Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Every finite subset of $\mathbb R$ contains its supremum (and its infimum)

Proof Let $A=\{a_1,...,a_n\}$ be a finite subset of $\mathbb{R}$. Since it is non-empty and it is bounded ($\max A$ is an upper bound), it has supremum, that is $\exists \sup A$ and by definition $\forall a \in A \;\, a \leq \sup A$. Let's suppose that $\sup A \not\in A$ then, since $\max A \in A$ we have that $\max A < \sup A$. But considering that $\mathbb Q$ is dense in $\mathbb R$ we can conclude that $\exists r \in \mathbb Q$ s.t. $\max A < r < \sup A$, but this is absurd since $r$ is an upper bound of $A$ and it is lower than the supremum. Necessarily, $\sup A\in A$.

Is there anything wrong? Is there any way to prove this without using density of $\mathbb Q$ or another property? Thanks in advance.

share|cite|improve this question
By the way, if $\max A$ exists, then $\max A=\sup A\in A$, so you would be done. I think you are assuming too much at the start, though. Prove it exists! (Hint: $|A|\in\omega$, so try induction...) – Mario Carneiro Dec 16 '12 at 10:59
Why not just let r = (max A + sup A)/2? (Though I don't really understand what your definition of 'max A' is here. Perhaps there's an even simpler proof if you tell me what you mean by that.) – Billy Dec 16 '12 at 11:01
It is supposed that I can not conclude that $\max A = \sup A$ immediately, so I need to use supremum properties... Should I order elements of $A$ insted of using $\max A$? – user50554 Dec 16 '12 at 11:03
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Your proof starts right away with using $\max A$. But if you know the existence of $\max$ then it is automatically also the $\sup$. So this is probably not the way you are expected to proceed.

If $A=\{a\}$ is a singleton set, then clearly $\sup A=\max A = a$.

If $A$ has cardinality $n>1$ and we know as induction hypothesis that all sets of cardinality $<n$ have a maximal element, let $a\in A$ be an arbitrary element and let $A'=A\setminus\{a\}$. Since $A'$ has less than $n$ elements, let $a'= \max A'$. If $a'\ge a$, then $a'$ is a maximal element of $A$. If $a'< a$, then $a$ is a maximal element of $A$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.