- Thread starter
- #1

- Thread starter solakis
- Start date

- Thread starter
- #1

- Feb 15, 2012

- 1,967

$\{y \in \Bbb R : \forall x \in S\ \forall b \in \Bbb R: (x < b) \implies (x \leq y)\}$

- Jan 30, 2012

- 2,492

What do you mean by formalizing?formalize the following definition:

It's not true that \(y=\sup S\) iff \(\forall x \in S\ \forall b \in \Bbb R: (x < b) \implies (x \leq y)\). The latter formula is true if $y$ is any upper bound of $S$.

$\{y \in \Bbb R : \forall x \in S\ \forall b \in \Bbb R: (x < b) \implies (x \leq y)\}$

- Thread starter
- #4

What did you do when you transformed the Problem:What do you mean by formalizing?

.

if ,for all,x $ a|x|+bx\geq 0$ then $ a\geq |b|$

into:

\[

\forall a,b,\,[(\forall x,\,a|x|+bx\ge0)\to a\ge|b|]

\]

There is an interesting textbookWhat did you do when you transformed the Problem:

if ,for all,x $ a|x|+bx\geq 0$ then $ a\geq |b|$

into:

$\forall a,b,\,[(\forall x,\,a|x|+bx\ge0)\to a\ge|b|]$

We can define some terms.

If $A\ne\emptyset$ then $\mathcal{UB}(A)=\{x: (\forall a\in A)[a\le x]\}$

If $\mathcal{UB}(A)\ne \emptyset$ then $(\exists t\in\mathcal{UB}(A))(\forall x\in\mathcal{UB}(A))[t\le x]$. We say $t=\sup(A)$. p.192

- Feb 15, 2012

- 1,967

yup, left out an y ≤ b somewhere. danke.What do you mean by formalizing?

It's not true that \(y=\sup S\) iff \(\forall x \in S\ \forall b \in \Bbb R: (x < b) \implies (x \leq y)\). The latter formula is true if $y$ is any upper bound of $S$.

- Thread starter
- #7

The above is a semi formalization of the following sentence:There is an interesting textbookSymbolic Logic and the Real Number Systemby AH Lightstone. He symbolizes almost every property of real numbers except the one you have asked about. It is known as the completeness theorem in his book.

We can define some terms.

If $A\ne\emptyset$ then $\mathcal{UB}(A)=\{x: (\forall a\in A)[a\le x]\}$

If $\mathcal{UB}(A)\ne \emptyset$ then $(\exists t\in\mathcal{UB}(A))(\forall x\in\mathcal{UB}(A))[t\le x]$. We say $t=\sup(A)$. p.192

We say that a non empty set A , whose all the unbounded sets ($ \mathcal{UB}(A) $) are non empty has a supremum ,t, if the unbounded sets have a minimum which is t

- Jan 30, 2012

- 2,492

No. The quote above have several errors. First, the phrase "set A , whose all the unbounded sets" does not make sense because one can't say, for some set B, "whose" set B is. For example, the phrase "John, whose all unmarried sons" makes sense because, given person Bill, we can say whose son Bill is and whether he is aThe above is a semi formalization of the following sentence:

We say that a non empty set A , whose all the unbounded sets ($ \mathcal{UB}(A) $) are non empty has a supremum ,t, if the unbounded sets have a minimum which is t

Second, the definition does not say that "all the unbounded sets [

I recommend you start by understanding why UB(A) is the set of upper bounds of A.

- Thread starter
- #9

I do not understand why so much fuss for a typo .No. The quote above have several errors. First, the phrase "set A , whose all the unbounded sets" does not make sense because one can't say, for some set B, "whose" set B is. For example, the phrase "John, whose all unmarried sons" makes sense because, given person Bill, we can say whose son Bill is and whether he is ason ofJohn. However, I don't know when some set B is aset ofsome other set A. You probably mean "A, whose all the unboundedelements" or possible "A, whose all the unboundedsubsets," because the relations "an element of" and "a subset of," just like "a son of," are well-defined. But the elements of A are numbers, not sets. Indeed, in the definition of UB(A) (i.e., upper bounds of A), x is compared using <=. Only numbers, not sets, can be compared using <=. Further, note that UB(A) does not consist of elements of A but of numbers that exceed all elements of A, i.e., the upper bounds of A.

