2
$\begingroup$

Let $F$ be an ordered field where every non-empty subset which is bounded above has a supremum. Prove that every non-empty subset which is bounded below has an infimum.

Let $S_1 = \{-x \mid x \in S\}$. Let $x_0$ be a lower bound of $S$, which means $x_0 \leq x$ for all $x \in S$. Then we have $-x_0 \geq -x$ for all $-x \in S_1$ so $-x_0$ is an upper bound for $S_1$. So $S_1$ is bounded above.

Let $-x_1$ be the supremum of $S_1$. We want to show that $x_1$ is the infimum of $S$.

First we show that $x_1$ is a lower bound of $S$. We know that since $-x_1$ is the supremum of $S_1$, $-x_1 \geq -x$ for all $-x \in S_1$. So $x_1 \leq x$ for all $x \in S$, so $x_1$ is a lower bound for $S$.

Next we show that if $x_2 \in F$ and $x_2 > x_1$, then $x_2$ is not a lower bound for $S$. If $x_2$ is a lower bound for $S$, then $x_2 \leq x$ for all $x \in S$. Then that means $-x_2 \geq -x$ for all $-x \in S_1$. So $-x_2$ is an upper bound for $S_1$. But we said that $x_2 > x_1$, so $-x_2 < -x_1$, which contradicts that $-x_1$ is the supremum of $S_1$. Since $x_2$ is not a lower bound for $S$, $x_1$ is the infimum.

Is this proof okay? If so, what can I improve on? If not, what should I change?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ At first I thought you changed $F$ to $S$ so stylistically I'd help the reader along by starting with: "Let $S \subset F$ be nonempty and bounded below." The idea being to orient the reader to your choice of notation. $\endgroup$ – user4894 Nov 2 '14 at 3:30
1
$\begingroup$

Your proof works fine, though it feels longer than it really needs to be. It seems like the key insight in your proof is that $f(x)=-x$ reverses the order of everything (i.e. if $a>b$ then $f(a)<f(b)$) and $f(f(x))=x$. Then, your proof could proceed as:

Let $S$ be a set with a lower bound. Notice that the image $f[S]$ has an upper bound and thus has a least upper bound (supremum) $x$ and that, since "least upper bound" is a property of the order dual to "greatest lower bound", the set $S=f[f[S]]$ must have $f(x)$ be its greatest lower bound and thus have

But, essentially, this is what your proof already does; it's just a matter of how much rigor you want to put in and whether this feels like it obscures the insight or feels like a helpful demonstration of why it holds. (Though the above argument of mine is not terribly far from a formal argument using duality)

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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