The supremum of {x≥0:xn<a} IS na — watch the supremum axiom fill a "gap" and manufacture a root.
s=sup{x≥0:xn<a}⇒sn=a
naexists and is unique
Examples & Exercises
For a>0 and a natural number n, let E={x≥0:xn<a}. Show E is nonempty and bounded above, and with s=supE prove completely by trichotomy that sn=a.
E={x≥0:xn<a},s=supE,sn=a
a=2, n=2: the shaded region is E={x≥0:x2<2}, and its supremum s=supE sits at the vertical dashed line, 2≈1.41421356. The proof below shows this s is exactly the square root of a.Show proof
E is nonempty: 0n=0<a, so 0∈E. And a+1 is an upper bound of E: if x>a+1 then, since a>0, x>1, hence xn≥x>a+1>a, so x∈/E.
By completeness of the reals (the least-upper-bound axiom), s=supE exists. We have s≥0; we show sn=a by trichotomy: ruling out sn<a and sn>a leaves sn=a.
Suppose sn<a. For δ>0, the binomial theorem gives (s+δ)n−sn=∑k=1n(kn)sn−kδk=δ∑k=1n(kn)sn−kδk−1. For 0<δ<1, δk−1≤1, so this difference is at most δM, where M=∑k=1n(kn)(s+1)n−k depends only on s. Picking 0<δ<min(1,(a−sn)/M) gives (s+δ)n<sn+(a−sn)=a, and s+δ≥0, so s+δ∈E — contradicting s being an upper bound.
Suppose sn>a. Since a≥0, s>0. For 0<δ<s, put t=s−δ; the factorization sn−tn=(s−t)(sn−1+sn−2t+⋯+tn−1) gives sn−(s−δ)n=δ∑j=0n−1sn−1−jtj≤nδsn−1 (each term is at most sn−1 since t≤s). Picking 0<δ<min(s,(sn−a)/(nsn−1)) yields (s−δ)n>a. But every x≥s−δ satisfies xn≥(s−δ)n>a, so x∈/E — i.e. s−δ is also an upper bound of E, contradicting s being the least upper bound.
Hence sn=a, and since s≥0, s is the nonnegative n-th root of a. (Uniqueness is the next problem.) This proof grabs the continuity of xn by hand through the binomial expansion — an argument that works precisely because the least-upper-bound axiom guarantees a "hole-free" real line.
Prove that if s,t≥0 and sn=tn=a, then s=t — the nonnegative n-th root is unique.
tn−sn=(t−s)(tn−1+tn−2s+⋯+sn−1)
a=2, n=2: the vertical dashed line is drawn at a single point, 2≈1.41421356 — there is exactly one nonnegative number squaring to 2.Show proof
Suppose 0≤s<t. In the factorization tn−sn=(t−s)(tn−1+tn−2s+⋯+sn−1), the first factor t−s>0, and each term of the second factor is nonnegative and not all zero (in particular tn−1>0, since t>0). Hence tn−sn>0, i.e. sn<tn: xn is strictly increasing on [0,∞).
If sn=tn=a with s=t, then by symmetry s<t or t<s, and the above gives sn=tn — a contradiction. Hence s=t: the nonnegative n-th root is unique.
When approximating the n-th root of a by bisection, prove the error bound ∣xk−s∣≤2kb0−a0 for the k-th midpoint xk, and verify it numerically by computing 10 steps for a=2, n=2.
∣xk−s∣≤2kb0−a0,x10=1.416015625
∣x10−2∣≈0.0018021<2102=0.001953125
a=2, n=2: 60 bisection iterations give 2≈1.41421356 (∣diff∣≈2.2×10−16). Below, the error bound is checked directly at 10 steps.Show proof
Start from [a0,b0]=[0,max(1,a)]: a0n−a=−a<0≤b0n−a, so the (unique) root s lies inside. At each step, at the midpoint m, if mn<a discard the left half (s>m), else discard the right (s≤m) — the sign brackets s, so the invariant s∈[ak,bk] is preserved and the length halves each time: bk−ak=2kb0−a0.
Since xk=2ak+bk is the midpoint and s lies in the same interval, ∣xk−s∣≤2bk−ak=2k+1b0−a0≤2kb0−a0. (Counting steps from 1 gives exactly 2kb0−a0.) The error at least halves every step.
For a=2, n=2, [a0,b0]=[0,2], so the bound is 2k2. Running 10 steps by hand gives x10=1.416015625 and ∣x10−2∣≈0.0018021 — inside the bound 2102=5121≈0.0019531. The model's 60-iteration value 1.414213562373095 agrees with 2 to within 2.3×10−16.