Results 1 to 4 of 4

Math Help - Supremum proof

  1. #1
    freddyg
    Guest

    Supremum proof

    Define S≡{x in ℝ | x2 < x}. Prove that sup S=1.


    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    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 freddyg View Post
    Define S≡{x in ℝ | x2 < x}. Prove that sup S=1.

    note that the set of x's that satisfy this condition is -1 < x < 1

    now what can you say about the sup?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    From
    San Diego
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by freddyg View Post
    Define S≡{x in ℝ | x2 < x}. Prove that sup S=1.


    Proving a Sup is (usually) accomplished in two steps.
    (1) Show that x \in S implies x \le 1, and
    (2) Show that if \alpha is an upper bound, then 1 \le \alpha.

    For the first one, pick any x \in S, then x^2 < x. Since we know 0 \notin S because 0^2 = 0, we can safely divide by x to get the inequality x < 1.

    So we know that 1 is an upper bound of S. The next step is to prove that there are no upper bounds of the set that are less than 1.
    First it should be clear that everything in S is positive. Negative numbers are never larger than their square, which are always positive, and we showed 0 is also not a member.

    Suppose for contradiction that 1 were not the Sup. Then there is some \alpha which is an upper bound of S, but also so \alpha < 1. First note that \alpha is a positive number because everything in S is positive, and \alpha is an upper bound of the set. So we can multiply the inequality by \alpha without changing the sign. So \alpha < 1 implies \alpha^2 < \alpha. So it follows that \alpha \in S.
    Now consider the number \alpha + \frac{1-\alpha}{2}, which is the number lying halfway between \alpha and 1. Now you can easily prove that its square is smaller than itself -- that is, (\alpha + \frac{1-\alpha}{2})^2 < \alpha + \frac{1-\alpha}{2}, which means that creature is also in S.
    But here's the contradiction. We said \alpha was an upper bound, which means it's greater-than-or-equal-to everything in S. But we found an element, which lies between \alpha and 1, that lies in S but is bigger than \alpha. Therefore, no such \alpha exists, so 1 must be the least upper bound, i.e., the Sup of S.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    This is somewhat shorter.
    Clearly 1 is an upper bound for S because x > 1\quad  \Rightarrow \quad x^2  > 1.
    If 1 > \varepsilon  > 0 then 1 > 1 - \varepsilon  > 0.
    Consider \left( {1 - \frac{\varepsilon }{2}} \right)^2  = 1 - \varepsilon  + \frac{{\varepsilon ^2 }}{4} observe that 1 - \varepsilon  < 1 - \varepsilon  + \frac{{\varepsilon ^2 }}{4} < 1.

    That shows that no number less that 1 is an upper bound for S.
    Thus 1 is sup(S).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Relative supremum proof
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 25th 2010, 10:11 AM
  2. Proof of supremum
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 4th 2010, 09:27 PM
  3. Supremum Proof
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 10th 2009, 12:58 AM
  4. [SOLVED] Supremum proof help
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 9th 2008, 08:53 AM
  5. infimum and supremum proof
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 5th 2008, 02:57 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum