Checking and Proving the following by the Archimedean Property of Reals. First part I believe is done. Unsure about second part.Help proving the following using Archimedean Property of Realsliminf and limsup propertiesAn Exercise in The Convergence of Sequences of SetsEach bounded measurable function $f:[a,b]tomathbbR$ is almost a Borel function.Analysis Problem - Showing statements are true.Proof that a sequence of set has a set dense somewhere in $[a,b]$If $E_i$ is open show $cap E_i$ is openA Sequence of Real Values Measurable Functions can be Dominated by a SequenceUnderstanding density of irrational numbers and Archemedian propertyTernary expansion and Cantor set

Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?

Are the number of citations and number of published articles the most important criteria for a tenure promotion?

can i play a electric guitar through a bass amp?

What typically incentivizes a professor to change jobs to a lower ranking university?

Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?

How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?

Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?

Python: next in for loop

"to be prejudice towards/against someone" vs "to be prejudiced against/towards someone"

Smoothness of finite-dimensional functional calculus

Dragon forelimb placement

How to format long polynomial?

How old can references or sources in a thesis be?

If I cast Expeditious Retreat, can I Dash as a bonus action on the same turn?

How do we improve the relationship with a client software team that performs poorly and is becoming less collaborative?

Arthur Somervell: 1000 Exercises - Meaning of this notation

Test if tikzmark exists on same page

How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?

Have astronauts in space suits ever taken selfies? If so, how?

Why not use SQL instead of GraphQL?

Risk of getting Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the United States?

What are the differences between the usage of 'it' and 'they'?

The Two and the One

TGV timetables / schedules?



Checking and Proving the following by the Archimedean Property of Reals. First part I believe is done. Unsure about second part.


Help proving the following using Archimedean Property of Realsliminf and limsup propertiesAn Exercise in The Convergence of Sequences of SetsEach bounded measurable function $f:[a,b]tomathbbR$ is almost a Borel function.Analysis Problem - Showing statements are true.Proof that a sequence of set has a set dense somewhere in $[a,b]$If $E_i$ is open show $cap E_i$ is openA Sequence of Real Values Measurable Functions can be Dominated by a SequenceUnderstanding density of irrational numbers and Archemedian propertyTernary expansion and Cantor set













1












$begingroup$



For each $n=1,,2,,3,,dots;$ let
$C_n = displaystyleleft[frac1n,2+frac1nright]$. Prove that



  • (i) $quaddisplaystylebigcup_n=1^infty C_n=(0,3]$ and

  • (ii) $quaddisplaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_n=[1,2]$

using Archimedean Property of Reals,




This is what I've done thus far for (i).
For all $𝑥in[1,3]$
are inside $𝐶_1$. If $𝑥in(0,1)$, then there exists an n such that $1/𝑛<𝑥<1$. Therefore, $𝑥in C_n$ $subsetbigcup_k=1^infty$ $C_k$=(0,1). Since also $(0,3]⊃𝐶_𝑛$ for all 𝑛, (i) follows.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    1












    $begingroup$



    For each $n=1,,2,,3,,dots;$ let
    $C_n = displaystyleleft[frac1n,2+frac1nright]$. Prove that



    • (i) $quaddisplaystylebigcup_n=1^infty C_n=(0,3]$ and

    • (ii) $quaddisplaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_n=[1,2]$

    using Archimedean Property of Reals,




    This is what I've done thus far for (i).
    For all $𝑥in[1,3]$
    are inside $𝐶_1$. If $𝑥in(0,1)$, then there exists an n such that $1/𝑛<𝑥<1$. Therefore, $𝑥in C_n$ $subsetbigcup_k=1^infty$ $C_k$=(0,1). Since also $(0,3]⊃𝐶_𝑛$ for all 𝑛, (i) follows.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$



      For each $n=1,,2,,3,,dots;$ let
      $C_n = displaystyleleft[frac1n,2+frac1nright]$. Prove that



      • (i) $quaddisplaystylebigcup_n=1^infty C_n=(0,3]$ and

      • (ii) $quaddisplaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_n=[1,2]$

      using Archimedean Property of Reals,




      This is what I've done thus far for (i).
      For all $𝑥in[1,3]$
      are inside $𝐶_1$. If $𝑥in(0,1)$, then there exists an n such that $1/𝑛<𝑥<1$. Therefore, $𝑥in C_n$ $subsetbigcup_k=1^infty$ $C_k$=(0,1). Since also $(0,3]⊃𝐶_𝑛$ for all 𝑛, (i) follows.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$





