2
$\begingroup$

Let $S$ be a nonempty subset of $\mathbb R$ that is bounded above. Set

$\overline S = \{ 1-s: s \in S \}$. Prove that $\overline S$ is bounded below.

Prove that $\overline S$ is bounded below.

I'm just not entirely sure how I should go about doing this proof.

My attempt:

Since $S$ is bounded above, $S$ has upper bounds and a least upper bound (i.e. the supremum).

Let $M = \text{Sup}S$

Where $s < 0 => \overline S = 1-s > 0$

Where $s=0 => \overline S = 1-s = 1-0 = 1$

Where $s > 0 => \overline S = 1-s \leq 1$

Where $s >0$, $\overline S$ decreases as $s$ increases.

Now $s$ is bounded above but it's supremum can be $<,=$ or $> 0$

Do you think I'm on the right track or is there a better way to set this out?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $$\forall s \in S, s \leq M \Longrightarrow \forall s \in S, 1 - s \geq 1 - M \Longrightarrow \forall (1 - s) \in \bar{S}, 1 - s \geq 1 - M$$ $\endgroup$ – Jose Arnaldo Bebita-Dris Apr 16 '15 at 18:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ArnieDris that is really confusing to read. OP: why don't you try seeing what happens when $S$ is an interval, say $[a,b]$? What would $\bar{S}$ be? How does an upper bound for $S$ relate to a lower bound for $\bar{S}$ in this case? $\endgroup$ – Cameron Williams Apr 16 '15 at 18:32
  • $\begingroup$ Actually I like @Arnie Dris's way tbh $\endgroup$ – StephanCasey Apr 16 '15 at 18:35
2
$\begingroup$

You're not using at all the fact that it is bounded, so I don't really see where you are trying to go.

Simply use the definition of the supremum : $\forall s \in S, s \le M \Leftrightarrow 1-s\ge1-M$

$\forall s' \in \overline S, \exists s \in S \ s.t.\ s'=1-s$, and $s'=1-s \ge 1-M$

So $\overline S$ is bounded below.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

You got off to a great start! Indeed, $S$ had a least upper bound, say $M.$ In particular, then, $$s\le M\tag{$\heartsuit$}$$ for all $s\in S.$

Now, to show that $\overline S$ is bounded below, we need to show that there is some $m$ such that $m\le t$ for all $t\in \overline S,$ or equivalently that $$m\le 1-s\tag{$\star$}$$ for all $s\in S.$ As a hint for how to find an $m$ that satisfies $(\star)$ for all $s\in S,$ note that you haven't yet used the fact that $(\heartsuit)$ holds for all $s\in S.$

$\endgroup$

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.