Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Math Help - more proofs in analysis

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    73

    more proofs in analysis

    Problem 1:

    Let S be a non-empty set bounded by the subset of real numbers. Prove that sup S is unique.

    Problem 2:

    Let S and T be non-empty bounded subsets of real numbers were S is a subset of T. Prove that
    inf T <= inf S <= sup S <= sup T

    Problem 3:

    A) prove: if x and y are real numbers with x < y, then there are infitely many rational numbers in the interval [x,y]

    B) repeat part A for irrational numbers
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1573
    Awards
    1
    Here is some help. On #1.
    Suppose that A=sup(S) and B=sup(S) is A is not B then one is less than the other: say that B<A. The by definition of supremum, there is an element, x, in S such that B<x<=A. Do you see the contradiction?

    On #3(a). We know that between any two real numbers there is a rational number. Then there is a rational number between x & y, r_1. There is a rational number between x & r-1, r_2. How do we know that r_1 & r_2 are distinct? For each positive integer n>=3, there is a rational number r_n between x & r_{n-1}. How does this prove the statement?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    73
    Thank you for your help! I will look in to the insight you gave me. These problems were from a test, these are the problems that I got wrong. The professor is willing to give us a fourth of the problems missed back if we can come up with the right solution by monday. So how would you complete the problem?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyc1423 View Post
    Problem 1:

    Let S be a non-empty set bounded by the subset of real numbers. Prove that sup S is unique.

    Problem 2:

    Let S and T be non-empty bounded subsets of real numbers were S is a subset of T. Prove that
    inf T <= inf S <= sup S <= sup T

    Problem 3:

    A) prove: if x and y are real numbers with x < y, then there are infitely many rational numbers in the interval [x,y]

    B) repeat part A for irrational numbers

    Problem 1: I think Plato handled that one well.

    Problem 2:

    Let S and T be non-empty bounded subsets of real numbers were S is a subset of T. We have two cases: (1) S=T, and (2) S is a proper subset of T. We show that in either case, inf T <= inf S <= sup S <= sup T.

    case 1: If S=T, then it follows immediately that inf T <= inf S <= sup S <= sup T.

    case 2: S is a proper subset of T.

    Then for all s in S, we have s in T.

    By definition: infT<= supT and infS<=supS. Thus it is sufficient to show that (i) infT<=infS and (ii) supS<=supT.

    (i) By definition, infT<= t, for all t in T, and so infT<=s for all s in S (since for all s in S, we have s in T). Let s0 = min{infS, infT}, so by definition, infT<=s0. So we have infT<=infT (which is trivial) or infT<=infS. Thus we have infT<=infS.

    (ii) The proof of supS<=supT is similar to the part (i), we just change "inf" to "sup", "<=" to ">=", and "min" to "max"


    Problem 3:
    (A) Let x and y are real numbers with x < y. We will show that there are infinately many rationals between x and y, that is, x<(m/n)<y, for m,n integers and n>0.

    x<(m/n)<y so we have nx<m<ny. Since x<y, we have y - x>0. By the Archimedean property, we have n(y - x)>1 for some n in N. Since ny - nx>1, clearly there is at least one integer between them, so nx<m<ny holds. Now we show that such an m exists. By the Archimedean property we have, for some k>max{|nx|,|ny|},

    -k < nx < ny < k

    So the set {a in Z: -k<a<=k and nx<a} is finite and nonempty. S we can let our m = min{a in Z: -k<a<=k and nx<a}.

    Then xn< m, and m-1 <= an

    so m = (m - 1) + 1 <= xn + 1 < xn + (yn - xn) = yn

    so nx < m < ny holds.


    (B) Let I be the set of irrational numbers. We show that for x,y in R, x<y, we have i in I, such that x < i < y

    lemma: the set {i : i = r + sqrt(2), r in Q} is a subset of I.
    Assume to the contrary that r + sqrt(2) is not a member of I. Then r + sqrt(2) = m/n for some m,n integers, n>0. So sqrt(2) = m/n - r = (m - nr)/n. Since m-nr and n are in Z. We have sqrt(2) being a rational number, which is clearly a contradiction. Thus, it must be the case that r + sqrt(2) are in I.

    Now we show x < i < y.
    Let x, y be real numbers. Then x-sqrt(2) and y-sqrt(2) are also real. By the denseness of Q property, proven in (A) above, we have some r in Q, such that x-sqrt(2) < r < y-sqrt(2). Adding sqrt(2) throughout the system, we obtain:

    x < r + sqrt(2) < y. Be r + sqrt(2) represents an irrational number i, so x < i < y.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyc1423 View Post
    Problem 1:

    Let S be a non-empty set bounded by the subset of real numbers. Prove that sup S is unique.

