Let $m$ be the upper bound of $A$. Then, $a \leq m$ for all $a\in A $.

Now I should maybe find a way to show that that inequality is in fact an equality. Or maybe there's an easier way that I don't see.

Thank you in advance.


Hint: what can you say about $m + m$?

  • $\begingroup$ Since the rng has to be closed under addition, $m+m \in A$, but $m$ is an upper bound, so $m+m \leq m$. That implies $m \leq 0$. And that implies that 0 is the only element, maybe, because is $m$ is the upper bound and $m \leq 0$, any other element $a$ is such that $a \leq 0$, but in that case, $-a \geq 0$, which cannot be, since that means $a \geq m$ $\endgroup$ – dumb_undergrad Jun 6 '17 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ But wait, $m$ isn't necessarily in $A$. $\endgroup$ – dumb_undergrad Jun 7 '17 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ If it isn't in $A$, where is it? I think you'll find the question is about the ordered rng $A$ and not about $A$ extended with additional elements that aren't in the domains of the rng operations. (It is possible to set up theories of systems that could involve a rng and an ordered set containing the elements of the rng and other things as well, but I doubt that you are being asked to solve this problem in a context like that.) $\endgroup$ – Rob Arthan Jun 7 '17 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ Well, upper or lower bound in a ring means upper or lower bound in the set, right? So, a set $A$ can have a upper bound $m$ and $m \not\in A$. For example, $B = ]-x,x[$ has $x$ as a upper bound, but $x \not\in B$ and it doesn't have a biggest element. I know that set can't be a ring, but you get the idea. $\endgroup$ – dumb_undergrad Jun 7 '17 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ You are considering a relation between what is technically called the universe (or carrier set) of the ordered ring and a larger ordered structure that might contain an upper or lower bound for the unverse of the ring. We certainly can make the open interval $B=]-x, x[$ into a ring (by identifying it with $\Bbb{R} = ]-\infty, +\infty[$ under a suitable order-preserving mapping), but $x$ and $-x$ are not elements of the universe of that ring. (Aside: your comments have helped me to understand what "overthinking" means. Thank you.) $\endgroup$ – Rob Arthan Jun 7 '17 at 20:24

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.