      For each $n=1,,2,,3,,dots;$ let
      $C_n = displaystyleleft[frac1n,2+frac1nright]$. Prove that



      • (i) $quaddisplaystylebigcup_n=1^infty C_n=(0,3]$ and

      • (ii) $quaddisplaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_n=[1,2]$

      using Archimedean Property of Reals,




      This is what I've done thus far for (i).
      For all $𝑥in[1,3]$
      are inside $𝐶_1$. If $𝑥in(0,1)$, then there exists an n such that $1/𝑛<𝑥<1$. Therefore, $𝑥in C_n$ $subsetbigcup_k=1^infty$ $C_k$=(0,1). Since also $(0,3]⊃𝐶_𝑛$ for all 𝑛, (i) follows.







      real-analysis






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Mar 22 at 8:18









      Asaf Karagila

      308k33441774




      308k33441774










      asked Mar 22 at 4:19









      brucemcmcbrucemcmc

      396




      396




















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          $f(n) = frac1n$ is monotonically decreasing for $n in N$.



          Therefore the largest that $1/n$ can be is 1 and the smallest it can be is 0 (tends to 0). Therefore, the smallest that 2+$1/n$ can be is 2. This should prove (ii)



          Assume there exists a point outside intersection from $(0,1)$ then clearly it will not be in $C_1$, therefore the assumption is wrong. Assume that a point exists in the intersection from $(2, infty)$. Say it is $2+epsilon$ where $epsilon in (0, infty)$. Now for the assumption to hold true this point must lie in interval $C_n$ for all $n in N$,
          $$
          2 + epsilon < 2 + frac1n, forall n in N
          $$



          $$
          epsilon < frac1n, forall n in N
          $$



          But as,
          $$
          lim_n to infty frac1n = 0
          $$



          Therefore there is some $n$ such that,
          $$
          frac1n < epsilon
          $$



          Again the assumption is false. So proved by contradiction.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Hi, thank you for your help!
            $endgroup$
            – brucemcmc
            Mar 22 at 5:14










          • $begingroup$
            If that's all, you can accept the answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Balakrishnan Rajan
            Mar 22 at 5:15










          • $begingroup$
            I believe i did
            $endgroup$
            – brucemcmc
            Mar 22 at 5:18










          • $begingroup$
            I just wanted to know if I missed a step somewhere. Cheers :)
            $endgroup$
            – Balakrishnan Rajan
            Mar 22 at 5:26


















          0












          $begingroup$

          Hint: The second part is similar. If $ 0le xle 2 $, can you show that $ xin C_n $ for all $ n $? If so, then you have $ left[1, 2right] subseteqdisplaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_n $.



          Likewise, if $ xin C_n $ for all $ n $, can you show that $ 0le x le 2 $? You would then have $ displaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_nsubseteqleft[1, 2right] $.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$




















            0












            $begingroup$

            First note that $forall ninBbb N, 1/nle 1wedge2+1/n>2impliesforall C_n,[1,2]subset C_n$. Hence, $[1,2]$ lies in their intersection. Next you need to show that $[1,2]$ is the intersection, i.e. for $x>2vee x<1,exists C_k|xnotin C_k$. If $x<1$, then $xnotin C_1$; can you use the Archimidean property for the other?






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Hi thank you for your input!
              $endgroup$
              – brucemcmc
              Mar 22 at 5:17


















            0












            $begingroup$

            Clearly $[1,2]subseteq C_n$ for all $n$, hence $supseteq$ holds in (ii).



            Now we prove the reverse inclusion. Suppose $x$ in the intersection. Then $xgeqfrac1n$ for all $n$, in particular $xgeq1$. Also, $xleq2+frac1n$ for all $n$, which implies $xleq2$. So $xin[1,2]$.



            Note that, if we took $[frac1n,2+frac1n)$, nothing would change, because having $x<2+frac1n$ for all $n$ would still allow 2. Taking $(frac1n,2+frac2n]$ would, instead, turn the intersection to $(1,2]$, because we would have $x>1$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3157735%2fchecking-and-proving-the-following-by-the-archimedean-property-of-reals-first-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes








              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              1












              $begingroup$

              $f(n) = frac1n$ is monotonically decreasing for $n in N$.



