Welcome to the hotseat. We've prepared a guide if you'd like to read more about how it works.

Real Analysis: Bounded Subset of Rationals Has No Infimum

+1 vote
56 views
asked Aug 24, 2016 in Calculus and Pure Mathematics by Pandy (1,520 points)
edited Aug 24, 2016 by Pandy

The question is a True/False one and reads:

"Every subset of the rational numbers \(\mathbb{Q}\) which is bounded from below has a greatest lower bound \(c \in \mathbb{Q}\)."

and the answer given is false.

My understanding is that, since the Completeness Axiom says every non-empty set which is bounded from below has a greatest lower bound, the \(c\in \mathbb{Q}\) must be the part which makes the statement false but I can't think of why.

Thanks :)

1 Answer

+2 votes
answered Aug 24, 2016 by simon_rigby (4,220 points)
selected Aug 24, 2016 by Pandy
 
Best answer

Yes, you're right that the completeness axiom doesn't hold in \(\mathbb{Q}\)!

Here's a counterexample:

Consider the sequence \(\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty\) where \(a_n = (1+\frac{1}{n})^n\). It can be shown that this sequence is increasing,\(^1\) and bounded. By the monotone convergence theorem, \( \sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}}a_n  = \lim_{n \to \infty}a_n\) and it so happens that this limit is \(e = 2.718... \notin \mathbb{Q} \). Therefore, \(\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty\) has no supremum in \(\mathbb{Q}\), and \(\{-a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty\) has no infimum in \(\mathbb{Q}\).



\(^1\) Think of it as the accumulation of a unit under an effective interest rate \(i = 1\) compounded \(n\) times per year. The more frequent the compounding, the more it accumulates.

commented Aug 24, 2016 by Pandy (1,520 points)

This makes much more sense, thanks so much!

...