# How can I prove that $\sup(\bigcup_{i \in I} A_{i}) =\sup\{\sup \,A_{i} : i \in I \}$? [closed]

Let $I$ be non-empty set (of "indexes") and for all $i \in I$ let $A_{i} \subset \mathbb{R}$ be non-empty and upper bounded set. How can I prove that $$\sup \left( \bigcup_{i \in I} A_{i} \right) = \sup\{\sup A_{i} \mid i \in I \}$$

## closed as off-topic by Najib Idrissi, Lost1, Micah, Carl Mummert, anomalyOct 27 '14 at 2:10

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Najib Idrissi, Lost1, Micah, Carl Mummert, anomaly
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Let $x\in\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i$. Then, there exists some $j\in I$ such that $x\in A_j$. Therefore, $$x\leq\sup A_j\leq\sup\{\sup A_i\,|\,i\in I\}.$$ Since this is true for any $x\in\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i$, it follows that $$\sup\left\{\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i\right\}\leq \sup\{\sup A_i\,|\,i\in I\}.$$
For the converse, pick any $j\in I$ and $x\in A_j$ (this is possible by the assumption that $A_j$ is not empty). Then, since $x\in\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i$, it follows that $$x\leq\sup\left\{\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i\right\}.$$ This is true for all $x\in A_j$, so $$\sup A_j\leq\sup\left\{\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i\right\}.$$ Since $j\in I$ was arbitrary as well, one can conclude that $$\sup\{\sup A_i\,|\,i\in I\}\leq\sup\left\{\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i\right\}.$$
Note: Even though $A_i$ is assumed to be bounded from above for each $i\in I$ (so $\sup A_i$ exists), there is no guarantee that $\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i$, too, is bounded from above. Therefore, it may occur that the two suprema whose equality has just been established are actually infinite.