0
$\begingroup$

Prove: $A\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ is an upper bounded set that contains at least two items/numbers. If $x < \sup{A}$, then $\sup{\left(A\setminus\{x\}\right)}=\sup A$.

My attempt:

Since $A$ is upper bounded, and non-empty, $A$ has a supremum according to the upper bound property, which we'll denote with $\sup{A}=c$. Since $c$ is $\sup{A}$, for all $a\in A$, $a< c$.

Therefore $\sup{A\setminus\{x\}}=\sup{A}$.

My questions is: Is my though process correct? I feel like I may not be understanding the question correctly, and this seemed to be too easy for an exam question.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you mean "upper bounded set" not "upper bounded group" because the notion of group isn't needed in this exercise. $\endgroup$ – Scientifica Jun 25 '16 at 13:20
  • $\begingroup$ It appears the direct translation is "set" $\endgroup$ – RonaldB Jun 25 '16 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't understand but these will help you to see the difference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics) $\endgroup$ – Scientifica Jun 25 '16 at 13:23
  • $\begingroup$ The word used in my language for group (non-mathematical) and set (mathematical) is the word group. What I meant to say is that it should be set. $\endgroup$ – RonaldB Jun 25 '16 at 13:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. I don't speak Hebrew sorry, but in general, in a language you will find many synonyms for the same word. In my opinion, the word in Hebrew that means "set" should be the one that simply refers to a collection of things, while the word for "group" should be a synonym from which we infer there's a certain relation between the elements. Nevertheless, according to Wikipedia, there are two different words used for the mathematical words group and set in Hebrew: קבוצה for set and חבורה for group. $\endgroup$ – Scientifica Jun 25 '16 at 13:42
0
$\begingroup$

Firstly, you made a little mistake in

Since $c$ is $\sup{A}$, for all $a\in A,\,a<c$

It should be

Since $c$ is $\sup{A}$, for all $a\in A,\,a\le c$

To convince you, simply take the case where $\sup{A}\in A$ like in the case where $A=[1,2]$. Here $\sup{A}=2\in A$ and $\forall a\in A,\,a\le 2$.

Secondly, your conclusion

Therefore $\sup{A\setminus\{x\}}=\sup{A}$

seems quite unclear to me. You didn't explain what you did with $c'=\sup{A\setminus\{x\}}$.

Thirdly, when you want to prove the equality of the $\sup$ of two different sets (here $c$ for one set as you named it and $c'$ for the other one as I named it) , I recommend you to, in general, try to prove that $c\le c'$ and that $c'\le c$. $c'\le c$ should be easy since $\left(A\setminus\{x\}\right)\subset A$. To prove $c\le c'$, you must clearly show how you used the assumption $x<\sup{A}$.

$\endgroup$

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.