Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - Infimum

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    73

    Infimum

    If I use x\leq\frac{k}{2^n} to show E is nonempty and bounded above, then E has a supremum. What would I use to show: If E is nonempty and bounded below, then E has an infimum. Would x\geq\frac{k}{2^n} work? When I tried this the induction part doesn't make sense to me. For example by induction, then, there exists integers k_n least in A_n such that k_o \leq \frac{k_1}{2} \leq \frac{k_2}{4} \leq ... \leq \frac{k_n}{2^n} \leq ... and to me that doesn't seem to make sense for something bounded below.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,790
    Thanks
    1687
    Awards
    1
    Will you please just state exactly what you are required to prove?
    Is it, “If a set has a lower bound, then it has an infimum”?
    If so, do you know that if a set has an upper bound them it has a supremum?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    73
    Yes... Prove that if E is nonempty and bounded below, then E has an infinum. Sorry about the confusion.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,790
    Thanks
    1687
    Awards
    1
    If you know that a set has an upper bound has a supremum, then the proof is simple.
    Consider F = \left\{ {x:\left( {\forall z \in E} \right)\left[ {x \leqslant z} \right]} \right\}. That is F is the set of all lower bounds for E.
    Then F is a nonempty set bounded above. Therefore F has a supremum, \gamma.
    Then, you show that \gamma  = \inf (E)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,957
    Thanks
    1631
    How did you "use k/2^n" to prove that non-empty set, with upper bound, has a supremum? By using monotone convergence? You can do something similar by multiplying by -1 to make the increasing sequence k/2^n into the decreasing sequence -k/2^n. Or do as Plato suggested and use the fact about supremum to prove infimum- again multiply by -1 to reverse the order.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    73
    Yes by using the monotone sequence property. This proof I'm working on atm does not specify that the set is bounded above or has a supremum.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Infimum of subsets
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 16th 2010, 07:19 AM
  2. Infimum
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 11th 2010, 04:34 AM
  3. Infimum and supremum
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 9th 2010, 04:57 PM
  4. Infimum
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 16th 2008, 01:56 PM
  5. Infimum
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 12th 2008, 10:09 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum