-1
$\begingroup$

If A is a subset of B and A,B are non-empty sets that are subsets of the set of Real Numbers R, and if B has a least upper bound, then how can I prove that A has a least upper bound and that the lub A is less than or equal to lub B

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What you want to show is that if $\alpha$ is an upper bound of $B$, it must also be an upper bound of $A$. Really, the whole answer comes down to shuffling definitions $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Nov 8 '16 at 16:27
0
$\begingroup$

First suppose that $A $ has no least upper bound to arrive at a contradiction, proving it has. Then suppose its least upper bound is greater than $B $'s to arrive at another contraction, showing it isn't greater i.e. it is less than or equal to $B $ least upper bound.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Let me see if I am following this correctly, $\endgroup$ – user145551 Nov 8 '16 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ Let me see if I am following this correctly, if "a" is a lub for B, then "a" is also a lub for A because A is a subset of B. Since A is a subset of B, then the lub A must be less than or equal to lub B. I think I am understanding this, and I will continue to work to prove the statement through contradiction. $\endgroup$ – user145551 Nov 8 '16 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ @user145551 those are exactly the right claims. A rigorous proof for them should only take manipulation of definitions. $\endgroup$ – RGS Nov 8 '16 at 16:50
  • $\begingroup$ I'll continue to work on it, thank you. $\endgroup$ – user145551 Nov 8 '16 at 16:50

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.