-1
$\begingroup$

I want to use proof by contradiction.

Suppose that real numbers are bounded, then according to the axiom of continuity, there exists a least upper bound $b$.

But if $x\in \Bbb R$, then $x+1\in \Bbb R$ because of the inclusion property of real numbers.

But $x+1\in \Bbb R\Longrightarrow x+1\leq b\Longrightarrow x\leq b-1$, hence $b-1$ is an upper bound for $\Bbb R$.

However since $b$ is a least upper bound we must have: $b\leq b-1\Longrightarrow 1\leq 0$, a contradiction, since $1>0$

Thus $\Bbb R$ is not bounded.

Is that proof correct?

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ If $r$ is that upper bound, can you find a way to make a bigger number than $r$? $\endgroup$ – Ulrik Jan 6 '16 at 13:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ hint: consider $r+\pi^{10000000000}$ $\endgroup$ – fosho Jan 6 '16 at 13:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ yes $r+1>r$ ,so what $\endgroup$ – chris Jan 6 '16 at 13:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You should clarify: Is it required that the "upper bound" also be a real number? (The negative reals have an upper bound that is not a negative real, so this is a valid question.) In the affine extended real number system, $+\infty$ is an upper bound on the real numbers: it just is not itself a real number. In any system that combines the reals with the transfinite ordinal numbers, any transfinite ordinal number is an upper bound on the reals. $\endgroup$ – Rory Daulton Jan 6 '16 at 13:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @vonbrand, don't go overboard. Just $r+\frac12$ is enough. $\endgroup$ – mrf Jan 6 '16 at 14:43
3
$\begingroup$

From Calculus by Apostol:

Theorem #1: The set P of positive integers $1, 2, 3,...$ is unbounded above.

Proof #1: Assume P is bounded above. We shall show that this leads to a contradiction. Since P is nonempty, P has a least upper bound, say $b$. The number $b-1$, being less than $b$, cannot be an upper bound for P. Hence, there is at least one positive integer $n$ such that $n>b-1$. For this $n$ we have $n+1>b$. Since $n+1$ is in P, this contradicts the fact that $b$ is an upper bound for P.

Theorem #2: For every real $x$ there exists a positive integer $n$ such that $n>x$.

Proof #2: If this were not so, some $x$ would be an upper bound for P, contradicting Theorem #1.

$\therefore$ The set of real numbers has no upper bound.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It seems that theorem 2 is used in theorem 1 when we say $n \gt b-1$! Isn't it? :) $\endgroup$ – H. R. Jan 6 '16 at 14:01
  • $\begingroup$ No, it is just a basic deduction that if there was not such a number $n$ then $b-1$ would be an upper bound which is impossible. $\endgroup$ – frosh Jan 6 '16 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ Ah! It seems that I confused myself! You are right. :) $\endgroup$ – H. R. Jan 6 '16 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ I love Apostol too :) I wish I have time to read it thoroughly. $\endgroup$ – frosh Jan 6 '16 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ I read the whole first volume about 6 month ago. It was fantastic. I enjoyed reading it. :) When I saw this answer I recalled those days! :) $\endgroup$ – H. R. Jan 6 '16 at 14:06
3
$\begingroup$

Suppose there is such upper bound $r\in\mathbb{R}$.

$r+1>r$ and $r+1\in \mathbb{R}$ since $\mathbb{R}$ is closed under addition.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So you showed if $r$ is an upper bound then $r+1$ is also an upper bound. But you will have to do a little more to get a contradiction. $\endgroup$ – GEdgar Jan 6 '16 at 14:48
2
$\begingroup$

The Archimedian axiom states:

For every $x, y \in \mathbb{R}$ with $0 < x < y$ there exists a $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $y < n x$.

Of course $n x \in \mathbb{R}$, so there is no largest real number $y$.

$\endgroup$

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.