              Therefore the largest that $1/n$ can be is 1 and the smallest it can be is 0 (tends to 0). Therefore, the smallest that 2+$1/n$ can be is 2. This should prove (ii)



              Assume there exists a point outside intersection from $(0,1)$ then clearly it will not be in $C_1$, therefore the assumption is wrong. Assume that a point exists in the intersection from $(2, infty)$. Say it is $2+epsilon$ where $epsilon in (0, infty)$. Now for the assumption to hold true this point must lie in interval $C_n$ for all $n in N$,
              $$
              2 + epsilon < 2 + frac1n, forall n in N
              $$



              $$
              epsilon < frac1n, forall n in N
              $$



              But as,
              $$
              lim_n to infty frac1n = 0
              $$



              Therefore there is some $n$ such that,
              $$
              frac1n < epsilon
              $$



              Again the assumption is false. So proved by contradiction.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                Hi, thank you for your help!
                $endgroup$
                – brucemcmc
                Mar 22 at 5:14










              • $begingroup$
                If that's all, you can accept the answer.
                $endgroup$
                – Balakrishnan Rajan
                Mar 22 at 5:15










              • $begingroup$
                I believe i did
                $endgroup$
                – brucemcmc
                Mar 22 at 5:18










              • $begingroup$
                I just wanted to know if I missed a step somewhere. Cheers :)
                $endgroup$
                – Balakrishnan Rajan
                Mar 22 at 5:26















              1












              $begingroup$

              $f(n) = frac1n$ is monotonically decreasing for $n in N$.



              Therefore the largest that $1/n$ can be is 1 and the smallest it can be is 0 (tends to 0). Therefore, the smallest that 2+$1/n$ can be is 2. This should prove (ii)



              Assume there exists a point outside intersection from $(0,1)$ then clearly it will not be in $C_1$, therefore the assumption is wrong. Assume that a point exists in the intersection from $(2, infty)$. Say it is $2+epsilon$ where $epsilon in (0, infty)$. Now for the assumption to hold true this point must lie in interval $C_n$ for all $n in N$,
              $$
              2 + epsilon < 2 + frac1n, forall n in N
              $$



              $$
              epsilon < frac1n, forall n in N
              $$



              But as,
              $$
              lim_n to infty frac1n = 0
              $$



              Therefore there is some $n$ such that,
              $$
              frac1n < epsilon
              $$



              Again the assumption is false. So proved by contradiction.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                Hi, thank you for your help!
                $endgroup$
                – brucemcmc
                Mar 22 at 5:14










              • $begingroup$
                If that's all, you can accept the answer.
                $endgroup$
                – Balakrishnan Rajan
                Mar 22 at 5:15










              • $begingroup$
                I believe i did
                $endgroup$
                – brucemcmc
                Mar 22 at 5:18










              • $begingroup$
                I just wanted to know if I missed a step somewhere. Cheers :)
                $endgroup$
                – Balakrishnan Rajan
                Mar 22 at 5:26













              1












              1








              1





              $begingroup$

              $f(n) = frac1n$ is monotonically decreasing for $n in N$.



              Therefore the largest that $1/n$ can be is 1 and the smallest it can be is 0 (tends to 0). Therefore, the smallest that 2+$1/n$ can be is 2. This should prove (ii)



              Assume there exists a point outside intersection from $(0,1)$ then clearly it will not be in $C_1$, therefore the assumption is wrong. Assume that a point exists in the intersection from $(2, infty)$. Say it is $2+epsilon$ where $epsilon in (0, infty)$. Now for the assumption to hold true this point must lie in interval $C_n$ for all $n in N$,
              $$
              2 + epsilon < 2 + frac1n, forall n in N
              $$



              $$
              epsilon < frac1n, forall n in N
              $$



              But as,
              $$
              lim_n to infty frac1n = 0
              $$



              Therefore there is some $n$ such that,
              $$
              frac1n < epsilon
              $$



              Again the assumption is false. So proved by contradiction.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              $f(n) = frac1n$ is monotonically decreasing for $n in N$.



              Therefore the largest that $1/n$ can be is 1 and the smallest it can be is 0 (tends to 0). Therefore, the smallest that 2+$1/n$ can be is 2. This should prove (ii)



              Assume there exists a point outside intersection from $(0,1)$ then clearly it will not be in $C_1$, therefore the assumption is wrong. Assume that a point exists in the intersection from $(2, infty)$. Say it is $2+epsilon$ where $epsilon in (0, infty)$. Now for the assumption to hold true this point must lie in interval $C_n$ for all $n in N$,
              $$
              2 + epsilon < 2 + frac1n, forall n in N
              $$



              $$
              epsilon < frac1n, forall n in N
              $$



              But as,
              $$
              lim_n to infty frac1n = 0
              $$



              Therefore there is some $n$ such that,
              $$
              frac1n < epsilon
              $$



