Proving the Nested Interval Property using Axiom of Completeness












3














I'm self-studying real analysis using Abbott's text "Understanding Analysis." I'm trying to think out/prove as much on my own as I can, so I am working on proving the Nested Interval Property (Theorem 1.4.1 in the book) using "just" the Axiom of Completeness. The author does prove it in the book, but as I say, I like to try to prove things myself before reading the author's proof.



So I have what I think is a convincing proof, but I would just like anyone who's willing to take a look and tell me if this is a convincing proof or not. Please don't give me a proof that works. It is best if you just tell me if you are not convinced and why.



Here is the theorem:



For each natural number n, assume we've been given a closed interval $I_n = [a_n, b_n] = {x in mathbb R : a_n le x le b_n}$. Assume also that each $I_n$ contains $I_{n+1}$. Then the resulting nested sequence of closed intervals has a nonempty intersection.



Here is my proof:



For any natural number n, consider the set ${a_1, a_2, a_3, ...}$. (I drew a diagram to work this out. Hopefully it is not unclear.) This set is bounded above, i.e. by any member of the set ${b_1, b_2, b_3, ..., b_n}$. By the axiom of completeness, therefore, the set has a supremum. Now suppose the intersection of the sequence of nested intervals is empty. Then for some natural number $n$, $[a_n, b_n]$ is empty. This means there can be no such number as $a_n$, for since $[a_n, b_n]$ is defined to include $a_n$, if $a_n$ existed, the set would not be empty. However, if there is no such number $a_n$, then the nonempty, bounded set ${a_1, a_2, a_3, ...}$ can have no supremum. This contradicts the axiom of completeness. Therefore the intersection cannot be empty. QED.



Right now I'm not so concerned with finer points of the proof, except insofar as they contribute to whether or not it is convincing.



Thank you.



EDIT: I believe I now have a convincing proof. To prove that the intersection of closed, nested intervals is non-empty, I need to show that for every natural number n, there is some real number x such that $a_n le x le b_n$ I broke this into two parts to make it easier for my simple brain. I need to show that there is some number x that is greater than or equal to a_n for every n, and I need to show that there is some number y that is less than or equal to b_n for every n. These need not be the same number.



So now I form the sets A = {$a_1, a_2, ..., a_n$} and B = {$b_1, b_2, ..., b_n$}. Since the intervals are nested, every member of B is an upper bound for A. Therefore, by the axiom of completeness, A has a supremum. Call it s. By definition of supremum $s ge a$ for every a in A. Likewise, by definition of supremum and because every member of B is an upper bound of A, we have $s le b$ for every b in B. This shows that for every a and for every b, there is a real number s such that $a le s le b$ This is enough to show that the intersection of the nested intervals always contains at least one real number, i.e that it is non-empty. QED.



My only concern with this is that the sets A and B have infinite number of members. But I don't think this matters, since they are both bounded. But it makes me less than comfortable with the "for every" quantifier, knowing that there are infinitely many. I considered induction but I don't see a remotely elegant way of doing that.






real-analysis proof-verification







share|cite|improve this question
















bumped to the homepage by Community♦ yesterday


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.















  • To see that $a_nle b_m$ for all $n,min mathbb{N}$, simply consider the cases $mle n$ and $nle m$ separately. In the first case, it holds that $a_n le b_n le b_m$ and in the second case you have $a_nle a_mle b_m$. The rest of the proof looks fine.
    – Vincent Boelens
    Jul 7 '14 at 16:20








  • 2




    When you are self-studying you might not get to see just how picky mathematicians are. You write "So now I form the sets $A = {a_1,a_2,...,a_n} . . . $" Written this way suggests that you have some integer $n$ in mind [which you neglect to tell us about] and that your set $A$ contains only these few points. I know you want $A$ to contain the entire sequence ${a_i}$ but it is a requirement in a valid proof that you make every statement quite correct.
    – B. S. Thomson
    Nov 15 '15 at 1:58


















3














I'm self-studying real analysis using Abbott's text "Understanding Analysis." I'm trying to think out/prove as much on my own as I can, so I am working on proving the Nested Interval Property (Theorem 1.4.1 in the book) using "just" the Axiom of Completeness. The author does prove it in the book, but as I say, I like to try to prove things myself before reading the author's proof.



So I have what I think is a convincing proof, but I would just like anyone who's willing to take a look and tell me if this is a convincing proof or not. Please don't give me a proof that works. It is best if you just tell me if you are not convinced and why.



Here is the theorem:



For each natural number n, assume we've been given a closed interval $I_n = [a_n, b_n] = {x in mathbb R : a_n le x le b_n}$. Assume also that each $I_n$ contains $I_{n+1}$. Then the resulting nested sequence of closed intervals has a nonempty intersection.



Here is my proof:



For any natural number n, consider the set ${a_1, a_2, a_3, ...}$. (I drew a diagram to work this out. Hopefully it is not unclear.) This set is bounded above, i.e. by any member of the set ${b_1, b_2, b_3, ..., b_n}$. By the axiom of completeness, therefore, the set has a supremum. Now suppose the intersection of the sequence of nested intervals is empty. Then for some natural number $n$, $[a_n, b_n]$ is empty. This means there can be no such number as $a_n$, for since $[a_n, b_n]$ is defined to include $a_n$, if $a_n$ existed, the set would not be empty. However, if there is no such number $a_n$, then the nonempty, bounded set ${a_1, a_2, a_3, ...}$ can have no supremum. This contradicts the axiom of completeness. Therefore the intersection cannot be empty. QED.



Right now I'm not so concerned with finer points of the proof, except insofar as they contribute to whether or not it is convincing.



Thank you.



EDIT: I believe I now have a convincing proof. To prove that the intersection of closed, nested intervals is non-empty, I need to show that for every natural number n, there is some real number x such that $a_n le x le b_n$ I broke this into two parts to make it easier for my simple brain. I need to show that there is some number x that is greater than or equal to a_n for every n, and I need to show that there is some number y that is less than or equal to b_n for every n. These need not be the same number.



So now I form the sets A = {$a_1, a_2, ..., a_n$} and B = {$b_1, b_2, ..., b_n$}. Since the intervals are nested, every member of B is an upper bound for A. Therefore, by the axiom of completeness, A has a supremum. Call it s. By definition of supremum $s ge a$ for every a in A. Likewise, by definition of supremum and because every member of B is an upper bound of A, we have $s le b$ for every b in B. This shows that for every a and for every b, there is a real number s such that $a le s le b$ This is enough to show that the intersection of the nested intervals always contains at least one real number, i.e that it is non-empty. QED.



My only concern with this is that the sets A and B have infinite number of members. But I don't think this matters, since they are both bounded. But it makes me less than comfortable with the "for every" quantifier, knowing that there are infinitely many. I considered induction but I don't see a remotely elegant way of doing that.






real-analysis proof-verification







share|cite|improve this question
















bumped to the homepage by Community♦ yesterday


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.















  • To see that $a_nle b_m$ for all $n,min mathbb{N}$, simply consider the cases $mle n$ and $nle m$ separately. In the first case, it holds that $a_n le b_n le b_m$ and in the second case you have $a_nle a_mle b_m$. The rest of the proof looks fine.
    – Vincent Boelens
    Jul 7 '14 at 16:20








  • 2




    When you are self-studying you might not get to see just how picky mathematicians are. You write "So now I form the sets $A = {a_1,a_2,...,a_n} . . . $" Written this way suggests that you have some integer $n$ in mind [which you neglect to tell us about] and that your set $A$ contains only these few points. I know you want $A$ to contain the entire sequence ${a_i}$ but it is a requirement in a valid proof that you make every statement quite correct.
    – B. S. Thomson
    Nov 15 '15 at 1:58
















3












3








3


1





I'm self-studying real analysis using Abbott's text "Understanding Analysis." I'm trying to think out/prove as much on my own as I can, so I am working on proving the Nested Interval Property (Theorem 1.4.1 in the book) using "just" the Axiom of Completeness. The author does prove it in the book, but as I say, I like to try to prove things myself before reading the author's proof.



So I have what I think is a convincing proof, but I would just like anyone who's willing to take a look and tell me if this is a convincing proof or not. Please don't give me a proof that works. It is best if you just tell me if you are not convinced and why.



Here is the theorem:



For each natural number n, assume we've been given a closed interval $I_n = [a_n, b_n] = {x in mathbb R : a_n le x le b_n}$. Assume also that each $I_n$ contains $I_{n+1}$. Then the resulting nested sequence of closed intervals has a nonempty intersection.



Here is my proof:



For any natural number n, consider the set ${a_1, a_2, a_3, ...}$. (I drew a diagram to work this out. Hopefully it is not unclear.) This set is bounded above, i.e. by any member of the set ${b_1, b_2, b_3, ..., b_n}$. By the axiom of completeness, therefore, the set has a supremum. Now suppose the intersection of the sequence of nested intervals is empty. Then for some natural number $n$, $[a_n, b_n]$ is empty. This means there can be no such number as $a_n$, for since $[a_n, b_n]$ is defined to include $a_n$, if $a_n$ existed, the set would not be empty. However, if there is no such number $a_n$, then the nonempty, bounded set ${a_1, a_2, a_3, ...}$ can have no supremum. This contradicts the axiom of completeness. Therefore the intersection cannot be empty. QED.



Right now I'm not so concerned with finer points of the proof, except insofar as they contribute to whether or not it is convincing.



Thank you.



EDIT: I believe I now have a convincing proof. To prove that the intersection of closed, nested intervals is non-empty, I need to show that for every natural number n, there is some real number x such that $a_n le x le b_n$ I broke this into two parts to make it easier for my simple brain. I need to show that there is some number x that is greater than or equal to a_n for every n, and I need to show that there is some number y that is less than or equal to b_n for every n. These need not be the same number.



So now I form the sets A = {$a_1, a_2, ..., a_n$} and B = {$b_1, b_2, ..., b_n$}. Since the intervals are nested, every member of B is an upper bound for A. Therefore, by the axiom of completeness, A has a supremum. Call it s. By definition of supremum $s ge a$ for every a in A. Likewise, by definition of supremum and because every member of B is an upper bound of A, we have $s le b$ for every b in B. This shows that for every a and for every b, there is a real number s such that $a le s le b$ This is enough to show that the intersection of the nested intervals always contains at least one real number, i.e that it is non-empty. QED.



My only concern with this is that the sets A and B have infinite number of members. But I don't think this matters, since they are both bounded. But it makes me less than comfortable with the "for every" quantifier, knowing that there are infinitely many. I considered induction but I don't see a remotely elegant way of doing that.






real-analysis proof-verification







share|cite|improve this question















I'm self-studying real analysis using Abbott's text "Understanding Analysis." I'm trying to think out/prove as much on my own as I can, so I am working on proving the Nested Interval Property (Theorem 1.4.1 in the book) using "just" the Axiom of Completeness. The author does prove it in the book, but as I say, I like to try to prove things myself before reading the author's proof.



So I have what I think is a convincing proof, but I would just like anyone who's willing to take a look and tell me if this is a convincing proof or not. Please don't give me a proof that works. It is best if you just tell me if you are not convinced and why.



Here is the theorem:



For each natural number n, assume we've been given a closed interval $I_n = [a_n, b_n] = {x in mathbb R : a_n le x le b_n}$. Assume also that each $I_n$ contains $I_{n+1}$. Then the resulting nested sequence of closed intervals has a nonempty intersection.



Here is my proof:



For any natural number n, consider the set ${a_1, a_2, a_3, ...}$. (I drew a diagram to work this out. Hopefully it is not unclear.) This set is bounded above, i.e. by any member of the set ${b_1, b_2, b_3, ..., b_n}$. By the axiom of completeness, therefore, the set has a supremum. Now suppose the intersection of the sequence of nested intervals is empty. Then for some natural number $n$, $[a_n, b_n]$ is empty. This means there can be no such number as $a_n$, for since $[a_n, b_n]$ is defined to include $a_n$, if $a_n$ existed, the set would not be empty. However, if there is no such number $a_n$, then the nonempty, bounded set ${a_1, a_2, a_3, ...}$ can have no supremum. This contradicts the axiom of completeness. Therefore the intersection cannot be empty. QED.



Right now I'm not so concerned with finer points of the proof, except insofar as they contribute to whether or not it is convincing.



Thank you.



EDIT: I believe I now have a convincing proof. To prove that the intersection of closed, nested intervals is non-empty, I need to show that for every natural number n, there is some real number x such that $a_n le x le b_n$ I broke this into two parts to make it easier for my simple brain. I need to show that there is some number x that is greater than or equal to a_n for every n, and I need to show that there is some number y that is less than or equal to b_n for every n. These need not be the same number.