Second, the definition does not say that "all the unbounded sets [rather, elements] ($ \mathcal{UB}(A) $) are non empty," but that the set UB(A) itself is nonempty. The definition cannot refer to "supremum" because this is a definition of supremum. Finally, again, t <= x cannot mean that the minimum of x is t because <= is defined only for numbers, not sets.

I recommend you start by understanding why UB(A) is the set of upper bounds of A.

Surely one can easily see that i mean the upper bounds sets and NOT the unbounded sets

Now whether is one upper bound set or many is not very clear of the definition,but this is not of great importance,they all have the same minimum.

Finally this semi formalization is not a formalization of the definition of the OP

I do not understand why so much fuss for a typo .

OK. Why don't you offer a formalization of the definition of the OP?Finally this semi formalization is not a formalization of the definition of the OP

But remember definitions vary in this area of

- Jan 30, 2012

- 2,492

I am not sure what "the upper bounds sets" means. An upper bound of A is a number, not a set. And UB(A) is not "the upper bounds sets," but the set of upper bounds.Surely one can easily see that i mean the upper bounds sets and NOT the unbounded sets

There is a single set of upper bounds. It may be either empty (if A is unbounded) or infinite (if A is bounded).Now whether is one upper bound set or many is not very clear of the definition,but this is not of great importance,they all have the same minimum.

Why not? To get a single formula, you can substitute the definition of the set UB(A) into the second line and replace "If ..., then ..." with $\to$. This gives a theorem, which gives rise to a definition. If you need a bare definition, it is a part of the second line: we say that $t$ is $\mathrm{Sup}(A)$ if \(t\in\mathcal{UB}(A)\land (\forall x\in\mathcal{UB}(A), t\le x)\). In any case, the formula says exactly what the English text says in the OP (except S is replaced by A).Finally this semi formalization is not a formalization of the definition of the OP

- Thread starter
- #12

That was clearly not a typo. You used the termunboundedtoo many times for it to have been a typo..

As you can observe clearly my definition ends with the phrase:We say that a non empty set A , whose all the unbounded sets ($ \mathcal{UB}(A) $) are non empty has a supremum ,t, if the unbounded sets have a minimum which is t

"if the unbounded sets have a minimum which is t"

Can un unbounded set have a minimum??

- Jan 30, 2012

- 2,492

Yes, if it is unbounded from above.Can un unbounded set have a minimum??

To summarize the thread: In post #5, Plato offered a formula that expresses what the English text in post #1 says. In post #7, you offered an alternative English text that supposedly says the same thing as Plato's formula. However, even though your English text makes some sense, it contains many errors (e.g., "the unbounded sets (UB(A)) are non empty" instead of "the set of upper bounds is nonempty").

Is your original question answered?

- Thread starter
- #14

The concept of the upper bounds set(s) is not mentioned at all in the definition of the OP.I am not sure what "the upper bounds sets" means. An upper bound of A is a number, not a set. And UB(A) is not "the upper bounds sets," but the set of upper bounds.

There is a single set of upper bounds. It may be either empty (if A is unbounded) or infinite (if A is bounded).

Why not? To get a single formula, you can substitute the definition of the set UB(A) into the second line and replace "If ..., then ..." with $\to$. This gives a theorem, which gives rise to a definition. If you need a bare definition, it is a part of the second line: we say that $t$ is $\mathrm{Sup}(A)$ if \(t\in\mathcal{UB}(A)\land (\forall x\in\mathcal{UB}(A), t\le x)\). In any case, the formula says exactly what the English text says in the OP (except S is replaced by A).

Now if you want to baptize the concept of the "set bounded from above" to :" the set of the upper bounds of a set" it is your decision.

The definition of the 1st is:

$\exists y\forall x [x\in S\Longrightarrow x\leq y]$

While the definition of the 2nd is:

$UB(S)$ ={$x: \forall s(s\in S\Longrightarrow s\leq x)$}

The 1st one defines a Real No y.

The 2nd one a set .

- Thread starter
- #15

I did not write :Yes, if it is unbounded from above.

Unbounded from above ( in my translation to Plato's semi formalized definition).

But ,simply:

Unbounded sets

There is a great difference between the two.

No, thank you for your help, i am working on it.To summarize the thread: In post #5, Plato offered a formula that expresses what the English text in post #1 says. In post #7, you offered an alternative English text that supposedly says the same thing as Plato's formula. However, even though your English text makes some sense, it contains many errors (e.g., "the unbounded sets (UB(A)) are non empty" instead of "the set of upper bounds is nonempty").

Is your original question answered?