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

I've been struggling with a concept concerning the Archimedean property proof. That is showing my contradiction that For all $x$ in the reals, there exists $n$ in the naturals such that $n>x$.

Okay so we assume that the naturals is bounded above and show a contradiction.

If the naturals is bounded above, then it has a least upper bound (supremum) say $u$

Now consider $u-1$. Since $u=\sup(\mathbb N)$ , $u-1$ is an element of $\mathbb N$. (here is my first hiccup, not entirely sure why we can say $u-1$ is in $\mathbb N$)

This implies (again not confident with this implication) that there exists a $m$ in $\mathbb N$ such that $m>u-1$. A little bit of algebra leads to $m+1>u$.

$m+1$ is in $\mathbb N$ and $m+1>u=\sup(\mathbb N)$ thus we have a contradiction.

Can anyone help clear up these implications that I'm not really comfortable with? Thanks!

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 7 down vote accepted

$u-1$ may not be an element of $\mathbb{N}$, but we can be certain that $u-1 < u$. Since $u$ is the supremum of $\mathbb{N}$ then $u-1$ cannot be an upper bound for $\mathbb{N}$. This means that there is an $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $u-1 < n$. But then $n+1 \in \mathbb{N}$ and $u = (u-1)+1 < n+1$, which is our contradiction! ($u$ is no longer an upper bound of $\mathbb{N}$.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you! This is so clear now! – Ben Anderson Jun 17 '13 at 21:14

I dont think you need the fact that $u\in N$(the fact is even not true) .And for the second difficulty the fact follows from the supremum property.As $u-1$ is not an upper bound so there exists a natural number greater than it.

share|cite|improve this answer

Proof: Assume for a contradiction that $\mathbb{N}$ is bounded above. Then $\sup\mathbb{N}$ exists by the Completeness Axiom, By the Approximation Property with $ε = 1/2$, there exists $k ∈ \mathbb{N}$ with $$\sup \mathbb{N} − \frac{1}{2} < k < \sup \mathbb{N} +\frac{1}{2} $$ But then $k + 1 ∈ \mathbb{N}$ and $k + 1 > \sup \mathbb{N} + 1$, a contradiction.

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.