A community for students.
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing
anonymous
 4 years ago
Let A be a set of real numbers contained in R and be bounded above. Let c be a real number. Define the sets c+A={c+a: a is an element of A} and c*A = {c*a:a is an element of A}. Show that sup(c+A)=c+sup(A)
anonymous
 4 years ago
Let A be a set of real numbers contained in R and be bounded above. Let c be a real number. Define the sets c+A={c+a: a is an element of A} and c*A = {c*a:a is an element of A}. Show that sup(c+A)=c+sup(A)

This Question is Closed

JamesJ
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1First of all, the sup of c+A exists because A is bounded above; call any such bound B. Then B + c is a bound for c+A. Hence by the Completeness Axiom of the Reals, c+A has a sup.

JamesJ
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Now, there are few ways to skin this cat. One way is the show that \[ \sup(c+A) \leq c+\sup(A) \] and \[ c+\sup(A) \leq \sup(c+A) \] Another is use some argument about neighborhoods of the sup.

JamesJ
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1What have you tried so far?

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I honestly haven't had any idea how to approach it, proofs have never been my strong suit and if I can't see a clear line there I usually just stare at it until I do, here nothing was inherently obvious to me, so I just stared for a long time...

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0by an argument for the neighbourhoods of the sup do you mean show that if you subtract an arbitrary small constant from the sup that it is no longer a sup?

JamesJ
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1I recommend the two inequalities I wrote down. To make that argument work, show first that c + sup(A) is an upper bound for c+A then by the definition of sup(c+A) it must be that sup(c+A) =< c + sup(A) == Now the other way around ... show that sup(c+A)c is an upper bound for A then by definition of sup(A), it must be that sup(A) =< sup(c+A)  c ==== Make sense?

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0yes, that's just step one right? there needs to be more to that doesnt there?

JamesJ
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1I've laid out the strategy for you. You'll need to fill in the details. But if you do this then you have the inequality both ways so the two terms c+supA and sup(c+A) must be equal. Just try and write it out. I think you'll find it's not too bad. Remember to just use the definition of what an upper bound must be and the fact that the sup is itself an upper bound.

JamesJ
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1(btw, great profile pic)

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Thanks man, I think I see how to finish this off. Very helpful.

JamesJ
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1If you want, write out what you get and I'll check it later. And if not, no foul.

JamesJ
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1For what it's worth, questions like these are some of my favorites, some keep them coming.
Ask your own question
Sign UpFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.