
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Solutions to homework 2 of math 3333 at the university of houston, which covers proofs related to the least upper bound property and scalar multiplication in suprema for bounded sets in real numbers. It includes examples and explanations of concepts such as upper bounds, least upper bounds, and the archimedean property.
Typology: Assignments
1 / 1
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!

Department of Mathematics, University of Houston Math 3333 - David Blecher Homework 2 Solutions.
12.3 (g). The set S = { (^) nn+1 : n ∈ N} has no maximum, and sup(S) = 1. To prove this, first notice that 1 is an upper bound for S (since n < n + 1, so dividing by n + 1 gives (^) n+1n < 1, for all n ∈ N). To show that 1 is the least upper bound for S we argue by contradiction. So suppose that M < 1, and that M is an upper bound for S. Thus (^) nn+1 ≤ M, ∀n ∈ N. However, n n + 1
≤ M ⇔ n ≤ M (n + 1) ⇔ n ≤ M n + M ⇔ n(1 − M ) ≤ M ⇔ n ≤
Note that 1 − M > 0 since M < 1. Since the last few lines hold ∀n ∈ N, we have shown that M 1 −M is an upper bound for^ N, which contradicts the Archimidean property. This contradiction shows that 1 is the least upper bound for S. To see that S has no maximum, we can use a principle which says that if a set has a maximum, then that maximum is also the supremum. In our case the supremum is 1, which is not in S, so it cannot be the maximum.
12.6 If S is bounded, then it is bounded above, and hence by the completeness axiom it has a least upper bound or supremum. To show that this supremum is unique, suppose that M 1 and M 2 are two suprema of S. Then either M 1 < M 2 , M 2 < M 1 , or M 1 = M 2. If M 1 < M 2 then M 2 is not a least upper bound, because M 1 is an upper bound which is smaller. This contradicts the fact that M 2 is a least upper bound. So we cannot have M 1 < M 2. A similar argument shows that we cannot have M 2 < M 1. Thus M 1 = M 2. (4 points)
12.7 (a) First suppose that k = 0. In this case, kS = {kx : x ∈ S} = { 0 } which has supremum 0. On the other hand, 0 sup(S) = 0. So sup(kS) = k sup(S) if k = 0. [2 points] Next suppose that k > 0. If x ∈ S then x ≤ sup(S). Thus kx ≤ k sup(S) [1 point]. It follows that k sup(S) is an upper bound for kS = {kx : x ∈ S}. Thus sup(kS) ≤ k sup(S) [2 points]. On the other hand, if x ∈ S, then kx ≤ sup(kS). Dividing by k we have x ≤ (^1) k sup(kS) [ point]. Thus sup(S) ≤ (^1) k sup(kS) [1 point]. Multiplying by k we have k sup(S) ≤ sup(kS) [ point]. So now we have sup(kS) = k sup(S) [1 point]. There were bonus points for this Homework. I will try put up the point distribution later.
1