4
$\begingroup$

Claim

Let $S, T\subset$ ordered field $F$

Let $P_F=\{a\in F: a \gt 0\}$

Let $ST = \{st \in P_F\mid s \in S, t\in T\}$ Then,

$\forall S,T \in P_F\;\;\;$$\sup ST = \sup S \sup T$

Proof

Let $\sup S=\alpha,\; \sup T=\beta$ Then

$\forall s \in S$ and $\forall t \in T$, $\;st \le \alpha\beta$ Thus

$\alpha \beta$ is an upper bound of $ST$

Now, take$\;\;\gamma\in P_F$ s.t. $\gamma \lt \alpha \beta$

Let $e = \alpha \beta - \gamma \gt 0$ Then

${e \over 2}\gt 0$ Thus

$\alpha - {e \over 2} \lt \alpha$ and $\alpha - {e \over 2}$ is not least upper bound of $S$.

Thus $ \exists s \in S $ s.t. $\alpha - {e \over 2} \lt s$

Similar to the case of $\alpha$,

$\exists t \in T $ s.t. $\beta - {e \over 2} \lt t \;$ Then


I am stuck in here.

I would like to show that $\gamma \lt st$ with above inequalities.

any advice?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ What happens when you multiply the inequalities $\alpha-\frac{e}{2}<s$ and $\beta-\frac{e}{2}<t$? (You may beed to be careful about signs.). Perhaps you don't want to use $\frac{e}{2}$, but some other value? $\endgroup$ May 23 '17 at 1:48
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelBurr maybe.. that is because I had constructed similar inequalities from supS+supT case $\endgroup$ May 23 '17 at 1:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Right, $\frac{e}{2}$ works great for addition, not so for multiplication. $\endgroup$ May 23 '17 at 1:56
2
$\begingroup$

At the OP's request, here is an updated version which does not use square roots (if you want a version that works in the reals, check the previous edits). We must also follow the comments above and assume that $S$ and $T$ are positive sets!

The problem that this answer is facing is that $y_1=\alpha-\frac{e}{2}$ and $y_2=\beta-\frac{e}{2}$ is well-suited to addition since $y_1+y_2=\alpha+\beta-e$, so the $\frac{e}{2}$'s are balanced. This doesn't work for multiplication because the $\frac{e}{2}$'s don't combine to become $e$.

  • Starting from $\gamma=\alpha\beta-e$. Our goal is to construct $x_1$ and $x_2$ so that $x_1<\alpha$, $x_2<\beta$, and $x_1x_2=\alpha\beta-e$. If this is true, then there are $s$ and $t$ so that $x_1<s\leq \alpha$ and $x_2<t\leq \beta$. Hence, $\alpha\beta-e=x_1x_2<st$, so $\alpha\beta-e$ is not an upper bound.

  • Now, what we must do is to construct this $x_1$ and $x_2$. Suppose that we can find $x_1$ so that $x_1<\alpha$ and $x_1\beta>\alpha\beta-e$. Then, if we let $x_2=\frac{\alpha\beta-e}{x_1}$, then all we must check is that $x_2<\beta$. This is true by cross multiplying.

  • So, how do we find such an $x_1$. What I'm going to use is the average between $\alpha$ and $\frac{\alpha\beta-e}{\beta}$. In this case, try $x_1=\alpha-\frac{e}{2\beta}$. Then $x_1<\alpha$ and $x_1\beta=\alpha\beta-\frac{e}{2}>\alpha\beta-e$. Therefore, this $x_1$ has the required properties.

I've skipped a few steps in here, so you might need additional details, but this sketch works.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Any hint for finding appropriate $x_1$ and $x_2$ without usung squreroot? $\endgroup$
    – Beverlie
    May 23 '17 at 4:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I rewrote my answer to avoid square roots. $\endgroup$ May 24 '17 at 3:17

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.