Least-upper-bound property

Last updated December 08, 2023

In mathematics, the least-upper-bound property (sometimes called completeness, supremum property or l.u.b. property)^[1] is a fundamental property of the real numbers. More generally, a partially ordered set $X$ has the least-upper-bound property if every non-empty subset of $X$ with an upper bound has a least upper bound (supremum) in $X$ . Not every (partially) ordered set has the least upper bound property. For example, the set $\mathbb {Q}$ of all rational numbers with its natural order does not have the least upper bound property.

The least-upper-bound property is one form of the completeness axiom for the real numbers, and is sometimes referred to as Dedekind completeness.^[2] It can be used to prove many of the fundamental results of real analysis, such as the intermediate value theorem, the Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem, the extreme value theorem, and the Heine–Borel theorem. It is usually taken as an axiom in synthetic constructions of the real numbers, and it is also intimately related to the construction of the real numbers using Dedekind cuts.

In order theory, this property can be generalized to a notion of completeness for any partially ordered set. A linearly ordered set that is dense and has the least upper bound property is called a linear continuum.

Statement of the property

Statement for real numbers

Let $S$ be a non-empty set of real numbers.

A real number $x$ is called an upper bound for $S$ if $x \geq s$ for all $s \in S$ .
A real number $x$ is the least upper bound (or supremum ) for $S$ if $x$ is an upper bound for $S$ and $x \leq y$ for every upper bound $y$ of $S$ .

The least-upper-bound property states that any non-empty set of real numbers that has an upper bound must have a least upper bound in real numbers.

Generalization to ordered sets

More generally, one may define upper bound and least upper bound for any subset of a partially ordered set $X$ , with “real number” replaced by “element of $X$ ”. In this case, we say that $X$ has the least-upper-bound property if every non-empty subset of $X$ with an upper bound has a least upper bound in $X$ .

For example, the set $Q$ of rational numbers does not have the least-upper-bound property under the usual order. For instance, the set

\left\{x\in \mathbf {Q} :x^{2}\leq 2\right\}=\mathbf {Q} \cap \left(-{\sqrt {2}},{\sqrt {2}}\right)

has an upper bound in $Q$ , but does not have a least upper bound in $Q$ (since the square root of two is irrational). The construction of the real numbers using Dedekind cuts takes advantage of this failure by defining the irrational numbers as the least upper bounds of certain subsets of the rationals.

Proof

Logical status

The least-upper-bound property is equivalent to other forms of the completeness axiom, such as the convergence of Cauchy sequences or the nested intervals theorem. The logical status of the property depends on the construction of the real numbers used: in the synthetic approach, the property is usually taken as an axiom for the real numbers (see least upper bound axiom); in a constructive approach, the property must be proved as a theorem, either directly from the construction or as a consequence of some other form of completeness.

Proof using Cauchy sequences

It is possible to prove the least-upper-bound property using the assumption that every Cauchy sequence of real numbers converges. Let $S$ be a nonempty set of real numbers. If $S$ has exactly one element, then its only element is a least upper bound. So consider $S$ with more than one element, and suppose that $S$ has an upper bound $B 1$ . Since $S$ is nonempty and has more than one element, there exists a real number $A 1$ that is not an upper bound for $S$ . Define sequences $A 1, A 2, A 3, ...$ and $B 1, B 2, B 3, ...$ recursively as follows:

Check whether $(A n + B n) ⁄ 2$ is an upper bound for $S$ .
If it is, let $A n +1 = A n$ and let $B n +1 = (A n + B n) ⁄ 2$ .
Otherwise there must be an element $s$ in $S$ so that $s >(A n + B n) ⁄ 2$ . Let $A n +1 = s$ and let $B n +1 = B n$ .

Then $A 1 \leq A 2 \leq A 3 \leq \dots \leq B 3 \leq B 2 \leq B 1$ and $| A n - B n | \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ . It follows that both sequences are Cauchy and have the same limit $L$ , which must be the least upper bound for $S$ .

