Find the smallest ceiling over a bounded set. That ceiling, missing in the rationals, completes the reals.
The supremum is the least of all upper bounds. Ceilings are many, but the lowest one is unique. Rationals sometimes lack that lowest ceiling. The reals are the world where it always exists.
For example, measure every π§ classmate's height. The smallest line above them all is the supremum. It touches the tallest height exactly. Everyone fits underneath.
Answer: 1β/S, but 1 is the least upper bound of S
Since 1βn1β<1 for every n, 1 is an upper bound; by the Archimedean property no u<1 is an upper bound, so 1 is the least upper bound, i.e. supS=1. The elements increase from 0 toward 1, so 0 is the smallest element, and 1 itself is not an element of S for any n β a supremum need not belong to the set, and its existence is guaranteed by the completeness axiom.
Prove sup(A+B)=supA+supB for nonempty bounded-above A,BβR.
Tightening the candidate 1.5 down to the true supremum.Show proof
(β€) For all aβA and bβB, a+bβ€supA+supB, so supA+supB is an upper bound of A+B. Hence sup(A+B)β€supA+supB.
(β₯) Let Ξ΅>0. We can choose aβA with a>supAβ2Ξ΅β and bβB with b>supBβ2Ξ΅β (definition of supremum).
Then a+b>supA+supBβΞ΅, so sup(A+B)β₯supA+supBβΞ΅.
Since Ξ΅ was arbitrary, sup(A+B)β₯supA+supB. Combining the two inequalities gives sup(A+B)=supA+supB.
Accept from completeness that s=sup{xβQ:xβ₯0,x2<2} exists, and verify s2=2. (The existence step is idea-level.)
s2<2βcontradiction,s2>2βcontradiction
2ββ1.4142 β rational truncations approach the hole.Show proof
(Lemma β cited) The rationals Q are dense in R: every open interval of reals contains a rational number.
S={xβQ:xβ₯0,x2<2} is nonempty (1βS) and bounded above (e.g. 2 is an upper bound). By the completeness axiom, s=supS exists.
Suppose s2<2. Since 1βS and s=supS, we have sβ₯1. Put Ξ΅=2βs2>0 and pick h>0 with h<min(1,2s+1Ξ΅β); by the lemma there is a rational q=s+hβ² with 0<hβ²<h (so q>sβ₯0).
Bound the second factor explicitly: since hβ²<1, q2=s2+2shβ²+hβ²2=s2+hβ²(2s+hβ²)<s2+hβ²(2s+1)<s2+Ξ΅=2. Hence qβS with q>s, contradicting that s is an upper bound.
Suppose s2>2. Again 1βS gives sβ₯1>0 β so division by 2s is legitimate. Put Ξ΄=s2β2>0; since Ξ΄<s2, we have 2sΞ΄β<2sβ<s, and by the lemma there is a rational r with sβ2sΞ΄β<r<s, in particular r>s/2β₯0.
Now 0<sβr<2sΞ΄β and 0<s+r<2s, so s2βr2=(sβr)(s+r)<2sΞ΄ββ 2s=Ξ΄, i.e. r2>s2βΞ΄=2. That r is an upper bound: any xβS has xβ₯0 and x2<2<r2, and squaring is monotone on [0,β), so x<r, i.e. xβ€r. Hence r is an upper bound of S smaller than s, contradicting that s is the least upper bound.
Hence s2=2. The completeness axiom fills the hole in the rationals, producing the real number that is 2β.