Mendicant_Bias
  • Mendicant_Bias
(Introductory Real Analysis) Still trying to prove this theorem. I now understand a little more about the problem and what the Supremum/Infimum are, but have some additional questions below in addition to the actual prompt.
Mathematics
jamiebookeater
  • jamiebookeater
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this
and thousands of other questions

Mendicant_Bias
  • Mendicant_Bias
So, I figured out without question despite some poorly written answer keys, the infimum or supremum of a set cannot be infinity or -infinity, because these are not real numbers. Now: 1.) How would somebody else read the following set, using words? \[T=\{x|-x \in \text{S}\}\] When I first read that, I interpreted it that the set consists of the entire real number line, but apparently it's not so; how do I know that? By the very use of specifying S, do I know that it doesn't constitute the whole real number line/isn't the set of real numbers?
dan815
  • dan815
@halmos your area
Mendicant_Bias
  • Mendicant_Bias
2.) In any case, as far as I'm aware the set above is just supposed to be a generic, arbitrary set representing any kind of Subset S in R. Is this true? And if it is, can anybody give me an idea of why x is negative? I mean, from the standpoint of understanding how stuff works, what would be the big deal if x wasn't negative? 3.) Here's the original problem prompt: http://i.imgur.com/iAHsh0W.png (I): http://i.imgur.com/qQzCncx.png 1.1.3): http://i.imgur.com/DU5NkoA.png

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
ok you can read it x such that minus x belongs to S.
beginnersmind
  • beginnersmind
It's giving the elements of set T in terms of the elements of another set S. So if S = {1,2,e,-10} then T = {-1,-2,-e,10}
Mendicant_Bias
  • Mendicant_Bias
So for clarity, how do I know that S doesn't consist of all of R? By using S does that denote that it must be a subset and can't be all the reals?
anonymous
  • anonymous
2.) In any case, as far as I'm aware the set above is just supposed to be a generic, arbitrary set representing any kind of Subset S in R. Is this true? And if it is, can anybody give me an idea of why x is negative? I mean, from the standpoint of understanding how stuff works, what would be the big deal if x wasn't negative? its true that S can be anything belongs to R, x could be negative also could be positive as S is subset of R, the negation of x should be in S though.
beginnersmind
  • beginnersmind
Well, they said S is bounded below, so it can't be R.
beginnersmind
  • beginnersmind
But in general where you just write \[T=\{x|-x \in \text{S}\}\] S could represent any set.
anonymous
  • anonymous
So for clarity, how do I know that S doesn't consist of all of R? By using S does that denote that it must be a subset and can't be all the reals? well sense its an example for theorem 1.1.3 then it should satisfy nonempty also bounded above as @beginnersmind said that can't be all real in other way main question should say these things to not confusing you guys :P
Mendicant_Bias
  • Mendicant_Bias
"Well, they said S is bounded below, so it can't be R." Well no, they said S is bounded above IF S is bounded below. How do we show that S is bounded below?
beginnersmind
  • beginnersmind
Yeah, they said T is bounded above if S is bounded below. So technically they didn't say S is bounded below. But to prove the statement you assume that S is bounded below and go on to show that T is bounded above. If S is not bounded below you don't need to prove anything.
Mendicant_Bias
  • Mendicant_Bias
And sorry, here's Theorem 1.1.8. This is what's trying to be proved, just an inversion of 1.1.3. http://i.imgur.com/9wNev9L.png
Mendicant_Bias
  • Mendicant_Bias
Oh, alright, cool. Let's see.
beginnersmind
  • beginnersmind
Well, it's the same issue. You have a premise (S is bounded below) and a conclusion (the bit after then). You assume the premise is true and then prove the conclusion.
Mendicant_Bias
  • Mendicant_Bias
1.) Assume the set S is bounded below. 2.) Therefore, T is bounded from above. (Given in prompt) 3.) T is a nonempty set of real numbers that is bounded from above; therefore, T has a supremum. (Property I) And now applying 1.1.3 to prove 1.1.8...
beginnersmind
  • beginnersmind
Yeah, that's the idea.
beginnersmind
  • beginnersmind
Basically chose x in 1.1.8 to be supT. Then prove that (a) and (b) are true.
beginnersmind
  • beginnersmind
sorry alpha = supT
Mendicant_Bias
  • Mendicant_Bias
Alright, cool. I think I'm going to keep it at this now that I have a general idea of what to do; I spent like the last three hours just attempting to understand/figure out what this problem required me to do. Thanks.
beginnersmind
  • beginnersmind
No problem.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.