Applications

The least-upper-bound property of $R$ can be used to prove many of the main foundational theorems in real analysis.

Intermediate value theorem

Let $f : [a, b] \to R$ be a continuous function, and suppose that $f (a) < 0$ and $f (b) > 0$ . In this case, the intermediate value theorem states that $f$ must have a root in the interval $[a, b]$ . This theorem can be proved by considering the set

S = {s \in [a, b] : f (x) < 0 for all x \leq s}

.

That is, $S$ is the initial segment of $[a, b]$ that takes negative values under $f$ . Then $b$ is an upper bound for $S$ , and the least upper bound must be a root of $f$ .

Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem

The Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem for $R$ states that every sequence $x n$ of real numbers in a closed interval $[a, b]$ must have a convergent subsequence. This theorem can be proved by considering the set

S = {s \in [a, b] : s \leq x n for infinitely many n}

Clearly, $a\in S$ , and $S$ is not empty. In addition, $b$ is an upper bound for $S$ , so $S$ has a least upper bound $c$ . Then $c$ must be a limit point of the sequence $x n$ , and it follows that $x n$ has a subsequence that converges to $c$ .

Extreme value theorem

Let $f : [a, b] \to R$ be a continuous function and let $M = sup f ([a, b])$ , where $M = \infty$ if $f ([a, b])$ has no upper bound. The extreme value theorem states that $M$ is finite and $f (c) = M$ for some $c \in [a, b]$ . This can be proved by considering the set

S = {s \in [a, b] : sup f ([s, b]) = M}

.

By definition of $M$ , $a \in S$ , and by its own definition, $S$ is bounded by $b$ . If $c$ is the least upper bound of $S$ , then it follows from continuity that $f (c) = M$ .

Heine–Borel theorem

Let $[a, b]$ be a closed interval in $R$ , and let ${U α}$ be a collection of open sets that covers $[a, b]$ . Then the Heine–Borel theorem states that some finite subcollection of ${U α}$ covers $[a, b]$ as well. This statement can be proved by considering the set

S = {s \in [a, b] : [a, s] can be covered by finitely many U α}

.

The set $S$ obviously contains $a$ , and is bounded by $b$ by construction. By the least-upper-bound property, $S$ has a least upper bound $c \in [a, b]$ . Hence, $c$ is itself an element of some open set $U α$ , and it follows for $c < b$ that $[a, c + δ]$ can be covered by finitely many $U α$ for some sufficiently small $δ > 0$ . This proves that $c + δ \in S$ and $c$ is not an upper bound for $S$ . Consequently, $c = b$ .

History

The importance of the least-upper-bound property was first recognized by Bernard Bolzano in his 1817 paper Rein analytischer Beweis des Lehrsatzes dass zwischen je zwey Werthen, die ein entgegengesetztes Resultat gewähren, wenigstens eine reelle Wurzel der Gleichung liege.^[3]

Notes

↑ Bartle and Sherbert (2011) define the "completeness property" and say that it is also called the "supremum property". (p. 39)
↑ Willard says that an ordered space "X is Dedekind complete if every subset of X having an upper bound has a least upper bound." (pp. 124-5, Problem 17E.)
↑ Raman-Sundström, Manya (August–September 2015). "A Pedagogical History of Compactness". American Mathematical Monthly . 122 (7): 619–635. arXiv: 1006.4131 . doi:10.4169/amer.math.monthly.122.7.619. JSTOR 10.4169/amer.math.monthly.122.7.619. S2CID 119936587.

