Show Set is Bounded: Prove A is Bounded in Q

In summary, the problem requires the proof that the set A, defined as {x e Q | x^2 < a}, is bounded in Q. The student attempts to find individual bounds for positive and negative elements of A, but this does not suffice. The student then realizes that the set is bounded by -1 and 1 if a < 1 and by sqrt(a) and -sqrt(a) if a > 1. However, this approach does not account for the case where x is an element of the rationals. The student is then asked to find the least upper bound in R, which should be obvious.
  • #1
sinClair
22
0
Hi everyone. I'm a math student still learning to do
proofs. Here is a problem I encountered that seems easy but
has me stuck.

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known
data

Let a be a positive rational number. Let A = {x e Q (that
is, e is an element of the rationals) | x^2 < a}. Show that
A is bounded in Q. Find the least upper bound in R of this
set.

Homework Equations


None.

The Attempt at a Solution


So I want to show that there exists an M such that x < or =
to M for all x in A.
So for all x in A, x^2<a.
=> x < (a/x) if x>0 or x > (a/x) if x < 0
So it seems like I find an upper bound for x if x is
positive and a lower bound for x if x is negative but what
havn't acounted for the other cases.

Thanks for your help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It does not suffice to find an individual bound for all the elements of A. You must find ONE bound that fits ALL the elements of A.

I suggest you treat the two cases a< or =1 and a>1 and find a bound for A is both cases.
 
  • #3
So the set seems to be bounded by -1,1 if a<1 and sqrt(a) and -sqrt(a) if a>1. But I got this through taking square roots, which arn't there when x is an element of the rationals.

Hm, I guess I have to think about this some more.
 
  • #4
why not just use a if a>1 ?
 
  • #5
Notice that you are also asked to find the least upper bound in R. That should be obvious.
 

FAQ: Show Set is Bounded: Prove A is Bounded in Q

What does it mean for a show set to be bounded?

A show set is bounded if it has a finite upper and lower limit. This means that there exists a maximum and minimum value within the set.

How can you prove that a show set is bounded?

To prove that a show set is bounded, you must show that there exists a finite upper and lower limit for the set. This can be done by finding the maximum and minimum values within the set or by using mathematical techniques such as the squeeze theorem.

What is the significance of proving that a show set is bounded?

Proving that a show set is bounded is important because it allows us to make predictions and conclusions about the behavior of the set. It also helps us to identify any outliers or extreme values within the set.

What is the difference between a bounded show set and an unbounded show set?

An unbounded show set has no upper or lower limit, meaning that it can continue infinitely in either direction. On the other hand, a bounded show set has a finite upper and lower limit, meaning that it is contained within a specific range of values.

Can you provide an example of proving a show set is bounded in a real-world scenario?

Yes, for example, let's say we are studying the average temperature in a city over the course of a year. We can prove that the temperature is bounded by finding the maximum and minimum temperatures recorded in that year. This would show that the temperature in the city does not go above or below a certain range, making it a bounded show set.

Similar threads

Back
Top