Results 1 to 7 of 7

Math Help - Least Upper Bound Property Proof

  1. #1
    Super Member
    Joined
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    2

    Least Upper Bound Property Proof

    Prove that an nonempty set S that is bounded above has a least upper bound.

    Proof.

    For this problem, we must use the following way to show the proof:

    Let u_0 \in S and N_0 be an upper bound of S.

    Let  v_{0} = \frac {u_0 + N_0 }{2} .

    If v_0 is an upper bound, let U_1 = v_0 and  u_1 = x_0

    If v_0 is not an upper bound, then let N_1 = N_0 and  u_1 > v_0 \ \ \ u_1 \in S

    Repeat the process to obtain sequence N_n and u_n, we have to show that they both converge to the LUB (S).

    To be honest, I'm a bit lost on how to generate N_n and u_n, so if v_0 is not an upper bound, that means N_0 is still the least upper bound since v_0 \in S , right? Suppose it is not true, then we let v_1 be something lower, or closer to the sequence, but how should the sequences N_n and u_n look like?

    Thank you very much!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,617
    Thanks
    1581
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by tttcomrader View Post
    Prove that an nonempty set S that is bounded above has a least upper bound.
    There is a real problem is offering any help in this case.
    This statement is usually known as the Completeness Axiom.
    If you are asked to prove what is an axiom in one development then there must be an axiom in the other development that helps prove the statement. Can you tell us what axioms you have been given that deal with bounded sets?
    What are your axioms to this point?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Super Member
    Joined
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    2
    So far we know that:

    A convergent sequence is bounded.

    A montone sequence that is bounded converges.

    And for the set S in the problem, S is a nonempty set in the set of real numbers.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,617
    Thanks
    1581
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by tttcomrader View Post
    So far we know that:A convergent sequence is bounded. A montone sequence that is bounded converges. And for the set S in the problem, S is a nonempty set in the set of real numbers.
    It is clear that you will use A montone sequence that is bounded converges. However, I still do not know what else you have proven about the structure of the real numbers. Here is a fact that may help recall what you have proved about the real numbers. If S contains a point of U, then that point is the LUB of S. So if there is no LUB of S both S & U can be shown to be open. Have you done anything with connectivity?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Super Member
    Joined
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    2
    We haven't done anything with connected sets yet (at least not in this course). We went over field axioms and order axioms, well-ordered property, completeness property, and we talked about dense and equivalent classes. Haven't talk about open, close, or connected.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,617
    Thanks
    1581
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by tttcomrader View Post
    We haven't done anything with connected sets yet (at least not in this course). We went over field axioms and order axioms, well-ordered property, completeness property, and we talked about dense and equivalent classes. Haven't talk about open, close, or connected.
    Well, I think that is what I asked to bengin with: "What is the statement of the completeness property?"
    Because this is equivalent to that.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Super Member
    Joined
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    2
    The statement is: "An ordered field is said to be complete if it obeys the monotone sequence property".

    I was working on this problem, and I understand the idea of the proof now.

    So if a is an upper bound, then M would change; if a is not an upper bound, then x would change. In other words, M_n is a sequence that is appraoching sup(S) from the positive side while X_n does the same from the negative side.

    Since, both sequences are monotonic, M being decreasing while X increasing, and they are both bounded by the sup(S), since if they move outside of their respective area they stop moving, sup(S) is the GLB of M and the LUB of x.

    It is just that, I don't know how to write this correctly, since I do know what excatly M_n and x_n equals to. But here is what I think:

    So I have M_n = \frac { M_{n-1} + x_0 }{2}

    On the other hand, I have: x_n > \frac { x_{n-1} +M_0 }{2}

    Now, by construction, M has to be decreasing and x has to be increasing, and they are both bounded by sup(S), but how do I show that?

    Any hints would be appreicated, thank you!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 20th 2011, 04:11 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 27th 2010, 02:44 PM
  3. Least Upper Bound Property
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 27th 2010, 02:23 PM
  4. Quick Question - Least Upper Bound Property
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 27th 2009, 07:15 AM
  5. least upper bound property
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 30th 2009, 04:34 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum