- #1
jacksonjs20
- 10
- 0
I have been consulting different sources of analysis notes. My confusion comes from these two definitions
\begin{defn} Let S be a non-empty subset of $\mathbb{R}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $S$ is Bounded above $ \Longleftrightarrow\exists\,M > 0$ s.t. $\forall\, x\in S$, $x\leq M$.
\item $S$ is Bounded above $ \Longleftrightarrow\exists\,M\in\mathbb{R}$ s.t. $\forall\, x\in S$, $x\leq M$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
My question: Why in the first definition does M have to be strictly greater than 0?
e.g.If we consider the set S :={-3,-2,-1}
Then is S bounded above by -1?. I know that S is bounded above by all positive integers. Though, M = -1 appears to be a suitable choice of M in the second definition, to satisfy S being bounded above, but not the first.
I have thoroughly confused myself over this matter and would be grateful for any insight into the matter. Thanks in advance.
\begin{defn} Let S be a non-empty subset of $\mathbb{R}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $S$ is Bounded above $ \Longleftrightarrow\exists\,M > 0$ s.t. $\forall\, x\in S$, $x\leq M$.
\item $S$ is Bounded above $ \Longleftrightarrow\exists\,M\in\mathbb{R}$ s.t. $\forall\, x\in S$, $x\leq M$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
My question: Why in the first definition does M have to be strictly greater than 0?
e.g.If we consider the set S :={-3,-2,-1}
Then is S bounded above by -1?. I know that S is bounded above by all positive integers. Though, M = -1 appears to be a suitable choice of M in the second definition, to satisfy S being bounded above, but not the first.
I have thoroughly confused myself over this matter and would be grateful for any insight into the matter. Thanks in advance.