    Problem 2:

    Let S and T be non-empty bounded subsets of real numbers were S is a subset of T. Prove that
    inf T <= inf S <= sup S <= sup T

    Problem 3:

    A) prove: if x and y are real numbers with x < y, then there are infitely many rational numbers in the interval [x,y]

    B) repeat part A for irrational numbers
    Here is, perhaps, a better proof for problem 2:

    Let S and T be non-empty bounded subsets of real numbers were S is a subset of T.

    By definition, infT<=supT and infS<=supS. Thus we have only to prove infT<=infS and supS<=supT.

    Let s = infS, and t = infT. Then, by definition of infimum, if m is a lower bound for S, then s>=m. Now let y be in S. Then y is in T, since S is a subset of T. Thus, t <= y for every y in T, since t = infT. So t is a lower bound for S. But s>= t by the definition of infimum. so we have infS>=infT.

    Showing supS<=supT is similar to the proof above.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    73
    Thanks alot for that insight, this helps me out a ton! Have a good day!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyc1423 View Post
    Thanks alot for that insight, this helps me out a ton! Have a good day!
    So you followed everything right? What i did for parts 2 and 3 were not just insights, they were actual proofs. You should be able to hand them in verbatim and get full credit. I'd probably hand in the last proof i gave for problem 2. Of course where i wrote "the proof of <blank> is similar to <blank>", i'd actually write out the proof.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    73
    Okay, is the first problem a complete proof?
    I am only asking this stuff is I can manage to get a fourth of the points back on the problems I missed. I didnt do well on the test, matter of fact I got a D, but I talked to the prof and he said considering how everyone else sucked on the test to, that would be a low b or a C.
    I am usually very good in math but proofs are not my thing. I am praying and hoping I can pull a C out of the class because I am scheduled to graduate this coming May, and I already have a job lined up starting June first, so I have alot riding on this class.
    I usually have homework once a week that is somewhat as complicated as this, so I am always needing help in this course.
    Did you see my other post about the binomial coefficient?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1573
    Awards
    1
    Jhevon, how does what you did in part 3(a) prove that there are infinitely many rationals between x & y?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    Jhevon, how does what you did in part 3(a) prove that there are infinitely many rationals between x & y?
    in 3(a) i showed that i can find integers m,n so that x< m/n < y. the set of integers is infinite, so there are infinite numbers of the form m/n. and of course, anything of the form m/n is rational

    in 3 (b) since r is any element of Q, and Q is infinite, it follows there are infinite numbers of the form r + srqt(2). I showed that this number was irrational and that it was between x and y, so there are infinite irrationals of this form between x and y
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1573
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhevon View Post
    in 3(a) i showed that i can find integers m,n so that x< m/n < y. the set of integers is infinite, so there are infinite numbers of the form m/n
    No that is no proof! You have shown that the is at least one rational.
    You have not shown that there are infinitely many.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    For any a<b real numbers.

    Define now new numbers
    a-sqrt(2)<b-sqrt(2)

    We know there exists a rational "r" thus,

    a-sqrt(2)<r<b-sqrt(2)

    Thus,
    a<r+sqrt(2)<b

    Q.E.D.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    No that is no proof! You have shown that the is at least one rational.
    You have not shown that there are infinitely many.
    Read the proof again, i showed there is at least one m that satisfies nx < m < ny. But there are infinitely many n's that can work. Thus, for infinitely many n's i can find at least one m for each of them, so i end up with infinitely many m/n numbers
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhevon View Post
    Read the proof again, i showed there is at least one m that satisfies nx < m < ny. But there are infinitely many n's that can work. Thus, for infinitely many n's i can find at least one m for each of them, so i end up with infinitely many m/n numbers
    The way I proved it for homework, is by contradiction. I assumed that there are only finitely many rational numbers. And I let the set S represent all the rationals, which is finite. Then I show that leads to a contradiction.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyc1423 View Post
    Problem 1:

    Let S be a non-empty set bounded by the subset of real numbers. Prove that sup S is unique.
    I do not see how that is a problem. Since "sup S" is used, does it not mean the definition is "well-defined", i.e. it is unique. Hence there is nothing to prove.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Proofs... and Complex Analysis
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 7th 2011, 07:58 AM
  2. Analysis Absolute Value Proofs
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 18th 2009, 08:05 AM
  3. Real Analysis - Sets and Proofs
    Posted in the Advanced Math Topics Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 10th 2008, 06:28 PM
  4. more Proofs (real analysis)
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 15th 2007, 03:27 PM
  5. Proofs Questions (Real Analysis)
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 15th 2007, 02:05 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum