Suppose we have an ordered set $A \subset M$, which has a maximum, denote it by $\max(A)$, then this maximum is equal to the supremum (the smallest of upper bounds) of $A$.

I will focus on explaining my reasoning very meticulously to see if I really understand the concepts well, I am asking for any improvements or logical errors.

The maximum has the property that for all $a \in A$, we know $a \leq \max(A) \in A$. Since $A$ is bounded from above (as it has a maximum), there are upper bounds, the smallest of which is the supremum, we know that $\max(A) \leq \sup (A)$ as the supremum is an upper bound so it is greater than or equal to any element in $A$, in particular the elements $\max(A)$.

Now notice that $\max(A)$ is greater than or equal to any element in $A$, so it is in fact an upper bound. There is no smaller upper bound than the supremum, so we must have that $\sup (A) \leq \max (A)$. By anti-symmetry of the order relation $\leq$,

we have that $\sup(A)= \max(A)$.

  • 2
    This is just fine. Moreover, if the maximum exists you do not have to assume separately that the set is bounded above. – Ethan Bolker Nov 8 at 17:47
  • 1
    It looks well to me. – Ramiro Scorolli Nov 8 at 17:51
  • That's a good addition, thank you. – WesleyGroupshaveFeelingsToo Nov 8 at 22:07

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.