Related Research Articles

In mathematics, the axiom of choice, abbreviated AC or AoC, is an axiom of set theory equivalent to the statement that a Cartesian product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty. Informally put, the axiom of choice says that given any collection of sets, each containing at least one element, it is possible to construct a new set by choosing one element from each set, even if the collection is infinite. Formally, it states that for every indexed family $of nonempty sets, there exists an indexed set such that for every . The axiom of choice was formulated in 1904 by Ernst Zermelo in order to formalize his proof of the well-ordering theorem.$

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Compact space</span> Type of mathematical space

In mathematics, specifically general topology, compactness is a property that seeks to generalize the notion of a closed and bounded subset of Euclidean space. The idea is that a compact space has no "punctures" or "missing endpoints", i.e., it includes all limiting values of points. For example, the open interval (0,1) would not be compact because it excludes the limiting values of 0 and 1, whereas the closed interval [0,1] would be compact. Similarly, the space of rational numbers $is not compact, because it has infinitely many "punctures" corresponding to the irrational numbers, and the space of real numbers is not compact either, because it excludes the two limiting values and . However, the extended real number line would be compact, since it contains both infinities. There are many ways to make this heuristic notion precise. These ways usually agree in a metric space, but may not be equivalent in other topological spaces.$

In mathematics, a field is a set on which addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are defined and behave as the corresponding operations on rational and real numbers do. A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure which is widely used in algebra, number theory, and many other areas of mathematics.

In mathematical analysis, the intermediate value theorem states that if $is a continuous function whose domain contains the interval [a, b], then it takes on any given value between and at some point within the interval.$

The history of calculus is fraught with philosophical debates about the meaning and logical validity of fluxions or infinitesimal numbers. The standard way to resolve these debates is to define the operations of calculus using epsilon–delta procedures rather than infinitesimals. Nonstandard analysis instead reformulates the calculus using a logically rigorous notion of infinitesimal numbers.

In mathematical logic, the Peano axioms, also known as the Dedekind–Peano axioms or the Peano postulates, are axioms for the natural numbers presented by the 19th-century Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano. These axioms have been used nearly unchanged in a number of metamathematical investigations, including research into fundamental questions of whether number theory is consistent and complete.

In mathematical analysis, the Weierstrass approximation theorem states that every continuous function defined on a closed interval $[a, b]$ can be uniformly approximated as closely as desired by a polynomial function. Because polynomials are among the simplest functions, and because computers can directly evaluate polynomials, this theorem has both practical and theoretical relevance, especially in polynomial interpolation. The original version of this result was established by Karl Weierstrass in 1885 using the Weierstrass transform.

In mathematics, a well-order on a set $S$ is a total order on $S$ with the property that every non-empty subset of $S$ has a least element in this ordering. The set $S$ together with the well-order relation is then called a well-ordered set. In some academic articles and textbooks these terms are instead written as wellorder, wellordered, and wellordering or well order, well ordered, and well ordering.

In mathematics, the infimum of a subset $of a partially ordered set is the greatest element in that is less than or equal to each element of if such an element exists. In other words, it is the greatest element of that is lower or equal to the lowest element of . Consequently, the term greatest lower bound is also commonly used. The supremum of a subset of a partially ordered set is the least element in that is greater than or equal to each element of if such an element exists. In other words, it is the least element of that is greater than or equal to the greatest element of . Consequently, the supremum is also referred to as the least upper bound .$

In mathematics, Dedekind cuts, named after German mathematician Richard Dedekind but previously considered by Joseph Bertrand, are а method of construction of the real numbers from the rational numbers. A Dedekind cut is a partition of the rational numbers into two sets A and B, such that all elements of A are less than all elements of B, and A contains no greatest element. The set B may or may not have a smallest element among the rationals. If B has a smallest element among the rationals, the cut corresponds to that rational. Otherwise, that cut defines a unique irrational number which, loosely speaking, fills the "gap" between A and B. In other words, A contains every rational number less than the cut, and B contains every rational number greater than or equal to the cut. An irrational cut is equated to an irrational number which is in neither set. Every real number, rational or not, is equated to one and only one cut of rationals.

In mathematics, constructive analysis is mathematical analysis done according to some principles of constructive mathematics.