              Again the assumption is false. So proved by contradiction.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Mar 22 at 5:01

























              answered Mar 22 at 4:49









              Balakrishnan RajanBalakrishnan Rajan

              1519




              1519











              • $begingroup$
                Hi, thank you for your help!
                $endgroup$
                – brucemcmc
                Mar 22 at 5:14










              • $begingroup$
                If that's all, you can accept the answer.
                $endgroup$
                – Balakrishnan Rajan
                Mar 22 at 5:15










              • $begingroup$
                I believe i did
                $endgroup$
                – brucemcmc
                Mar 22 at 5:18










              • $begingroup$
                I just wanted to know if I missed a step somewhere. Cheers :)
                $endgroup$
                – Balakrishnan Rajan
                Mar 22 at 5:26
















              • $begingroup$
                Hi, thank you for your help!
                $endgroup$
                – brucemcmc
                Mar 22 at 5:14










              • $begingroup$
                If that's all, you can accept the answer.
                $endgroup$
                – Balakrishnan Rajan
                Mar 22 at 5:15










              • $begingroup$
                I believe i did
                $endgroup$
                – brucemcmc
                Mar 22 at 5:18










              • $begingroup$
                I just wanted to know if I missed a step somewhere. Cheers :)
                $endgroup$
                – Balakrishnan Rajan
                Mar 22 at 5:26















              $begingroup$
              Hi, thank you for your help!
              $endgroup$
              – brucemcmc
              Mar 22 at 5:14




              $begingroup$
              Hi, thank you for your help!
              $endgroup$
              – brucemcmc
              Mar 22 at 5:14












              $begingroup$
              If that's all, you can accept the answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Balakrishnan Rajan
              Mar 22 at 5:15




              $begingroup$
              If that's all, you can accept the answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Balakrishnan Rajan
              Mar 22 at 5:15












              $begingroup$
              I believe i did
              $endgroup$
              – brucemcmc
              Mar 22 at 5:18




              $begingroup$
              I believe i did
              $endgroup$
              – brucemcmc
              Mar 22 at 5:18












              $begingroup$
              I just wanted to know if I missed a step somewhere. Cheers :)
              $endgroup$
              – Balakrishnan Rajan
              Mar 22 at 5:26




              $begingroup$
              I just wanted to know if I missed a step somewhere. Cheers :)
              $endgroup$
              – Balakrishnan Rajan
              Mar 22 at 5:26











              0












              $begingroup$

              Hint: The second part is similar. If $ 0le xle 2 $, can you show that $ xin C_n $ for all $ n $? If so, then you have $ left[1, 2right] subseteqdisplaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_n $.



              Likewise, if $ xin C_n $ for all $ n $, can you show that $ 0le x le 2 $? You would then have $ displaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_nsubseteqleft[1, 2right] $.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                0












                $begingroup$

                Hint: The second part is similar. If $ 0le xle 2 $, can you show that $ xin C_n $ for all $ n $? If so, then you have $ left[1, 2right] subseteqdisplaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_n $.



                Likewise, if $ xin C_n $ for all $ n $, can you show that $ 0le x le 2 $? You would then have $ displaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_nsubseteqleft[1, 2right] $.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  Hint: The second part is similar. If $ 0le xle 2 $, can you show that $ xin C_n $ for all $ n $? If so, then you have $ left[1, 2right] subseteqdisplaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_n $.



                  Likewise, if $ xin C_n $ for all $ n $, can you show that $ 0le x le 2 $? You would then have $ displaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_nsubseteqleft[1, 2right] $.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Hint: The second part is similar. If $ 0le xle 2 $, can you show that $ xin C_n $ for all $ n $? If so, then you have $ left[1, 2right] subseteqdisplaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_n $.



                  Likewise, if $ xin C_n $ for all $ n $, can you show that $ 0le x le 2 $? You would then have $ displaystylebigcap_n=1^infty C_nsubseteqleft[1, 2right] $.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 22 at 4:53









                  lonza leggieralonza leggiera

                  1,26028




                  1,26028





















                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      First note that $forall ninBbb N, 1/nle 1wedge2+1/n>2impliesforall C_n,[1,2]subset C_n$. Hence, $[1,2]$ lies in their intersection. Next you need to show that $[1,2]$ is the intersection, i.e. for $x>2vee x<1,exists C_k|xnotin C_k$. If $x<1$, then $xnotin C_1$; can you use the Archimidean property for the other?






