3
$\begingroup$

I had a question about the Least Upper Bound Property. So it states that every non-empty subset of $\mathbb{R}$ that has an upper bound must have a least upper bound in the reals.

My question is: Does the set of all real irrational numbers with simple order have the least upper bound property?

I was thinking about this and said no. This set isn't necessarily bounded (at least I don't see how it's bounded) which is why I don't think it has the least upper bound property. But someone was telling me this set has the least upper bound property and their reason was it's a subset of the reals and every subset of the reals has a least upper bound property.

So I'm not sure if I'm right or my friend is right, but I feel like they're wrong which is why I was wondering.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ if a set is not bounded how can you have its least upper bound $\endgroup$ – Learnmore Jan 16 '15 at 3:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, not all subsets of $\Bbb R$ are bounded. $\endgroup$ – IAmNoOne Jan 16 '15 at 3:21
  • $\begingroup$ So wait, would I be right because this set is not bounded? $\endgroup$ – Anth Jan 16 '15 at 3:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The irrationals $\lt 1$ do not have least upper bound in the irrationals. So your set does not have the least upper bound property. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Jan 16 '15 at 3:25
3
$\begingroup$

This is kind of ambiguous depending on what you mean by "$X$ has the least upper bound property". The standard interpretation is: $X$ has the least upper bound property if every nonempty subset of X with an upper bound has a least upper bound in $X$. In this case, your friend is clearly wrong. Take $\mathbb{Q}$ as a counterexample: the set $\{x\in\mathbb{Q}: x^2\leq 2\}$ is bounded above, but it has no least upper bound in $\mathbb{Q}$. When this set is viewed as a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ though, it does have a supremum--namely, $\sqrt{2}$.

The set of all irrational numbers does not have the least upper bound property then either, since I can just define a set $\{x\in\mathbb{I}: x< 2\}$. But again, nonempty bounded subsets of $\mathbb{I}$ do have supremums in $\mathbb{R}$. For this set, the supremum is $2$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The prerequisite is the set must has at least one upper bound. Technically the property should be stated like this:
If there is a set $V$ such that:
1).$V\ne\varnothing$
2).$\exists a\in R$ such that $\forall x\in V$, $x\le a$
Then $\exists sup(V)\in R$ which is the least upper bound of $V$.

$\endgroup$

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.