So now I form the sets A = {$a_1, a_2, ..., a_n$} and B = {$b_1, b_2, ..., b_n$}. Since the intervals are nested, every member of B is an upper bound for A. Therefore, by the axiom of completeness, A has a supremum. Call it s. By definition of supremum $s ge a$ for every a in A. Likewise, by definition of supremum and because every member of B is an upper bound of A, we have $s le b$ for every b in B. This shows that for every a and for every b, there is a real number s such that $a le s le b$ This is enough to show that the intersection of the nested intervals always contains at least one real number, i.e that it is non-empty. QED.



My only concern with this is that the sets A and B have infinite number of members. But I don't think this matters, since they are both bounded. But it makes me less than comfortable with the "for every" quantifier, knowing that there are infinitely many. I considered induction but I don't see a remotely elegant way of doing that.






real-analysis proof-verification




real-analysis proof-verification






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jul 7 '14 at 10:12

























asked Jul 7 '14 at 7:47









dustOfRumors

163




163





bumped to the homepage by Community♦ yesterday


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.







bumped to the homepage by Community♦ yesterday


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.














  • To see that $a_nle b_m$ for all $n,min mathbb{N}$, simply consider the cases $mle n$ and $nle m$ separately. In the first case, it holds that $a_n le b_n le b_m$ and in the second case you have $a_nle a_mle b_m$. The rest of the proof looks fine.
    – Vincent Boelens
    Jul 7 '14 at 16:20








  • 2




    When you are self-studying you might not get to see just how picky mathematicians are. You write "So now I form the sets $A = {a_1,a_2,...,a_n} . . . $" Written this way suggests that you have some integer $n$ in mind [which you neglect to tell us about] and that your set $A$ contains only these few points. I know you want $A$ to contain the entire sequence ${a_i}$ but it is a requirement in a valid proof that you make every statement quite correct.
    – B. S. Thomson
    Nov 15 '15 at 1:58




















  • To see that $a_nle b_m$ for all $n,min mathbb{N}$, simply consider the cases $mle n$ and $nle m$ separately. In the first case, it holds that $a_n le b_n le b_m$ and in the second case you have $a_nle a_mle b_m$. The rest of the proof looks fine.
    – Vincent Boelens
    Jul 7 '14 at 16:20








  • 2




    When you are self-studying you might not get to see just how picky mathematicians are. You write "So now I form the sets $A = {a_1,a_2,...,a_n} . . . $" Written this way suggests that you have some integer $n$ in mind [which you neglect to tell us about] and that your set $A$ contains only these few points. I know you want $A$ to contain the entire sequence ${a_i}$ but it is a requirement in a valid proof that you make every statement quite correct.
    – B. S. Thomson
    Nov 15 '15 at 1:58


















To see that $a_nle b_m$ for all $n,min mathbb{N}$, simply consider the cases $mle n$ and $nle m$ separately. In the first case, it holds that $a_n le b_n le b_m$ and in the second case you have $a_nle a_mle b_m$. The rest of the proof looks fine.
– Vincent Boelens
Jul 7 '14 at 16:20






To see that $a_nle b_m$ for all $n,min mathbb{N}$, simply consider the cases $mle n$ and $nle m$ separately. In the first case, it holds that $a_n le b_n le b_m$ and in the second case you have $a_nle a_mle b_m$. The rest of the proof looks fine.
– Vincent Boelens
Jul 7 '14 at 16:20






2




2




When you are self-studying you might not get to see just how picky mathematicians are. You write "So now I form the sets $A = {a_1,a_2,...,a_n} . . . $" Written this way suggests that you have some integer $n$ in mind [which you neglect to tell us about] and that your set $A$ contains only these few points. I know you want $A$ to contain the entire sequence ${a_i}$ but it is a requirement in a valid proof that you make every statement quite correct.
– B. S. Thomson
Nov 15 '15 at 1:58






When you are self-studying you might not get to see just how picky mathematicians are. You write "So now I form the sets $A = {a_1,a_2,...,a_n} . . . $" Written this way suggests that you have some integer $n$ in mind [which you neglect to tell us about] and that your set $A$ contains only these few points. I know you want $A$ to contain the entire sequence ${a_i}$ but it is a requirement in a valid proof that you make every statement quite correct.
– B. S. Thomson
Nov 15 '15 at 1:58












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















0














A few issues - but the main one is that the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't mean that you can find an $n$ such that $[a_n,b_n]$ is empty - it is here that you need to use the nested property.



