3
$\begingroup$

I am self-learning real analysis and learning to write proofs. I am trying to prove the Archimedean Property and would like to check if my attempt at a proof is correct and how to improve my proof writing skills.

Given any number $x\in R$, there exists an $n \in N$ satisfying $n>x$.

My understanding of this statement is that the set of natural numbers $N$ is not bounded above.

(Proof): By contradiction, there exists an $x\in R$,such that $\forall n \in N$,$n \leq x$. $x$ is an upper bound for $N$, so by the Axiom of Completeness $N$ has a least upper bound $\alpha = sup (N)$.

By the approximation property, if $\alpha = sup (N)$ then $\forall \epsilon >0$ ,$\exists n \in N$ such that $\alpha - \epsilon < n \leq \alpha$ $\implies \alpha - \epsilon < n$

$\implies \alpha < n +\epsilon$

$\implies \alpha \leq n$

$\implies n \geq \alpha$ which contradicts that $\alpha$ is the least upper bound.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ (There exists some $x\in\mathbb R $ such that $n\leq x $ for all $n\in\mathbb N $.) $\endgroup$ – Thomas Shelby Aug 21 at 18:08
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you I made the correction. $\endgroup$ – Grace Aug 21 at 19:00
  • $\begingroup$ Still not correct. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Shelby Aug 22 at 1:53
  • $\begingroup$ Why is $n \ge \alpha =\sup \mathbb N$ a contradiction that $\alpha$ is the least upper bound of $N$? You haven't found an upper bound that is smaller than $\alpha$. And you havent found an integer that is larger than $\alpha$. So nothing has been contradicted. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Aug 22 at 5:46
  • $\begingroup$ So either try to find a $\beta < \alpha$ were $\beta$ is an upper bound. (That would be a contradiction). Or try to find an $m\in \mathbb N$ so that $m > \alpha$. (That would be a contradiction.) $\endgroup$ – fleablood Aug 22 at 5:47
1
$\begingroup$

There's a mistake.

Let $\alpha = \sup(\mathbb{N})$ which exists by the reasons you mentiond. It is true that this means that for all $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\alpha-\varepsilon <n\leq \alpha$.

From this you conclude that $\alpha<n+\varepsilon$ which is fine.

However this does not mean that $\alpha\leq n$.

You can't deduce that because $n$ depends on $\varepsilon$, therefore the usual trick of letting $\varepsilon = (n-\alpha)/2$ isn't possible (you can't define $\varepsilon$ using a variable $n$ which depends on $\varepsilon$).

Instead you should fix $\varepsilon$. If you choose $\varepsilon=\frac{1}{2}$, then $\alpha<n+\frac{1}{2}$ for some natural number $n\in\mathbb{N}$ which corresponds to $\varepsilon=\frac{1}{2}$. From this you can conclude that $\alpha<n+1$, since $n+1$ is a natural number we get a contradiction to the fact that $\alpha$ is an upper bound.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Two mistakes.

For all $\epsilon > 0$ the will indeed exist an $n_\epsilon\in \mathbb N$ so that $\alpha -\epsilon < n_\epsilon \le \alpha$ and $n_\epsilon < \alpha +\epsilon$ but that does not mean $n_\epsilon < \alpha + \epsilon$ for all $\epsilon$.

$n_\epsilon < \alpha + \epsilon$ is only true for that $n_\epsilon$ and that $\epsilon$. For a different value of $\delta > 0$ it will follow that that is an $n_\delta$ so that $n_\delta < \alpha + \delta$ but $n_\delta$ could be a completely different value than $n_\epsilon$.

Second.

$n\ge \alpha$ does not contradict that $\alpha$ is a least upper bound. $\alpha$ is a least upper bound, and $n \in \mathbb N$ will mean that $\alpha \ge n$ and we have $n \ge \alpha$. That's not a contradiction.

......

So here's a hint.

let $0 < \epsilon <1$.

Let $n_\epsilon$ but the natural number where $\alpha - \epsilon < n_\epsilon \le \alpha$.

Now I'll tell you right off the bat, you will never find a contradiction with $n_\epsilon$. You can note that $n_\epsilon < \alpha+\epsilon$ if you want but that won't be a contradiction nor will it help you.

You will find nothing wrong with $n_\epsilon$.

Try to find a different natural number that does cause a contradiction.

Second hint. Don't bother trying to find a different $\delta > 0$ and a different $n_\delta$ so that $\alpha - \delta < n_\delta \le \alpha$. If you do that you will find something very important about $n_\epsilon$ vs. $n_\delta$ but it won't be a contradiction.

Third hint: You have $\alpha -\epsilon < n_\epsilon \le \alpha$. Try to find an $m\in \mathbb N$ so that $m > \alpha$. That was your original goal after all. How does knowing $\alpha - \epsilon < n_\epsilon \le \alpha$ help you find $m$ so that $m > \alpha$?

=====

Fourth Hint: FORGET ANALYSIS! How would a five year old answer answer this?

Try it. Go up to a five year old and ask her "I'm thinking of a real big number. How do you know that there is a bigger one?" I bet you she will say the answer that is the utter key to this proof!

$\endgroup$

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.