.Proving Supremum of H: f(x)<d, [a,b]

  • MHB
  • Thread starter solakis1
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Supremum
In summary, the conversation discusses a proof for the existence of the supremum of a set H, which is defined as all x such that x is between the points a and b and f(x) is less than d. The proof uses the intermediate value theorem and concludes that H must have a supremum because it is bounded above by b and is not empty. The conversation also addresses some confusion about the purpose of the proof, which is to prove the intermediate value theorem.
  • #1
solakis1
422
0
Given :

1) f : [a,b] => R

2) f is continuous over [a,b]

3) f(a)<d<f(b)

4) a<b

Then prove that the following,set: H ={x: xε(a,b),f(x)<d} has a supremum
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
solakis said:
Given :
1) f : [a,b] => R
2) f is continuous over [a,b]
3) f(a)<d<f(b)
4) a<b
Then prove that the following,set: H ={x: xε(a,b),f(x)<d} has a supremum

Of course, this is an application of the theorem: Any non-emptyy set of real numbers that is bounded above has a least upper bound.

Clearly $H$ is bounded above by $b$. Now you want to show that $H\ne\emptyset$.

Apply the intermediate value theorem twice.

$\exists c\in (a,b)$ such that $f(c)=d$ or $f(a)<f(c)=d<f(b)$.

This means that $f(a)<\frac{d+f(a)}{2}<d$ so $\exists t\in (a,c)$ such that $f(t)=\frac{d+f(a)}{2}$.

How does that show that $H\ne\emptyset~?$
 
  • #3
Plato said:
Of course, this is an application of the theorem: Any non-empty set of real numbers that is bounded above has a least upper bound.

Clearly $H$ is bounded above by $b$. Now you want to show that $H\ne\emptyset$.

Apply the intermediate value theorem twice.

$\exists c\in (a,b)$ such that $f(c)=d$ or $f(a)<f(c)=d<f(b)$.

This means that $f(a)<\frac{d+f(a)}{2}<d$ so $\exists t\in (a,c)$ such that $f(t)=\frac{d+f(a)}{2}$.

How does that show that $H\ne\emptyset~?$

So according to your proof :

$\exists t\in (a,c)$ such that $f(t)=\frac{d+f(a)}{2}<d \Longrightarrow t\in H\Longrightarrow H\neq\emptyset$.

But unfortunately i found the above at the beginning of a proof for the intermediate value theorem.

So any other suggestions for the above?
 
  • #4
solakis said:
So according to your proof :

$\exists t\in (a,c)$ such that $f(t)=\frac{d+f(a)}{2}<d \Longrightarrow t\in H\Longrightarrow H\neq\emptyset$.

But unfortunately i found the above at the beginning of a proof for the intermediate value theorem.

So any other suggestions for the above?
There is no need for other suggestions. That is the proof.
$H$ is a non-empty set that is bounded above by $b$, by the completeness property
$\sup(H)$ must exist.
 
  • #5
Plato said:
There is no need for other suggestions. That is the proof.
$H$ is a non-empty set that is bounded above by $b$, by the completeness property
$\sup(H)$ must exist.

No ,no .maybe you misunderstood me.

I was reading a proof for the intermediate value theorem and the author starts the proof by writing:

Let H be a set such that : for all xε(a,b) , f(x)<d.

Then he goes on saying : Clearly H has a supremum,since H is bounded above by b and $H\neq\emptyset$

Surely in proving the intermediate value theorem we cannot use the intermediate value for part of its proof.

That is why i asked for any other suggestions meaning other proof.
 
  • #6
solakis said:
No ,no .maybe you misunderstood me.
You bet I misunderstood your OP, and it is your fault.
It the of OP, why did you not make it clear that you were proving the intermediate value theorem?

As written, the OP looks like an exercise that goes with that section a textbook.

Next time give all the information!
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Plato said:
You bet I misunderstood your OP, and it is your fault.
It the of OP, why did you not make it clear that you were proving the intermediate value theorem?

As written, the OP looks like an exercise that goes with that section a textbook.

Next time give all the information!

I do apologize,but i did not realized that by simply asking for another solution to the problem could cause such a mental distress.I thought it was an easy problem just escaping my attention .Sorry for that.
 
  • #8
It wasn't that you asked for another solution that caused any problem, it was the fact that you did not state up front that you were in fact attempting to prove the intermediate value theorem. This omission caused Plato to waste his time, and I hope you can see that this can be a source of frustration for our contributors.
 

FAQ: .Proving Supremum of H: f(x)<d, [a,b]

What is the definition of a supremum?

A supremum, also known as a least upper bound, is the smallest real number that is greater than or equal to all elements in a set. In other words, it is the maximum value of a set.

How do you prove the supremum of a function?

In order to prove the supremum of a function, you first need to show that the function has an upper bound, meaning that there is a value that the function will never exceed. Then, you need to prove that this upper bound is the smallest possible value, making it the supremum.

What is the significance of proving the supremum of a function?

Proving the supremum of a function is important because it helps us understand the behavior and limits of the function. It also allows us to make more accurate predictions and calculations.

Can you give an example of proving the supremum of a function?

Sure! Let's say we have the function f(x) = x^2 on the interval [0,1]. We can prove that the supremum of this function is 1 by showing that 1 is an upper bound (since f(x) will never exceed 1 on this interval) and that it is the smallest possible upper bound.

How is proving the supremum of a function related to the concept of limits?

The supremum of a function is closely related to the concept of limits because it helps us determine the maximum value that a function can approach as the input approaches a certain value. This is known as the limit supremum.

Back
Top