So I encountered this proof where it asks to prove the infimum is less than or equal to the supremum in a non empty set of real numbers that is bounded.

My approach right now is to prove it by contradiction, where I assume the infimum is greater than the supremum and then I would use the epsilon criterion to point out a contradiction in that if $\inf(S)>\sup(S)$,then the $\inf(S)$ cannot be an $\inf(S)$ at all.

However, the logic seems a bit wrong, as the contradiction lies in supposition not the assumption and I am also trying find a direct proof for the above statement. thanks!


Take $x\in S$; you can do it since it is not empty. Then:

  • $\inf(S)\leqslant x$ since $\inf(S)$ is a lower bound of $S$;
  • $\sup(S)\geqslant x$, since $\sup(S)$ is an upper bound of $S$.

Therefore, $\inf(S)\leqslant\sup(S)$.


Consider a set $A\subset\mathbb R$ and assume that $A$ isn't empty.

Case 1: If $A$ contains only one point then $\inf A = \sup A$.

Case 2: Suppose $A$ has more than one point. If $x,y\in A$ and $x<y$, then it is clear that $\inf A \le x < y \le \sup A$ by definition.


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.