Results 1 to 5 of 5

Math Help - Nested Interval Property (NIP) implies Least Upper Bound propery (LUB)

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    8

    Nested Interval Property (NIP) implies Least Upper Bound propery (LUB)

    I'm stuck in proving this. I get that we can set up the sequence of nested intervals by starting with an element a of nonempty set A with an upper bound b and create interval I_1 = [a,b]. Then create interval I_2 nested in I_1 by letting:

    I_2 = [a, (a+b)/2] if (a+b)/2 is a upper bound

    or

    I_2 = [(a+b)/2, b] if (a+b)/2 is a lower bound

    We continue this interval having process and generate our sequence of nested intervals. Now the typical argument states that since lim(1/2)^n , n->infinity = 0, this leads to us having only one point of intersection in Intersection of all I_i, i = 1 ... infinity. Finally with a few additional arguments we can show this point must be the least upper bound. My question is how do we argue that lim(1/2)^n , n->inf = 0. Or put another way: for every e, there exists a N such that (1/2)^n < e, when n >= N. I don't see how this can be proved without the Monotone Convergence Theorem which I only know how to prove using the LUB property.

    Thanks for your help
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    You shouldn't need the LUB property to show that 1/2^n → 0 as n→∞. It only requires the archimedean property. First prove (by induction) that 2^n>n. Then given ε>0, choose N with N>1/ε (that's where the archimedean property comes in). It will follow that (1/2)^n<ε whenever n≥N.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Joined
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    8
    But isn't the Archimedean Property also proved as a result of LUB?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by wellfed View Post
    But isn't the Archimedean Property also proved as a result of LUB?
    The LUB axiom implies the archimedean property, but the converse is not true. So the AP is a weaker axiom than the LUB.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Opalg View Post
    The LUB axiom implies the archimedean property, but the converse is not true. So the AP is a weaker axiom than the LUB.
    Yes, but what I think the poster means is that you need to justify the Archimedean Property (and not just quote it) without referring to the LUB Property.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 20th 2011, 05:11 PM
  2. Least Upper Bound Property
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 27th 2010, 03:23 PM
  3. Quick Question - Least Upper Bound Property
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 27th 2009, 08:15 AM
  4. least upper bound property
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 30th 2009, 05:34 AM
  5. Least Upper Bound Property Proof
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 8th 2008, 06:34 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum