The Student Room Group

Analysis- proving that a sequence is bounded

Suppose that X,Y⊂ R\mathbb{R} are both bounded, prove that X \cup Y is bounded.
I'm not sure how to go about doing the proof.

Original post by ellemay96
Suppose that X,Y⊂ R\mathbb{R} are both bounded, prove that X \cup Y is bounded.
I'm not sure how to go about doing the proof.



What's your definition of bounded?
Reply 2
Original post by ghostwalker
What's your definition of bounded?

A sequence (xn\mathrm{x}_n) is bounded if \exists U \in R\mathbb{R} such that |xn\mathrm{x}_n|≤U \foralln\inN\mathbb{N}
Original post by ellemay96
A sequence (xn\mathrm{x}_n) is bounded if \exists U \in R\mathbb{R} such that |xn\mathrm{x}_n|≤U \foralln\inN\mathbb{N}
Yes, this defines whether a sequence is bounded.

Unless you are using very strange nomenclature, the sets X, Y in your original question are not sequences, so you still haven't given us a definition of bounded that applies to X and Y.
I could be completely of the mark here as I only started my degree 3 weeks ago but don't you need to show that for the union on 2 sets X,Y that are given as subsets of the reals that there exists some real number such that the absolute value of the union of the sets X and Y is less than that real value for all real values n.

You already know that individually X and Y are bounded so you know that there must exist some real number such that the absolute value of set X is less that that value for all n and the same with set Y.

Obviously it's not a proof but just thinking intuitively it seems obvious that if X and Y are bounded then the set containing elements from X or Y are both bounded if you see what I mean.

......................

This could be completely wrong but can't you say X is bounded by some real number N_0 and Y is bounded by some real number N_1 so XUY is bounded by N_2:=max(N_1,N_2)?????

Again this could be wrong as I only started learning this stuff about 2 weeks ago haaaa.
Reply 5
Original post by DFranklin
Yes, this defines whether a sequence is bounded.

Unless you are using very strange nomenclature, the sets X, Y in your original question are not sequences, so you still haven't given us a definition of bounded that applies to X and Y.


Sorry, I neglected to include all of the information given...
Given subsets X, Y R\mathbb{R} and a\in R\mathbb{R}
X+Y={x+y:x\inX , y\inY}
XY={xy:x
\inX , y\inY}
X2\mathrm{X}^2={x1x2:x1x2\inX}
aX={ax:x
\inX}

If X and Y are sets though, what is the definition for them to be bounded? It isn't the same as if they were sequences?
I am incredibly confused...
Original post by DFranklin
Yes, this defines whether a sequence is bounded.

Unless you are using very strange nomenclature, the sets X, Y in your original question are not sequences, so you still haven't given us a definition of bounded that applies to X and Y.


Can't you just say a set is bounded if the absolute value of all elements in that set are less than some real number. Then say if X is bounded by N and Y is bounded by M say then XUY is bounded by Max{N,M}?
Original post by alex2100x
..
ellemay96
..If X and Y are sets though, what is the definition for them to be bounded? It isn't the same as if they were sequences?
I am incredibly confused...
No it isn't the same: the definition you have for a sequence being bounded makes no sense for sets.

For avoidance of doubt: ghostwalker and I do know the correct definition for a bounded set - the reason we are asking is to make sure you do. (Or, it appears, to discover that you don't!). It is, of course, very difficult to answer a question correctly if you don't understand the terms being used in the question.

I feel I really ought to make you google the correct definition, but the wiki definition is probably not ideal and I don't want to steer you wrong, so I'll give you a correct definition analogous to your one for seqeunces:

A set X is bounded if MR\exists M \in \mathbb{R} such that x<MxX|x| < M\, \forall x \in X
Original post by DFranklin
:
A set X is bounded if MR\exists M \in \mathbb{R} such that x<MxX|x| < M\, \forall x \in X


Isn't this the same thing as what I wrote?

Can't you just say a set is bounded if the absolute value of all elements in that set are less than some real number.
Original post by alex2100x
Isn't this the same thing as what I wrote?
Yes. What I was trying to get *you* to understand is that ghostwalker and I aren't asking for definitions because we don't know the correct one, but because the first thing the OP needs to do is to either state the definition correctly, or at least realise that they don't know the definition (kind of like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning).

As for the rest of what you wrote - it's pretty close to giving the OP a full solution, which is against the forum rules.
Original post by DFranklin
Yes. What I was trying to get *you* to understand is that ghostwalker and I aren't asking for definitions because we don't know the correct one, but because the first thing the OP needs to do is to either state the definition correctly, or at least realise that they don't know the definition (kind of like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning).

As for the rest of what you wrote - it's pretty close to giving the OP a full solution, which is against the forum rules.



My bad about the rules thing man I wasn't sure if it was right okay. I imagine I'm at a similar level to OP so I tried to guide OP through my thought process as maybe that may help him/her.

Obviously you know the definitions haaaaa.

Cheers!!!

Quick Reply

Latest