Hint: Consider the "right" brackets and the "left" brackets. Can there be a "left" bracket on the "side" of the "right" brackets?



We certainly have $a_1<a_2<ldots$ and $b_1>b_2>ldots$. But this means that also $a_n < b_m$ $forall n, m$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • It isn't clear to me why the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't imply the emptiness of some [a_n, b_n] interval. The intersection is precisely the contents of the "skinniest interval", is it not? And as n goes to infinity, the contents of this interval is narrowed down to a single real number, i.e. no gaps. Right? Clearly there's something I misunderstand.
    – dustOfRumors
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:06










  • The issue here is that the result IS true. But it's only true because the intervals are nested, and to say that it is true without proving this implicitly assumes the result. For example $[1,2] [1.5,2]$ and $[1,1.25]$ have empty intersection but none of them are empty. They are of course not nested.
    – Mathmo123
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:10












  • I guess I don't know what a "proof that the intervals are nested" would look like. Maybe this is where I misunderstand. It seems to me the intervals are assumed to be nested. But you are saying that I need to actually PROVE that they are nested? (Which would be the point of showing that no "left" bracket could appear on the "side" of the "right" brackets?)
    – dustOfRumors
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:14










  • Or are you saying that I have not used the fact that they are nested in my proof?
    – dustOfRumors
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:15










  • I'm saying the latter. That you need to explain why being nested gives you the property that you're claiming is true.
    – Mathmo123
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:15



















0














In the part prior to your edit, you correctly state that $sup_na_nleq b_m$ for any $m.$ But after this, you state that $phi=cap_{nin mathbb N}[a_n,b_n] implies exists n;( [a_n,b_n]=phi)$ which does not immediately follow from what precedes it.



In the part after your edit, note that it is not assumed that ${a_n}_n$ or ${b_n}_n$ are infinite sets. It could be that $a_n=a_{42}$ for all $ngeq 42.$



For any non-empty subsets $A,B$ of $mathbb R ,$ if $;forall ain A ;forall b in B;(aleq b);$ then $sup Aleq inf B. $ You correctly showed this for the sets $A={a_n}_n$ and $B={b_n}_n.$



You should justify why any $s$ such that $sup Aleq sleq inf B$ belongs to every $[a_n,b_n].$ Which is, that for any $n$ we have $a_nleq sup Aleq sleq inf Bleq b_n,$ which implies $a_nleq sleq b_n.$ This may be obvious, but when you write out all the details of a proof it is much easier for you to confirm your correctness, or to find errata.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f858716%2fproving-the-nested-interval-property-using-axiom-of-completeness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0














    A few issues - but the main one is that the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't mean that you can find an $n$ such that $[a_n,b_n]$ is empty - it is here that you need to use the nested property.



    Hint: Consider the "right" brackets and the "left" brackets. Can there be a "left" bracket on the "side" of the "right" brackets?



    We certainly have $a_1<a_2<ldots$ and $b_1>b_2>ldots$. But this means that also $a_n < b_m$ $forall n, m$.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • It isn't clear to me why the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't imply the emptiness of some [a_n, b_n] interval. The intersection is precisely the contents of the "skinniest interval", is it not? And as n goes to infinity, the contents of this interval is narrowed down to a single real number, i.e. no gaps. Right? Clearly there's something I misunderstand.
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:06










    • The issue here is that the result IS true. But it's only true because the intervals are nested, and to say that it is true without proving this implicitly assumes the result. For example $[1,2] [1.5,2]$ and $[1,1.25]$ have empty intersection but none of them are empty. They are of course not nested.
      – Mathmo123
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:10












    • I guess I don't know what a "proof that the intervals are nested" would look like. Maybe this is where I misunderstand. It seems to me the intervals are assumed to be nested. But you are saying that I need to actually PROVE that they are nested? (Which would be the point of showing that no "left" bracket could appear on the "side" of the "right" brackets?)
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:14










    • Or are you saying that I have not used the fact that they are nested in my proof?
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:15










    • I'm saying the latter. That you need to explain why being nested gives you the property that you're claiming is true.
      – Mathmo123
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:15
















    0














    A few issues - but the main one is that the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't mean that you can find an $n$ such that $[a_n,b_n]$ is empty - it is here that you need to use the nested property.



