None of the sets , and is bounded above. The is bounded below; is a lower bound for and so is any number less than . In fact, is the larges or greatest lower bound.
Question: How could there be a number less than when is the smallest number in ?
None of the sets , and is bounded above. The is bounded below; is a lower bound for and so is any number less than . In fact, is the larges or greatest lower bound.
Question: How could there be a number less than when is the smallest number in ?
First, be careful. Your text seems to imply that . But in some texts .
Using the convention that if then .
In other words 1 is the first element in .
It depends on the superset as to how we answer your question.
In the real numbers, any number less than 1 is a lower bound for .
But in the set there is only one lower bound, 1.
Does that help?
When one talks about a lower bound, it has to be in the context of some set P and its subset S. An x in P is a lower bound of S if x <= y for all y in S. To talk about a lower bound of one has to designate a superset of .
Here is another example:
This one does not have a minimum. The numbers alternately swing up to a larger number and swing back down to smaller fraction. The upper sides has no boundary, and the lower side becomes very small but never reached 0. So the set on the real number line is an intervalThe set is not bounded above. Among its many lower bounds, 0 is the greatest lower bound.
Well, I think I figured it out on my own soon after I typed in the question.
At any rate, thank you for your time.