Solutions for Homework 5

HU Wei
October 21, 2019

Solution 1. We are going to prove that − inf A is the least upper bound of −A.

1. First we prove that it is an upper bound. For every y ∈ −A, we have, −y ∈ A. Then,
−y ≥ inf A as inf A is a lower bound of A. Therefore, y ≤ − inf A.

2. Next, we show that it is the least. Let l < − inf A, we are going to show that l is not an
upper bound of −A. This means −l > inf A. As inf A is the greatest lower bound, then
−l is not a lower bound, which means, there is a ∈ A such that a < −l, or −a > l.
This means l is not a upper bound of −A. As l < − inf A is arbitrary, this proves least.

Solution 2. 1. On one hand, sup(A ∪ B) ≥ sup(A), sup(B), thus,

sup(A ∪ B) ≥ max{sup(A), sup(B)}.

On the other hand, max{sup(A), sup(B)} is a upper bound of both A and B. There-
fore, it is a upper bound of A ∪ B. Since sup(A ∪ B) is the least upper bound, we
have max{sup(A), sup(B)} ≥ sup(A ∪ B). Together, we provemax{sup(A), sup(B)} =
sup(A ∪ B).

2. For any a ∈ A, b ∈ B, we have sup A ≥ a, sup B ≥ b. Then, sup A + sup B ≥ a + b.

That is, sup A + sup B ≥ sup(A + B), since sup(A + B) is the least upper bound. Now
for any  > 0, sup A − , sup B −  are not upper bound anymore. Therefore, there exists
a ∈ A, b ∈ B such that a > sup A − , b > sup B − . Thus, sup(A + B) ≥ a + b >
sup A+sup B−2. Since  can be arbitrarily small, we have sup(A+B) ≥ sup A+sup B.
Together, sup(A + B) = sup A + sup B.

3. We have sup A · sup B = sup(A · B). Replace the addition operation in above argument
by multiplication. Note that

(sup A − )(sup B − ) = sup A · sup B − (sup A + sup B) + 2

Here, both (sup A + sup B), 2 can be arbitrarily small since sup A + sup B < ∞. (A, B
are bounded)

4. One can apply Exercise 2 to prove the following:

(a) min{inf(A), inf(B)} = inf(A ∪ B).

1
 (b) inf(A + B) = inf A + inf B.
(c) inf(A · B) = inf A · inf B, provided elements of A, B are positive.
Solution
√ 3. In previous tutorial, we have shown that there exists positive irrational number
( 2). Denote this irrational number by d.
1. An easy proof goes like: find a rational number q ∈ (a − d, b − d), then d + q ∈ (a, b).
d + q is obvious irrational.

2. For any a < b, let’s construct an irrational number that lies in (a, b). By the density
of rational number, there is r ∈ (a, b), r ∈ Q. By Archimedean property of R, there is
N ∈ N such that N1 < (b − r)/2. (2/(b − r) > N ).

(a) First we show we can find K ∈ N such that Kd < N1 . Actually, this is again implied
by Archimedean property of R. Kd < N1 ⇐⇒ Nd < K.
d 1 b−r b+r
(b) Now we have a < r + K
<r+ N
<r+ 2
< 2
< b.
(c) To finish the construction, we left to prove r + Kd is irrational.
Suppose d = (xk ),
d xk
now if r + K is rational, then there is q ∈ Q such that r + K − q → 0. This
implies, xk − (q − r)K → 0, which implies d = (xk ) = (q − r)K is a rational
number contradicting our assumption that d is irrational.

Solution 4. (−1)n is obvious bounded. It is not convergent as it is not Cauchy.

Solution 5. Let’s consider the subsequence akj . Assume an → a. For any  > 0, there is
N > 0 such that, |an − a| <  for any n > N. Since kn ≥ n, kn ≥ N if n > N, therefore,

|akj − a| < 

for all j > N. This means limj→∞ akj = a.

Solution 6. Let yn be any positive sequence that converges to 0. (e.g. yn = n1 ) By definition,
a∗ = lim sup an = lim bn , where bn = supk≥n ak . Now we shall construct the subsequence as
follows, for any n, we can find k ≥ n such that ak > bn − yn . Denote this k by kn , {akn }∞n=1
is a subsequence of {an }. We know that,

bn − yn < akn < bn .

This tells limn akn = lim bn = a∗ . One stil needs to make akn into a true subsequence of {an },
namely, force kn to be increasing in n. This can be done easily by choosing a subsequence as
kn ≥ n → ∞.
Solution 7. Let bn = supk≥n ak . b > lim bn implies there is N such that bn < b for n ≥ N.
(By definition of convergence, take r < b−lim
2
bn
) Especially, bN < b. Namely,

sup ak < b,
k≥N

whence, ak < b for all k ≥ N.