I would like to ask, if my proof checks out and is completely sound.

Exercise 3.2.4 from Stephen Abbot's Understanding Analysis. $\newcommand{\absval}[1]{\left\lvert #1 \right\rvert}$

Let $A$ be non-empty subset of $\mathbf{R}$ and bounded above, so that $s = \sup A$ exists. Let $\bar{A} = A \cup L$ be the closure of $A$.

(a) Show that $s \in \bar{A}$.

(b) Can an open set contain its supremum?

My Attempt.

(a) $\bar{A} = A \cup L$ is the closure of $A$ and contains the limits points of $A$. We proceed by contradiction. Assume that $s \notin \bar{A}$ and is not a limit point of $A$.

Since, $s$ is the supremum for $A$, looking at the definition of least upper bound, it must satisfy two properties: (i) $s$ is an upper bound for $A$. (ii) Given any small arbitrary, but fixed positive real $\epsilon > 0$, $(s - \epsilon)$ should not be an upper bound for $a$.

From (ii), it follows that, given any $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $t \in A$, such that $s - \epsilon < t$. Thus, \begin{align*} \absval{t - s} < \epsilon \end{align*}

Thus, every $\epsilon$-neighbourhood of $s$, $V_\epsilon(s)$ intersects $A$ in points other than $s$. So, $s$ is the limit point of $A$. Therefore, $s \in \bar{A}$, which contradicts our initial assumption. Hence, our initial assumption is false.

(b) An open set cannot contain its supremum. We proceed by contradiction. Let $O$ be an open set. Assume that $s \in O$.

Since $O$ is an open set, for all points $x$ belonging to $O$, there exists an $\epsilon$-neighbourhood $V_\epsilon(x)$ that is contained in $O$. In particular, $V_\epsilon(s) \subseteq O$. So, if \begin{align*} s - \epsilon < t < s + \epsilon \end{align*}

then $t \in O$, for some $\epsilon$. But, that implies, for some $\epsilon > 0$, we must have \begin{align*} s < t < s + \epsilon \end{align*}

$t \in O$. So, $s$ is not an upper bound for $O$. This is a contradiction. Our initial assumption must be false. $s \notin O$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Looks good to me :) $\endgroup$ – jlammy Jan 5 at 21:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jlammy: It’s not quite correct: what if $A=(0,1)\cup\{2\}$, for instance? $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Jan 5 at 21:14
  • $\begingroup$ @BrianM.Scott Is that an open set? The set $\{2\}$ is closed. $\endgroup$ – Apoorv Jan 5 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Apoorv: $A$ is any non-empty subset of $\Bbb R$ that is bounded above. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Jan 5 at 21:18
  • $\begingroup$ @jlammy: I’m talking about (a). $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Jan 5 at 21:19

The argument for (a) isn’t quite correct, because $s$ need not actually be a limit point of $A$. For instance, let $A=(0,1)\cup\{2\}$; then $s=2$, and for any positive $\epsilon\le 1$ the open interval $(s-\epsilon,s)$ is disjoint from $A$. And as a minor point, you don’t need to argue by contradiction.

If $s\in A$, then certainly $s\in\operatorname{cl}A$, so suppose that $s\notin A$. Let $\epsilon>0$; then $s-\epsilon< s$, so $s-\epsilon$ is not an upper bound for $A$, and therefore $A\cap(s-\epsilon,s]\ne\varnothing$. Moreover, $s\notin A$, so $A\cap(s-\epsilon,s)\ne\varnothing$. Thus, for each $\epsilon>0$ there is an $a\in A$ such that $|a-s|<\epsilon$, so $s$ is a limit point of $A$, and therefore $s\in\operatorname{cl}A$.

(Note that while there is absolutely nothing wrong with including extra detail, and it can be a good idea when you’re still learning, it’s really not necessary to say more by way of justifying the various steps than I did above.)

The argument for (b) is fine.

  • $\begingroup$ I am having some trouble following your proof through to the end. If $A = (0,1) \cup \{2\}$ then $s = 2$ and say I pick $\epsilon = 0.5$, wouldn't $(s-\epsilon,\epsilon)$ be $(1.5,0.5)$? That's an odd interval. How could $s - \epsilon$ be smaller than $\epsilon$? $\endgroup$ – Quasar Jan 5 at 22:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Quasar There $s=2 \in A$ so that part of the proof does not apply, as we are in the case $s \notin A$. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Jan 5 at 22:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Quasar: That’s an obvious typo, which I’ll fix as soon as I post this. Since $s=2$, $(s-\epsilon,s)=(1.5,2)$. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Jan 5 at 22:13
  • $\begingroup$ @HennoBrandsma, okay got it. By the way, I think he means $s - \epsilon < s$ (it's a typo). $\endgroup$ – Quasar Jan 5 at 22:13

Depending on your definition of open and closed sets in $\mathbb{R}$, and depending on what previous theorems you have been given:

A boundary point $x$ for a non-empty set $A$ is a point such that in any open interval around $x$, no matter how small, there will be at least one point in the interval that is in $A$ and one point in the interval that is not in $A$.

Given any non-empty set $A$ that is bounded above, the supremum (i.e. least upper bound) of $A$ is a boundary point of $A$.

Any non-empty set that contains one of its boundary points can not be an open set.

Any non-empty closed set must contain all of its boundary points. This last assertion is a consequence of defining a non-empty set as closed if and only if its complement is open.


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.