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.

In his introduction to Calculus, Apostol gives a foundation for the properties of real numbers. After laying down the field and order axioms but before stating the least-upper-bound axiom, the author uses the set $T = \{x \ : \ 0 \leq x < 1\}$ as an example of a set which has no maximum element, yet has a least-upper-bound, namely, 1.

Is the author relying on intuition to make these assertions, or can we really prove these statements even before introducing the least-upper-bound axiom?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

The least upper bound axiom is not needed to prove that this specific, concretely-given set of real numbers has a least upper bound: all that’s needed is to prove that $x<1$ for each $x\in T$, which is a matter of definition, and that if $u<1$, then there is an $x\in T$ such that $u<x$. The latter can be done by taking $x=\frac12(u+1)$: that $u<x<1$ can be proved from the field and order axioms.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Certainly $T$ has an upper bound, namely $1$. Now to show that $1$ is the least upper bound, let $a$ be any upper bound of $T$. Can $a$ be less than $1$? No because $T$ contains elements arbitrarily close to $1$, i.e. for any $x < 1$ there is an element $y \in T$ such that $x < y$ which is to say that $x$ is not an upper bound for $T$. Therefore the upper bound $a$ is greater than or equal to the upper bound $1$, and since $a$ was arbitrary we conclude that $1$ is the least upper bound of $T$.

Note that the exact same argument works for $T' = \{x \in \mathbb Q \mathrel| 0 \leq x < 1\}$ even though $\mathbb Q$ doesn't have the least upper bound property.

The least upper bound property of $\mathbb R$ is there to guarantee least upper bounds of "weird" sets like $T_\xi = \{r \in \mathbb Q \mathrel| r < \xi\}$. Those sets don't have least upper bounds in the rationals when $\xi$ is irrational, but they do in the reals.

share|improve this answer
    
While your answer is helpful, you state "for any x<1 there is an element y∈T such that x<y" without proving it. –  Isaac Kleinman May 27 '13 at 21:39
    
@IsaacKleinman no, I deliberately left that out. I didn't want to write everything out in painstaking detail. –  kahen May 27 '13 at 21:46
1  
Alas, the proof of that statement is the very point of my question. –  Isaac Kleinman May 27 '13 at 21:49
add comment

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.