In calculus, the extreme value theorem states that if a real-valued function $is continuous on the closed interval, then must attain a maximum and a minimum, each at least once. That is, there exist numbers and in such that:$

In mathematics, there are several equivalent ways of defining the real numbers. One of them is that they form a complete ordered field that does not contain any smaller complete ordered field. Such a definition does not prove that such a complete ordered field exists, and the existence proof consists of constructing a mathematical structure that satisfies the definition.

In mathematics, two sets or classes A and B are equinumerous if there exists a one-to-one correspondence (or bijection) between them, that is, if there exists a function from A to B such that for every element y of B, there is exactly one element x of A with f(x) = y. Equinumerous sets are said to have the same cardinality (number of elements). The study of cardinality is often called equinumerosity (equalness-of-number). The terms equipollence (equalness-of-strength) and equipotence (equalness-of-power) are sometimes used instead.

The axiom of countable choice or axiom of denumerable choice, denoted AC_ω, is an axiom of set theory that states that every countable collection of non-empty sets must have a choice function. That is, given a function A with domain N (where N denotes the set of natural numbers) such that A(n) is a non-empty set for every n ∈ N, there exists a function f with domain N such that f(n) ∈ A(n) for every n ∈ N.

In mathematics, 0.999... is a notation for the repeating decimal consisting of an unending sequence of 9s after the decimal point. This repeating decimal is a numeral that represents the smallest number no less than every number in the sequence ; that is, the supremum of this sequence. This number is equal to 1. In other words, "0.999..." is not "almost exactly" or "very, very nearly but not quite" 1 – rather, "0.999..." and "1" represent exactly the same number.

In the mathematical field of order theory, a continuum or linear continuum is a generalization of the real line.

In mathematics, a real number is a number that can be used to measure a continuous one-dimensional quantity such as a distance, duration or temperature. Here, continuous means that pairs of values can have arbitrarily small differences. Every real number can be almost uniquely represented by an infinite decimal expansion.

Completeness is a property of the real numbers that, intuitively, implies that there are no "gaps" or "missing points" in the real number line. This contrasts with the rational numbers, whose corresponding number line has a "gap" at each irrational value. In the decimal number system, completeness is equivalent to the statement that any infinite string of decimal digits is actually a decimal representation for some real number.

In order theory and model theory, branches of mathematics, Cantor's isomorphism theorem states that every two countable dense unbounded linear orders are order-isomorphic. For instance, Minkowski's question-mark function produces an isomorphism between the numerical ordering of the rational numbers and the numerical ordering of the dyadic rationals.

References

Abbott, Stephen (2001). Understanding Analysis. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-95060-5.
Aliprantis, Charalambos D; Burkinshaw, Owen (1998). Principles of real analysis (Third ed.). Academic. ISBN 0-12-050257-7.

Bartle, Robert G.; Sherbert, Donald R. (2011). Introduction to Real Analysis (4 ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-43331-6.
Bressoud, David (2007). A Radical Approach to Real Analysis. MAA. ISBN 978-0-88385-747-2.
Browder, Andrew (1996). Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-94614-4.
Dangello, Frank; Seyfried, Michael (1999). Introductory Real Analysis. Brooks Cole. ISBN 978-0-395-95933-6.
Rudin, Walter (1976). Principles of Mathematical Analysis . Walter Rudin Student Series in Advanced Mathematics (3 ed.). McGraw–Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-054235-8.
Willard, Stephen (2004) [1970]. General Topology. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications. ISBN 9780486434797.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Bartle and Sherbert (2011) define the "completeness property" and say that it is also called the "supremum property". (p. 39)

[2] Willard says that an ordered space "X is Dedekind complete if every subset of X having an upper bound has a least upper bound." (pp. 124-5, Problem 17E.)

[Sundström-3] Raman-Sundström, Manya (August–September 2015). "A Pedagogical History of Compactness". American Mathematical Monthly . 122 (7): 619–635. arXiv: 1006.4131 . doi:10.4169/amer.math.monthly.122.7.619. JSTOR 10.4169/amer.math.monthly.122.7.619. S2CID 119936587.

[1]

[2]

[3]