    Hint: Consider the "right" brackets and the "left" brackets. Can there be a "left" bracket on the "side" of the "right" brackets?



    We certainly have $a_1<a_2<ldots$ and $b_1>b_2>ldots$. But this means that also $a_n < b_m$ $forall n, m$.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • It isn't clear to me why the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't imply the emptiness of some [a_n, b_n] interval. The intersection is precisely the contents of the "skinniest interval", is it not? And as n goes to infinity, the contents of this interval is narrowed down to a single real number, i.e. no gaps. Right? Clearly there's something I misunderstand.
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:06










    • The issue here is that the result IS true. But it's only true because the intervals are nested, and to say that it is true without proving this implicitly assumes the result. For example $[1,2] [1.5,2]$ and $[1,1.25]$ have empty intersection but none of them are empty. They are of course not nested.
      – Mathmo123
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:10












    • I guess I don't know what a "proof that the intervals are nested" would look like. Maybe this is where I misunderstand. It seems to me the intervals are assumed to be nested. But you are saying that I need to actually PROVE that they are nested? (Which would be the point of showing that no "left" bracket could appear on the "side" of the "right" brackets?)
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:14










    • Or are you saying that I have not used the fact that they are nested in my proof?
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:15










    • I'm saying the latter. That you need to explain why being nested gives you the property that you're claiming is true.
      – Mathmo123
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:15














    0












    0








    0






    A few issues - but the main one is that the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't mean that you can find an $n$ such that $[a_n,b_n]$ is empty - it is here that you need to use the nested property.



    Hint: Consider the "right" brackets and the "left" brackets. Can there be a "left" bracket on the "side" of the "right" brackets?



    We certainly have $a_1<a_2<ldots$ and $b_1>b_2>ldots$. But this means that also $a_n < b_m$ $forall n, m$.






    share|cite|improve this answer














    A few issues - but the main one is that the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't mean that you can find an $n$ such that $[a_n,b_n]$ is empty - it is here that you need to use the nested property.



    Hint: Consider the "right" brackets and the "left" brackets. Can there be a "left" bracket on the "side" of the "right" brackets?



    We certainly have $a_1<a_2<ldots$ and $b_1>b_2>ldots$. But this means that also $a_n < b_m$ $forall n, m$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Jul 7 '14 at 8:19

























    answered Jul 7 '14 at 7:56









    Mathmo123

    17.8k33165




    17.8k33165












    • It isn't clear to me why the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't imply the emptiness of some [a_n, b_n] interval. The intersection is precisely the contents of the "skinniest interval", is it not? And as n goes to infinity, the contents of this interval is narrowed down to a single real number, i.e. no gaps. Right? Clearly there's something I misunderstand.
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:06










    • The issue here is that the result IS true. But it's only true because the intervals are nested, and to say that it is true without proving this implicitly assumes the result. For example $[1,2] [1.5,2]$ and $[1,1.25]$ have empty intersection but none of them are empty. They are of course not nested.
      – Mathmo123
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:10












    • I guess I don't know what a "proof that the intervals are nested" would look like. Maybe this is where I misunderstand. It seems to me the intervals are assumed to be nested. But you are saying that I need to actually PROVE that they are nested? (Which would be the point of showing that no "left" bracket could appear on the "side" of the "right" brackets?)
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:14










    • Or are you saying that I have not used the fact that they are nested in my proof?
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:15










    • I'm saying the latter. That you need to explain why being nested gives you the property that you're claiming is true.
      – Mathmo123
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:15


















    • It isn't clear to me why the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't imply the emptiness of some [a_n, b_n] interval. The intersection is precisely the contents of the "skinniest interval", is it not? And as n goes to infinity, the contents of this interval is narrowed down to a single real number, i.e. no gaps. Right? Clearly there's something I misunderstand.
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:06










