The question is as follows:

Prove that for every $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$, $\sup(-\infty, \beta) = \beta$.

The goal of the problem is to prove this without using the $\epsilon-\delta$ method. My professor gave us an idea in class, but for some reason, it isn't really making any sense to me.

Call the set $S.$ We need to show that:

1) $\beta$ is an upper bound of $S.$

2) $\beta \leq B \ \forall $ upper bounds $B$ of $S.$

The first condition is clearly satisfied by the fact that $x \leq \beta \ \forall x \in S$.

The second condition is what we did in class and the part that I am most confused about.

If $B$ is an upper bound of $S$, then $\beta \leq B.$

Now assume that $B < \beta.$

If $B < \beta, \exists x$ such that $B < x < \beta$. But then $x < \beta$ and $B<x$, contradicing the assumption that $B$ is an upper bound of $S$, thus proving that $\sup(-\infty, \beta) = \beta$.


This proof does not make much sense to me, so I am asking for a clarification. If this prove is indeed wrong, I would appreciate if it someone could provide me with a clear and concise way of proving this.

Thank you so much!

  • $\begingroup$ What passage(s) do you want to be clarified, exactly? $\endgroup$ – Saucy O'Path Sep 1 '18 at 18:32
  • $\begingroup$ @SaucyO'Path Well, firstly I would just like to know if this proof is correct! $\endgroup$ – MathIsLife12 Sep 1 '18 at 18:36

The proof is correct. You are using the fact that for any two distinct elements of $\mathbb{R},$ say $x, y \in \mathbb{R}$ with $x < y,$ there exists $z \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $x < z < y.$ This tells you that since $B < \beta$ you have this element $x$ such that $B < x < \beta.$ Hence, $x \in (-\infty, \beta)$ as $x < \beta.$ Thus, $B$ cannot be an upper bound as there is some element within the set, $x,$ such that $B < x.$ Hope this helps.


Let $S=\{x\in\mathbb{R}:x<\beta\}$. You've already shown (1): $\beta$ is an upper bound of $S$.
You want to show (2): $\forall B,B\ \text{is an upper bound of}\ S\implies \beta\le B$.
The proof is by contradiction:

Suppose (2) is false, then there is some upper bound $B$ of $S$ with $\beta\not\le B$, i.e. $B<\beta$. Clearly $B\in S$. We use that fact that between any two reals $c$ and $d$ is a real $e$ s.t. $c<e<d$, so in particular there is a real $e$ s.t. $B<e<\beta$. But then $e<\beta$ so $e\in S$, and $B<e$, i.e. $B$ is not an upper bound of $S$, contradiction.


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.