I am self teaching analysis and wanted to make sure that the following proof made sense;


Suppose D is a non empty set and that $f:D\rightarrow$$\mathbb{R}$ and $g:D\rightarrow$$\mathbb{R}$.

Prove that: If for every $x,y\in D$, $f(x)\leq g(y)$ then $f(D)$ is bounded above and $g(D)$ is bounded below. Furthermore $sup$ $f(D)$ $\leq$ $inf$ $g(D)$


Assume there exists a set such as in the question.

Since $f(x)\leq g(y)$ $\forall x,y\in D$, $f(x)$ is bounded above and $g(y)$ is bounded below.

Now, let $supf(D)=A$ and let $infg(D)=B$. Then $\forall x\in D,$ $f(x)\leq A$ and $\forall y\in D,$ $g(y)\geq B$.

Assume: $\lnot(A\leq B)$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $A>B$ and $A\neq B$

But if $A>B$, then $supf(D)>infg(D)$.

This means $\exists g(D)\leq supf(D)$ which in turn means $\exists f(D)>g(D)$.

But this is a contradiction as $\forall x,y\in D,$ $f(D)\leq g(D)$. So it follows $A\leq B$

Thank you!


In where you want to argue that $A \le B$, it is quite unclear what is $f(D)$, $g(D)$. $D$ is a set, so $f(D)$ would be understood as a set. But then it is not clear what $f(D) > g(D)$ mean.

The proof would go like this: assume the contrary that $A >B$. Then there is $C$ so that $A>C>B$. By definition of infimum, there is $y\in D$ so that $C>g(y)$. By the definition of supremum, there is $x\in D$ so that $f(x) >C$. Then we have $$f(x) > C> g(y)$$ and this contradicts to your assumption. Thus $A> B$ is impossible and you are done.

Method 2: You can argue directly by definition. You know that $$f(x) \le g(y)$$ for all $x, y\in D$. Fix $y$. Then $g(y)$ is an upper bound for $\{f(x) : x\in D\}$. So $$\sup_{x\in D} f(x) \le g(y).$$ by definition. of supremum. Now this equation implies that the number $\sup_{x\in D} f(x)$ is a lower bound of $\{g(y) : y\in D\}$. Thus $$\sup_{x\in D} f(x) \le \inf_{y\in D} g(y).$$

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the help - it is clear now. $\endgroup$ – quidproquo Nov 9 '15 at 13:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are welcome. Indeed, you are welcome to ask more in Math SE. This site would be very helpful for those who want to teach themselves math. @quidproquo $\endgroup$ – user99914 Nov 9 '15 at 13:18

I stopped reading when I saw "This means ...".

Regardless of the notational confusion (the symbol $f(D)$ denotes the range of $f$, which is not a number), you may want to say instead something like "$A > B$ only if there exist some $B < C < A$ and some $x,y \in D$ such that $$ B \leq g(x) < C < f(y) \leq A" $$ and conclude thereof.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot it makes a lot more sense - I was not clear in what I wrote down. $\endgroup$ – quidproquo Nov 9 '15 at 13:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quidproquo In case you are feeling embarrassed: be not embarrassed and keep going. :) No one is supposed not to make any fault. But please keep in mind that, people upvoted your question most likely because you showed what you have tried; you may want to keep this good habit hereafter. $\endgroup$ – Megadeth Nov 9 '15 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ yes I will definitely keep trying - this form of abstract is incredibly interesting! $\endgroup$ – quidproquo Nov 9 '15 at 13:38

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.