    • The issue here is that the result IS true. But it's only true because the intervals are nested, and to say that it is true without proving this implicitly assumes the result. For example $[1,2] [1.5,2]$ and $[1,1.25]$ have empty intersection but none of them are empty. They are of course not nested.
      – Mathmo123
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:10












    • I guess I don't know what a "proof that the intervals are nested" would look like. Maybe this is where I misunderstand. It seems to me the intervals are assumed to be nested. But you are saying that I need to actually PROVE that they are nested? (Which would be the point of showing that no "left" bracket could appear on the "side" of the "right" brackets?)
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:14










    • Or are you saying that I have not used the fact that they are nested in my proof?
      – dustOfRumors
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:15










    • I'm saying the latter. That you need to explain why being nested gives you the property that you're claiming is true.
      – Mathmo123
      Jul 7 '14 at 8:15
















    It isn't clear to me why the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't imply the emptiness of some [a_n, b_n] interval. The intersection is precisely the contents of the "skinniest interval", is it not? And as n goes to infinity, the contents of this interval is narrowed down to a single real number, i.e. no gaps. Right? Clearly there's something I misunderstand.
    – dustOfRumors
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:06




    It isn't clear to me why the intersection of intervals being empty doesn't imply the emptiness of some [a_n, b_n] interval. The intersection is precisely the contents of the "skinniest interval", is it not? And as n goes to infinity, the contents of this interval is narrowed down to a single real number, i.e. no gaps. Right? Clearly there's something I misunderstand.
    – dustOfRumors
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:06












    The issue here is that the result IS true. But it's only true because the intervals are nested, and to say that it is true without proving this implicitly assumes the result. For example $[1,2] [1.5,2]$ and $[1,1.25]$ have empty intersection but none of them are empty. They are of course not nested.
    – Mathmo123
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:10






    The issue here is that the result IS true. But it's only true because the intervals are nested, and to say that it is true without proving this implicitly assumes the result. For example $[1,2] [1.5,2]$ and $[1,1.25]$ have empty intersection but none of them are empty. They are of course not nested.
    – Mathmo123
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:10














    I guess I don't know what a "proof that the intervals are nested" would look like. Maybe this is where I misunderstand. It seems to me the intervals are assumed to be nested. But you are saying that I need to actually PROVE that they are nested? (Which would be the point of showing that no "left" bracket could appear on the "side" of the "right" brackets?)
    – dustOfRumors
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:14




    I guess I don't know what a "proof that the intervals are nested" would look like. Maybe this is where I misunderstand. It seems to me the intervals are assumed to be nested. But you are saying that I need to actually PROVE that they are nested? (Which would be the point of showing that no "left" bracket could appear on the "side" of the "right" brackets?)
    – dustOfRumors
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:14












    Or are you saying that I have not used the fact that they are nested in my proof?
    – dustOfRumors
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:15




    Or are you saying that I have not used the fact that they are nested in my proof?
    – dustOfRumors
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:15












    I'm saying the latter. That you need to explain why being nested gives you the property that you're claiming is true.
    – Mathmo123
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:15




    I'm saying the latter. That you need to explain why being nested gives you the property that you're claiming is true.
    – Mathmo123
    Jul 7 '14 at 8:15











    0














    In the part prior to your edit, you correctly state that $sup_na_nleq b_m$ for any $m.$ But after this, you state that $phi=cap_{nin mathbb N}[a_n,b_n] implies exists n;( [a_n,b_n]=phi)$ which does not immediately follow from what precedes it.



    In the part after your edit, note that it is not assumed that ${a_n}_n$ or ${b_n}_n$ are infinite sets. It could be that $a_n=a_{42}$ for all $ngeq 42.$



    For any non-empty subsets $A,B$ of $mathbb R ,$ if $;forall ain A ;forall b in B;(aleq b);$ then $sup Aleq inf B. $ You correctly showed this for the sets $A={a_n}_n$ and $B={b_n}_n.$



    You should justify why any $s$ such that $sup Aleq sleq inf B$ belongs to every $[a_n,b_n].$ Which is, that for any $n$ we have $a_nleq sup Aleq sleq inf Bleq b_n,$ which implies $a_nleq sleq b_n.$ This may be obvious, but when you write out all the details of a proof it is much easier for you to confirm your correctness, or to find errata.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      0














      In the part prior to your edit, you correctly state that $sup_na_nleq b_m$ for any $m.$ But after this, you state that $phi=cap_{nin mathbb N}[a_n,b_n] implies exists n;( [a_n,b_n]=phi)$ which does not immediately follow from what precedes it.



