Supremum and infimum of specific sets

In summary: I do not understand what you are trying to say. Can you explain it more clearly?Sorry for my late reply!In summary, Homework Equations, In D, the [ ] denotes the integral part of \frac{n}{3}. C a little harder. Please post some attempt at each of those.
  • #36
haruspex said:
Yes, convergence is all to do with limits. Is that a problem? For the purposes of the question, I don't think you actually need to prove the convergence. Just show a sequence which pretty obviously converges to the extremum in your answer.
Let me see. I guess if we set [itex]m > 0, n = 1[/itex], we could say:[tex]C = \frac{1}{2}, \frac{2}{3}, \frac{3}{4}, \dots, \frac{9999}{10000}, \dots = 0.5, 0.6666..., 0.75, \dots, 0.9999, \dots[/tex]which constantly approximates from [itex]0,9999...[/itex]

Or I think we can also say[tex]\lim\limits_{m \rightarrow \infty} \frac{m}{m + 1}=\lim\limits_{m \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{m}}=\frac{1}{1 + \lim\limits_{m \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{m}}=1[/tex]Is that acceptable?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Bunny-chan said:
Let me see. I guess if we set [itex]m > 0, n = 1[/itex], we could say:[tex]C = \frac{1}{2}, \frac{2}{3}, \frac{3}{4}, \dots, \frac{9999}{10000}, \dots = 0.5, 0.6666..., 0.75, \dots, 0.9999, \dots[/tex]which constantly approximates from [itex]0,9999...[/itex]

Or I think we can also say[tex]\lim\limits_{m \rightarrow \infty} \frac{m}{m + 1}=\lim\limits_{m \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{m}}=\frac{1}{1 + \lim\limits_{m \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{m}}=1[/tex]Is that acceptable?
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes Bunny-chan
  • #38
haruspex said:
Yes.
Great! Thank you very much!
 
  • #39
Bunny-chan said:
Great! Thank you very much!
OK, that leaves B.
And don't forget it also asks for the infimum in each.
 
  • #40
haruspex said:
OK, that leaves B.
And don't forget it also asks for the infimum in each.
For [itex]C[/itex], I am assuming that the infimum is the opposite of [itex]1[/itex], assuming we take [itex]m \lt 0[/itex]. Isn't that right?
 
  • #41
Bunny-chan said:
For [itex]C[/itex], I am assuming that the infimum is the opposite of [itex]1[/itex], assuming we take [itex]m \lt 0[/itex]. Isn't that right?
Yes, swapping the sign of m swaps the sign of the result. I assume you mean -1 as the "opposite" of 1.
 
  • #42
haruspex said:
Yes, swapping the sign of m swaps the sign of the result. I assume you mean -1 as the "opposite" of 1.
Is there more than one opposite to [itex]1[/itex]? o_o
 
  • #43
Bunny-chan said:
Is there more than one opposite to [itex]1[/itex]? o_o
In relation to numbers, "opposite" is undefined. You can have "additive inverse" for x and -x, and "multiplicative inverse" for x and 1/x. For complex numbers there is the complex conjugate.
 
  • Like
Likes Bunny-chan
  • #44
haruspex said:
OK, that leaves B.
And don't forget it also asks for the infimum in each.
By the way, I just checked and I wrote set [itex]B[/itex] incorrectly, it should be [itex]
B = \left\{ {mn\over 4m^2+n^2} \mid m, n \in \mathbb N \right\}[/itex]. Anyway, setting [itex]m = n = 1[/itex], it results in [itex]\frac{1}{5}[/itex]. Is there a way we could obtain a value greater than that considering [itex]m, n \in \mathbb N[/itex]? Or is it safe to assume that that's the supremum?
 
  • #45
Bunny-chan said:
Is there a way we could obtain a value greater than that
A little greater, yes.
The quadratic is (after the correction) suggestive. It did look strange before.
Suppose the value for some m, n is a. Write that out as a quadratic equation.
 
  • #46
haruspex said:
A little greater, yes.
The quadratic is (after the correction) suggestive. It did look strange before.
Suppose the value for some m, n is a. Write that out as a quadratic equation.
Sorry, I don't follow what you mean. D:
 
  • #47
Bunny-chan said:
Sorry, I don't follow what you mean. D:
If a∈B then for some m, n, a=mn/(4m2+n2).
I.e. 4m2+n2 = mn/a.
When you see an expression like that on the left, one thing to consider is 'completing the square'. There are two options for that here. What are they?
 
  • #48
haruspex said:
If a∈B then for some m, n, a=mn/(4m2+n2).
I.e. 4m2+n2 = mn/a.
When you see an expression like that on the left, one thing to consider is 'completing the square'. There are two options for that here. What are they?
I'm clueless. I tried to complete the squares but I wasn't successful...

Should I divide the left side by four?
 
  • #49
Bunny-chan said:
I tried to complete the squares but I wasn't successful...
You cannot think what to add to or subtract from 4m2+n2 to make a perfect square?
 
  • #50
haruspex said:
You cannot think what to add to or subtract from 4m2+n2 to make a perfect square?
Oh.
[itex]4m^2 + n^2 = (2m + n)^2 - 4mn[/itex] or [itex](2m - n)^2 + 4mn[/itex]
 
  • #51
Bunny-chan said:
Oh.
[itex]4m^2 + n^2 = (2m + n)^2 - 4mn[/itex] or [itex](2m - n)^2 + 4mn[/itex]
Right. The 2m-n form is the useful one here.
Write the second equation in post #47 using that.
Can you get from that an upper bound on a?
 
  • #52
haruspex said:
Right. The 2m-n form is the useful one here.
Write the second equation in post #47 using that.
Can you get from that an upper bound on a?
Would that be [itex]\frac{1}{4}[/itex]?
 
  • #53
Bunny-chan said:
Would that be [itex]\frac{1}{4}[/itex]?
Yes.
 
  • #54
haruspex said:
Yes.
Excellent! And we have [itex]0[/itex] as infimum?
 
  • #55
Bunny-chan said:
Excellent! And we have [itex]0[/itex] as infimum?
As far as I am aware, there is not universal agreement on whether ℕ includes 0. What have you been taught?
 
  • #56
haruspex said:
As far as I am aware, there is not universal agreement on whether ℕ includes 0. What have you been taught?
Oh, I've forgot that. Particularly my professor doesn't include it either.
 
  • #57
Bunny-chan said:
Oh, I've forgot that. Particularly my professor doesn't include it either.
Maybe it does not matter. If we exclude 0, can you still get 0 as infimum?
 
  • #58
haruspex said:
Maybe it does not matter. If we exclude 0, can you still get 0 as infimum?
It's true that we can never get any value equal to zero, but the infimum doesn't need to be contained in the set, as you said. But I'm not very sure how to verify if [itex]0[/itex] is the infimum.
 
  • #59
Bunny-chan said:
It's true that we can never get any value equal to zero, but the infimum doesn't need to be contained in the set, as you said. But I'm not very sure how to verify if [itex]0[/itex] is the infimum.
Consider very unequal values of m, n.
 
  • #60
haruspex said:
Consider very unequal values of m, n.
The values indeed get more and more close to zero.
 
  • #61
Bunny-chan said:
The values indeed get more and more close to zero.
Right.
 
  • Like
Likes Bunny-chan
  • #62
haruspex said:
Right.
Thank you for this loooong aid!
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
971
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Back
Top