0
$\begingroup$

What's the idea behind proving $\sup(0,1)=1$?

I made a plan on how to prove such statements for any $\sup M = a$:

(a) $a$ is an upper bound of $M$

(b) $\forall \varepsilon$ $\exists x\in M: x>a-\varepsilon$

Proof:

a) is easy to prove. $1$ is an upper bound of $x\in (0,1) \Leftrightarrow 0<x<1$.

b) Let $\varepsilon >0$, then we have to show that there exists an $x\in M$ such that $x>1-\varepsilon$ is true. How can I do that? What's the reasoning behind choosing a valid $x$?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Try it for a few $\epsilon$'s - say $\epsilon = .1, .01, .001$. Can you see how to do it in general? $\endgroup$ – user113102 Jul 30 at 14:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that the set $\mathcal I_\epsilon = (1-\epsilon,1)$ has "some" elements for every $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ $\endgroup$ – Dominik Kutek Jul 30 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ See this post: Let $A = [0,1)$. Then $\sup(A) = 1$ $\endgroup$ – Jack Jul 30 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ @GreyFox: that is rather careless! What if $\varepsilon\ge 2$? $\endgroup$ – TonyK Jul 30 at 14:40
2
$\begingroup$

I always always like to draw a picture. Draw the number line. Draw the points $1$ and $1 - \epsilon$. You need to show there is a number between $1- \epsilon$ and $\epsilon$. Can you construct one? Meaning, can you give a formula for such a number, in terms of $\epsilon$? How about the average of $1 - \epsilon$ and $1$? That should be between, shouldn't it? Can you prove it is between?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What about $M:\{1/n : n\in \mathbb{N}\}$? $0$ is an lower bound. Now, $\exists x\in M: x<0-\varepsilon$. What now, $\varepsilon$ is negative? $\endgroup$ – ParabolicAlcoholic Jul 30 at 17:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ParabolicAlcoholic your condition $(b)$ is a condition necessary for $a$ to be be the supremum. In order for $a$ to be the infimum, it needs to satisfy $\exists x\in M: x>a+\varepsilon$. I just want to emphasize again that you should try to get really good at thinking of things visually; in these basic examples, if the visual disagrees with the symbolic, it's more likely that you've got a misunderstanding of the symbollic. $\endgroup$ – Ovi Jul 30 at 18:48
2
$\begingroup$

Forget about $\varepsilon$ for a minute and prove the following:

Lemma: If $x \in (0,1)$ there exists a $y \in (0,1)$ such that $x \lt y$.


This section is provided to give an argument based on the 'geometry' of the linear ordering.

You can demonstrate that $\sup(0,1)=1$ is true without using an $\varepsilon$.

Let $\alpha = \sup(0,1)$.

The set of real numbers is the disjoint union

$$\tag 1 (-\infty,0] \cup (0,1) \cup [1,+\infty)$$

By the lemma, $\alpha \notin (0,1)$.

It is trivial to show that no element in $(-\infty,0]$ can be an upper bound.

So it must be true that $\alpha \in [1,+\infty)$ (it has to be in one of the three partition blocks).

The number $1$ is an upper bound for $(0,1)$.

Since $\alpha$ is less than or equal to any upper bound, $\alpha \le 1$.

Since $\alpha \in [1,+\infty)$, $\alpha \ge 1$.

We conclude that $\alpha = 1$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The question seems, “Given $\epsilon>0$, how can I show that there exists $x$ such that $x > 1-\epsilon$?”

One strategy is to solve the question, “Given $\epsilon>0$ and $x > 1 - \epsilon$, what is $x$?”. If you can solve for $x$ then you’ve implicitly shown that $x$ exists (“and here it is”).

When this strategy doesn’t work, we fall back on techniques that establish the existence of $x$ but not its value.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, that really helped aswell! $\endgroup$ – ParabolicAlcoholic Jul 30 at 15:07

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.