      In the part after your edit, note that it is not assumed that ${a_n}_n$ or ${b_n}_n$ are infinite sets. It could be that $a_n=a_{42}$ for all $ngeq 42.$



      For any non-empty subsets $A,B$ of $mathbb R ,$ if $;forall ain A ;forall b in B;(aleq b);$ then $sup Aleq inf B. $ You correctly showed this for the sets $A={a_n}_n$ and $B={b_n}_n.$



      You should justify why any $s$ such that $sup Aleq sleq inf B$ belongs to every $[a_n,b_n].$ Which is, that for any $n$ we have $a_nleq sup Aleq sleq inf Bleq b_n,$ which implies $a_nleq sleq b_n.$ This may be obvious, but when you write out all the details of a proof it is much easier for you to confirm your correctness, or to find errata.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        0












        0








        0






        In the part prior to your edit, you correctly state that $sup_na_nleq b_m$ for any $m.$ But after this, you state that $phi=cap_{nin mathbb N}[a_n,b_n] implies exists n;( [a_n,b_n]=phi)$ which does not immediately follow from what precedes it.



        In the part after your edit, note that it is not assumed that ${a_n}_n$ or ${b_n}_n$ are infinite sets. It could be that $a_n=a_{42}$ for all $ngeq 42.$



        For any non-empty subsets $A,B$ of $mathbb R ,$ if $;forall ain A ;forall b in B;(aleq b);$ then $sup Aleq inf B. $ You correctly showed this for the sets $A={a_n}_n$ and $B={b_n}_n.$



        You should justify why any $s$ such that $sup Aleq sleq inf B$ belongs to every $[a_n,b_n].$ Which is, that for any $n$ we have $a_nleq sup Aleq sleq inf Bleq b_n,$ which implies $a_nleq sleq b_n.$ This may be obvious, but when you write out all the details of a proof it is much easier for you to confirm your correctness, or to find errata.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        In the part prior to your edit, you correctly state that $sup_na_nleq b_m$ for any $m.$ But after this, you state that $phi=cap_{nin mathbb N}[a_n,b_n] implies exists n;( [a_n,b_n]=phi)$ which does not immediately follow from what precedes it.



        In the part after your edit, note that it is not assumed that ${a_n}_n$ or ${b_n}_n$ are infinite sets. It could be that $a_n=a_{42}$ for all $ngeq 42.$



        For any non-empty subsets $A,B$ of $mathbb R ,$ if $;forall ain A ;forall b in B;(aleq b);$ then $sup Aleq inf B. $ You correctly showed this for the sets $A={a_n}_n$ and $B={b_n}_n.$



        You should justify why any $s$ such that $sup Aleq sleq inf B$ belongs to every $[a_n,b_n].$ Which is, that for any $n$ we have $a_nleq sup Aleq sleq inf Bleq b_n,$ which implies $a_nleq sleq b_n.$ This may be obvious, but when you write out all the details of a proof it is much easier for you to confirm your correctness, or to find errata.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jul 5 '17 at 19:46









        DanielWainfleet

        34.2k31647




        34.2k31647






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f858716%2fproving-the-nested-interval-property-using-axiom-of-completeness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            1300-talet

            Image
            Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output ...
            Read more

            1300-talet

            Image
            Den här artikeln handlar om hundraårsperioden 1300–1399. För decenniet 1300–1309, se 1300-talet (decennium). .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output ...
            Read more

            Display a custom attribute below product name in the front-end Magento 1.9.3.8

            Image
            0 I need to display a custom attribute bellow the product name and I don't know how can I call this attribute. I am editing the file /app/design/frontend/templatemela/MAG100219_1/template/catalog/product/view.phtml But how can I call this attribute in php? I tried calling a string echo with the name I put in the attribute, but it didn't work. Code is as below: <div class="page-title product-title"> <h1><?php echo $_helper->productAttribute($_product, $_product->getName(), 'name') ?></h1> </div> <div class="codigoinmetro"> <h2><?php echo $_helper->productAttribute($_product, $_product->getName(), 'registroinmetro') ?></h2> </div> php attrib...
            Read more