Proving the Greatest Lower Bound Property with

In summary, the conversation discusses using part (a) to prove the Greatest Lower Bound Property, which states that each bounded-below set has an infimum. It also mentions using the Least Upper Bound Property and the relationship between sets A and -A to prove this property. The conversation then presents a solution to a specific problem related to bounded sets and their suprema and infima.
  • #1
major_maths
30
0

Homework Statement


Use part (a) to prove the Greatest Lower Bound Property.

(a): If M is any upper bound for A, then: x[itex]\in[/itex](-A), -x[itex]\in[/itex]A, and -x[itex]\leq[/itex]M. Therefore x[itex]\geq[/itex]-M, hence -M is a lower bound for -A. By the Least Upper Bound Property, inf(-A) exists. If inf(-A) exists, then -M[itex]\leq[/itex]inf(-A) for all upper bounds M of the set A. Therefore, -sup(A)[itex]\leq[/itex]inf(-A).

If -sup(A)<inf(-A), then it follows that there exists some distance between -sup(A) and inf(-A). Assuming set A is reflected correctly when transformed into set -A, it would be necessary for there to be a difference in the amount of elements in sets A and -A to create this distance. Set A must contain the same amount of elements as set -A by definition. Therefore, -sup(A) = inf(-A).

Since A and B are bounded, [itex]\forall[/itex]a[itex]\in[/itex]A and [itex]\forall[/itex]b[itex]\in[/itex]B, there exist a1, a2[itex]\in[/itex]A and b1, b2[itex]\in[/itex]B such that a1[itex]\leq[/itex]a[itex]\leq[/itex]a2 and b1[itex]\leq[/itex]b[itex]\leq[/itex]b2 [itex]\forall[/itex]a[itex]\in[/itex]A and [itex]\forall[/itex]b[itex]\in[/itex]B. Thus (a1+b1)[itex]\leq[/itex](a+b)[itex]\leq[/itex](a2+b2) and (A+B) is also bounded.

Let m=sup(A), n=sup(B). Then for all e>0,
(i)x<m+(e/2) [itex]\forall[/itex]x[itex]\in[/itex]A and y<n+(e/2) [itex]\forall[/itex]y[itex]\in[/itex]B
(ii)x>m-(e/2) for some x[itex]\in[/itex]A and y>n-(e/2) for some y[itex]\in[/itex]B

[Combining the inequalities in each (i) and (ii)]

(i) (x+y)<(m+n)+e [itex]\forall[/itex]x[itex]\in[/itex]A, [itex]\forall[/itex]y[itex]\in[/itex]B
(ii) (x+y)>(m+n)-e for some x[itex]\in[/itex]A, for some y[itex]\in[/itex]B

Hence, sup(A+B) = (m+n) = sup(A) + sup(B).


Homework Equations


See above.


The Attempt at a Solution


I haven't the slightest clue how to start this proof, so if you could give me that, I should be able to work out the rest of it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You need to prove that each bounded-below set A has an infimum. Can you prove that -A has a supremum, first?
 

FAQ: Proving the Greatest Lower Bound Property with

1. What is the Greatest Lower Bound Property?

The Greatest Lower Bound Property, also known as the GLB Property, states that every non-empty set of real numbers that is bounded below has a greatest lower bound, or infimum. This means that there exists a number in the set that is less than or equal to all other numbers in the set.

2. How is the GLB Property proven?

The GLB Property can be proven using the Completeness Axiom, which states that every non-empty set of real numbers that is bounded above has a least upper bound, or supremum. By using the Completeness Axiom and the fact that the infimum is the opposite of the supremum, we can show that the GLB Property holds.

3. Why is the GLB Property important?

The GLB Property is important because it allows us to make statements about the behavior of real numbers and sets. It also allows us to prove the existence of certain numbers, such as square roots and limits, which are essential in mathematical and scientific applications.

4. Can the GLB Property be extended to other number systems?

Yes, the GLB Property can be extended to other number systems, such as the rational numbers, complex numbers, and even vectors in a vector space. However, the completeness axiom may need to be modified or replaced in these contexts.

5. Are there any counterexamples to the GLB Property?

No, there are no counterexamples to the GLB Property. It is a fundamental property of the real numbers that has been proven to hold in all cases. However, there are other number systems, such as the ordinal numbers, that do not have the GLB Property.

Back
Top