Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on $\sup(A\cdot B) = (\sup A)(\sup B)$ where $A$ and $B$ bounded sets of positive real numbers

Parent

$\sup(A\cdot B) = (\sup A)(\sup B)$ where $A$ and $B$ bounded sets of positive real numbers

+2
−0

Problem. Suppose $A$ and $B$ are two subsets of positive real numbers. In addition, assume that $A$ and $B$ are both bounded. Show that $$ (\sup A)(\sup B) = \sup A\cdot B$$ where the set of the right-hand side is defined as $$ A\cdot B = \{ ab\mid a\in A, b\in B\} $$

The problem above is a typical exercise in real analysis manipulating the definition of supremum. This is an excellent example of what Gowers called a “fake difficulty” in his blog post for the undergraduate real analysis course at Cambridge. Solving the problem really only requires one to know the definition of the supremum and basic logic. I will share my own answer below.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+2
−0

Let $L:=(\sup A)(\sup B)$. By definition of "supremum", one needs to show the following two things,

  • $L$ is an upper bound for $A\cdot B$;

  • $L$ is the smallest upper bound for $A\cdot B$.

The first statement is very easy to prove: since for every $a\in A$ and every $b\in B$, one has $a\le \sup A$ and $b\le \sup B$, which immediately implies that $ab\le (\sup A)(\sup B)$.

To prove the second statement, assume that $L'$ is an upper bound of $A\cdot B$. We want to show that $L\le L'$. But the assumption of $L'$, we have for every $a\in A$,

$$\text{for every } b\in B: ab\le L'$$

which is equivalent to

$$\text{for every } b\in B: b\le \frac{1}{a}\cdot L'$$

So it follows that $\sup B\le L'/a$. Thus for every $a\in A$, one has

$$ a\le \frac{L'}{\sup B} $$

and thus $\sup(A)\le \frac{L'}{\sup B}$, which implies that $L\le L'$.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Categorical perspective (1 comment)
Categorical perspective
Derek Elkins‭ wrote 12 months ago

This is the better proof as what you are proving is that $(\sup A)(\sup B)$ satisfies the universal property of the colimit/coproduct in the partial order category induced by the usual ordering on (positive) reals. (In partial order categories, all colimits are coproducts.) Objects satisfying universal properties are unique up to unique isomorphism, but isomorphic objects in partial order categories are equal.