0
$\begingroup$

I saw saw the statement I am trying to prove in "a proof of lub property" in a Mathematics Stack Exchange post. The statement I am trying to prove is :

$∃\ b ∈ \mathbb {R},(b < a\ \text { AND }$

$\text {Set of all rationals to the left of}\ b = A)$

where $A$ is the set of all rationals to the left of $a ∈ Q$


Is this statement indeed true ?

I get the Theorem is false


Below is a proof of lub property I got online:

The author uses $\subset$ as $\subseteq$. Also notice the difference by font that $\mathscr{C}$ is a class, while $C$ a set.


Definition. A cut in $\Bbb{Q}$ is a pair of subsets $A,B$ of $\Bbb{Q}$ such that

  1. $A\cup B=\Bbb{Q},\quad A\ne\emptyset,\quad B\ne\emptyset,\quad A\cap B=\emptyset.$
  2. $a\in A \land b \in B \implies a\lt b.$
  3. $A$ contains no largest element.

Definition. The cut $x=A|B$ is less than or equal to the cut $y=C|D$ if $A\subset C$.


Theorem. If $S$ is a non-empty subset of $\Bbb{R}$ and is bounded above then in $\Bbb{R}$ there exists a least upper bound for $S$.

Proof: Let $\mathscr{C}\subset\Bbb{R}$ be any non-empty collection of cuts which is bounded above, say by the cut $X|Y$. Define $$C=\{a\in\Bbb{Q}: \stackrel{?_1}{\text{for some cut }}A|B\in\mathscr{C},a\in A\},D=\text{the rest of }\Bbb{Q}.$$ It is easy to see that $z=C|D$ is a cut. Clearly, it is an upper bound for $\mathscr{C}$ since the "$A$" for every element of $\mathscr{C}$ is contained in $C$. Let $z'=C'|D'$ be any upper bound for $\mathscr{C}$. By the assumption that $A|B\le C'|D'$ for all $A|B\in\mathscr{C}$, we see that the "$A$" for every member of $\mathscr{C}$ is contained in $C'$. Hence $C\subset C'$, so $z\le z'$. That is, among all upper bounds for $\mathscr{C}$, $z$ is $\stackrel{?_2}{\text{least}}$.


What I don't get is, it is written right after the definition of $C$ :

It is easy to see that

$z=C|D$ is a cut.

Why is it easy to see...

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ This is not true. There is always a rational $c$ with $b<c<a$. Just take $n$ large enough so that $10^{-n}<(a-b)$ and take $c=a-10^{-n}$. $\endgroup$
    – lulu
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ Is this question like asking "does there exist a real number left to a rational $r$ but greater than the previous rational of $r$" $\endgroup$
    – lorilori
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ No...it's asking if there is always a rational between two distinct reals. Well, in this case we are told that the larger of the two reals is rational itself, but the stronger claim is true as well. $\endgroup$
    – lulu
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 19:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, there is no such thing as a "previous rational" relative to any number. $\endgroup$
    – aschepler
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 19:49
  • $\begingroup$ The usual order on the rationals is dense. Notice that the midpoint of any two rationals is rational. $\endgroup$
    – Karl
    Commented May 30, 2023 at 20:06

0

You must log in to answer this question.