Least upper bound analysis proof

In summary, assuming that A and B are nonempty sets, with A bounded above and B contained in A, we can prove that B is also bounded above and that the least upper bound of B is less than or equal to the least upper bound of A. This can be shown by first establishing that any upper bound for A is also an upper bound for B, and then concluding that the least upper bound for B must be less than or equal to the least upper bound for A.
  • #1
dancergirlie
200
0

Homework Statement



Assume that A and B are nonempty sets, that A is bounded above, and that B is contained in A. Prove that B is bounded above and that the least upper bound of B is less than or equal to the least upper bound of A.

Homework Equations



Definition: Least Upper bound: Let s be the least upper bound then:
1)s is an upper bound (a set A contained in R is bounded above if there exists an element b in R such that a is less than or equal to b for all elements a in A.)
2)if b is any upper bound of A then s is less than or equal to b.

The Attempt at a Solution


a
Assume A and B are nonempty sets and that A is bounded above. Meaning, A is contained in R and that there exists an element c in R so that c is greater than or equal to a, for all a in A.
Now assume that B is contained in A, meaning every element in B is also an element of A. Since A has an upper bound (c) and every element of B is also an element of A, that means c is also an upper bound for for B. Therefore B is bounded above
**not sure if this is a good argument or not**

If B is contained in A that means, that there are no element in B that are greater than any of the elements in A. Therefore, the least upper bound of B must be less than or equal to the least upper bound of A.

**this seems rather short, I feel like i need to say more**


Any help/tips would be appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
dancergirlie said:

Homework Statement



Assume that A and B are nonempty sets, that A is bounded above, and that B is contained in A. Prove that B is bounded above and that the least upper bound of B is less than or equal to the least upper bound of A.

Homework Equations



Definition: Least Upper bound: Let s be the least upper bound then:
1)s is an upper bound (a set A contained in R is bounded above if there exists an element b in R such that a is less than or equal to b for all elements a in A.)
2)if b is any upper bound of A then s is less than or equal to b.

The Attempt at a Solution


a
Assume A and B are nonempty sets and that A is bounded above. Meaning, A is contained in R and that there exists an element c in R so that c is greater than or equal to a, for all a in A.
Now assume that B is contained in A, meaning every element in B is also an element of A. Since A has an upper bound (c) and every element of B is also an element of A, that means c is also an upper bound for for B. Therefore B is bounded above
**not sure if this is a good argument or not**

If B is contained in A that means, that there are no element in B that are greater than any of the elements in A. Therefore, the least upper bound of B must be less than or equal to the least upper bound of A.

**this seems rather short, I feel like i need to say more**


Any help/tips would be appreciated!

Your first paragraph is correct but I would phrase it more mathematically. You are given:

[tex] B \subset A \subset R.[/tex]

[tex]c[/tex] is an upper bound for [tex]A[/tex] means that for all [tex] a \in A, a \leq c[/tex].

Now suppose [tex] b \in B[/tex]. Then [tex] b \in A [/tex] since [tex]B \subset A[/tex]. Therefore b <= c since c is an upper bound for [tex]A[/tex]. Hence c is an upper bound for [tex]B[/tex].

Notice that I haven't changed your argument at all, just expressed it more mathematically.

For the second part, your statement "If B is contained in A that means, that there are no element in B that are greater than any of the elements in A" is very imprecise. You might have better luck with an indirect argument. Start by assuming by way of contradiction that the least upper bound of [tex]B[/tex] is greater than that of [tex]A[/tex] and see what goes wrong.
 
  • #3
You don't need an indirect argument for the second part. What you've essentially shown in the first part is that any upper bound for A is going to be an upper bound for B. In particular, the least upper bound of A is an upper bound of A and hence an upper bound for B. Now what can you say about the least upper bound for B?
 
  • #4
Let [itex]\alpha[/itex] be the least upper bound for A. Then [itex]\alpha[/itex] is an upper bound for A. Since B is a subset of A, [itex]\alpha[/itex] is an upper bound for B. Therefore, the least upper bound for B is ...

That's even shorter!
 
  • #5
thanks for the help everyone, it makes a lot more sense now :)
 

FAQ: Least upper bound analysis proof

1. What is a least upper bound (LUB)?

A least upper bound is the smallest element in a set that is greater than or equal to all other elements in the set. In other words, it is the smallest possible value that can be used to bound a set from above.

2. What is the significance of LUB in mathematical analysis?

LUB is a fundamental concept in mathematical analysis and is used to prove the existence of limits, continuity, and convergence in various mathematical theories. It allows for precise and rigorous mathematical reasoning in these areas.

3. How is LUB analysis used in real-world applications?

LUB analysis is used in a variety of fields, such as economics, engineering, and computer science. It is used to determine optimal solutions in optimization problems, to establish the convergence of algorithms, and to analyze the behavior of complex systems.

4. What is the process of proving a LUB using mathematical induction?

To prove a LUB using mathematical induction, one must first establish a base case, typically by showing that the statement holds for the smallest element in the set. Then, the inductive step is used to show that if the statement holds for a particular element, it also holds for the next element. This process is repeated until the LUB is proven.

5. Can the LUB analysis be extended to infinite sets?

Yes, the concept of LUB can be extended to infinite sets. In fact, this is one of the key uses of LUB in mathematical analysis, as it allows for the study of continuous and infinite functions. In these cases, the LUB is often referred to as a supremum or limit superior.

Similar threads

Back
Top