i) $s$ is an upper bound for $X$; and (ii) if $t$ is any upper bound for $x$, then $sleq t$; then from $altmathrm{sup}(B)$ you can conclude that $a$ is not an upper bound for $B$, and therefore...
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 2 '18 at 0:00