2
$\begingroup$

Definition: Let $A$ the set with order relation. We say that the set $A$ has least upper bound property if any $A_0\subset A$, $A_0\neq \varnothing$ which has upper bound has the least upper bound.

Question 1: When we say "has upper bound..." do we mean that its upper bound is in $A$?

Question 2: When we say "has the least upper bound..." do we mean that its least upper bound is in $A$?

Example: Consider the set $A=(-1,1)$ of real numbers in the usual order. Assuming the fact that the real numbers have least upper bound property, it follows that the set $A$ has the least upper bound property (why?). For given any subset of $A$ having an upper bound in $A$ , it follows that its least upper bound must be in $A$. For example, the subset $\{-1/2n: n\in \mathbb{N}\}$ of $A$, thought it has no largest element, does have a least upper bound in $A$, the number $0$.

$ \quad $ On the other hand, the set $B=(-1,0)\cup (0,1)$ does not have th least upper bound property . The subset $\{-1/2n: n\in > \mathbb{N}\}$ of $B$ is bounded above by any element of $(0,1)$, but it has no least upper bound in $B$.

I have read this example very carefully and I guess that it provides an example of subsets of reals which has LUB-property and has not, respectively.

Do I correctly interpreted the meaning of above example?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Your point is that if a set $A$ has the least upper bound property, it does not imply that every subset of A also has the least upper bound property.

Yes, you are quite right.

A good example is the set of rational numbers which does not have the least upper bound property while it is a subset of real numbers which has the least upper bound property.

$\endgroup$

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.