Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm having a problem with this theorem. What if set $B$ is all $x$ such that $\sqrt{2} < x \le 2$, and $S$ is the set of all $y$ such that $\sqrt{2} < y \le 3$. $\sup L = \sqrt{2}$, which does not exist in $S$. Does this prove the theorem wrong by contradiction?


1.11 Theorem Suppose $S$ is an ordered set with the least-upper-bound property, $B \subset S$, $B$ is not empty, and $B$ is bounded below. Let $L$ be the set of all lower bounds of $B$. Then $\alpha = \sup L$ exists in $S$, and $\alpha = \inf B$.

share|improve this question
1  
It would be better to state the theorem in this space. Many viewers, including some who could give very good answers, will not have the book at hand. –  Dylan Moreland Jun 6 '12 at 2:21
1  
2  
... and I do have the book, but apparently a different edition (mine is Second Edition), because Theorem 1.11 in mine is about the $<$ relation on Dedekind cuts. –  Robert Israel Jun 6 '12 at 2:27
    
There is a exercise in Rudin related to this, although I forget what chapter. –  rckrd Jun 6 '12 at 14:52

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

No, your example does not meet the hypotheses of the theorem, because $B$ is not bounded below in $S$. Note that $L=\{a\in S:\text{for all }b\in B, a\leq b\}=\emptyset$.

share|improve this answer
    
Is there a reason why you make some of your answers community wiki? –  user17762 Jun 6 '12 at 2:26
    
@Marvis: Sometimes I feel like doing so. This is more common when I have very little to say. Others are welcome to edit. –  Jonas Meyer Jun 6 '12 at 2:30
    
First, what is "bounded below in L"?, and second: this is not what the theorem states, but merely "bounded below", which it is. –  DonAntonio Jun 6 '12 at 2:32
1  
@DonAntonio: The ordered set in which bounds are considered is $S$ (not $L$, and in the context of the OP's example, not $\mathbb R$). While the statement of the theorem would perhaps be clearer if "in $S$" were explicitly stated for emphasis, in this context $S$ is the "universe". The most common application is where $S=\mathbb R$, but Rudin's statement abstracts the essential order properties, and the OP's example does not satisfy those properties. –  Jonas Meyer Jun 6 '12 at 2:34
    
Got it now! Thanks –  DonAntonio Jun 6 '12 at 2:37

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.