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        Hi thank you for your input!
                        $endgroup$
                        – brucemcmc
                        Mar 22 at 5:17















                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      First note that $forall ninBbb N, 1/nle 1wedge2+1/n>2impliesforall C_n,[1,2]subset C_n$. Hence, $[1,2]$ lies in their intersection. Next you need to show that $[1,2]$ is the intersection, i.e. for $x>2vee x<1,exists C_k|xnotin C_k$. If $x<1$, then $xnotin C_1$; can you use the Archimidean property for the other?






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        Hi thank you for your input!
                        $endgroup$
                        – brucemcmc
                        Mar 22 at 5:17













                      0












                      0








                      0





                      $begingroup$

                      First note that $forall ninBbb N, 1/nle 1wedge2+1/n>2impliesforall C_n,[1,2]subset C_n$. Hence, $[1,2]$ lies in their intersection. Next you need to show that $[1,2]$ is the intersection, i.e. for $x>2vee x<1,exists C_k|xnotin C_k$. If $x<1$, then $xnotin C_1$; can you use the Archimidean property for the other?






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      First note that $forall ninBbb N, 1/nle 1wedge2+1/n>2impliesforall C_n,[1,2]subset C_n$. Hence, $[1,2]$ lies in their intersection. Next you need to show that $[1,2]$ is the intersection, i.e. for $x>2vee x<1,exists C_k|xnotin C_k$. If $x<1$, then $xnotin C_1$; can you use the Archimidean property for the other?







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Mar 22 at 5:03









                      Shubham JohriShubham Johri

                      5,515818




                      5,515818











                      • $begingroup$
                        Hi thank you for your input!
                        $endgroup$
                        – brucemcmc
                        Mar 22 at 5:17
















                      • $begingroup$
                        Hi thank you for your input!
                        $endgroup$
                        – brucemcmc
                        Mar 22 at 5:17















                      $begingroup$
                      Hi thank you for your input!
                      $endgroup$
                      – brucemcmc
                      Mar 22 at 5:17




                      $begingroup$
                      Hi thank you for your input!
                      $endgroup$
                      – brucemcmc
                      Mar 22 at 5:17











                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      Clearly $[1,2]subseteq C_n$ for all $n$, hence $supseteq$ holds in (ii).



                      Now we prove the reverse inclusion. Suppose $x$ in the intersection. Then $xgeqfrac1n$ for all $n$, in particular $xgeq1$. Also, $xleq2+frac1n$ for all $n$, which implies $xleq2$. So $xin[1,2]$.



                      Note that, if we took $[frac1n,2+frac1n)$, nothing would change, because having $x<2+frac1n$ for all $n$ would still allow 2. Taking $(frac1n,2+frac2n]$ would, instead, turn the intersection to $(1,2]$, because we would have $x>1$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$

















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        Clearly $[1,2]subseteq C_n$ for all $n$, hence $supseteq$ holds in (ii).



                        Now we prove the reverse inclusion. Suppose $x$ in the intersection. Then $xgeqfrac1n$ for all $n$, in particular $xgeq1$. Also, $xleq2+frac1n$ for all $n$, which implies $xleq2$. So $xin[1,2]$.



                        Note that, if we took $[frac1n,2+frac1n)$, nothing would change, because having $x<2+frac1n$ for all $n$ would still allow 2. Taking $(frac1n,2+frac2n]$ would, instead, turn the intersection to $(1,2]$, because we would have $x>1$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$















                          0












                          0








                          0





                          $begingroup$

                          Clearly $[1,2]subseteq C_n$ for all $n$, hence $supseteq$ holds in (ii).



                          Now we prove the reverse inclusion. Suppose $x$ in the intersection. Then $xgeqfrac1n$ for all $n$, in particular $xgeq1$. Also, $xleq2+frac1n$ for all $n$, which implies $xleq2$. So $xin[1,2]$.



                          Note that, if we took $[frac1n,2+frac1n)$, nothing would change, because having $x<2+frac1n$ for all $n$ would still allow 2. Taking $(frac1n,2+frac2n]$ would, instead, turn the intersection to $(1,2]$, because we would have $x>1$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          Clearly $[1,2]subseteq C_n$ for all $n$, hence $supseteq$ holds in (ii).



                          Now we prove the reverse inclusion. Suppose $x$ in the intersection. Then $xgeqfrac1n$ for all $n$, in particular $xgeq1$. Also, $xleq2+frac1n$ for all $n$, which implies $xleq2$. So $xin[1,2]$.



                          Note that, if we took $[frac1n,2+frac1n)$, nothing would change, because having $x<2+frac1n$ for all $n$ would still allow 2. Taking $(frac1n,2+frac2n]$ would, instead, turn the intersection to $(1,2]$, because we would have $x>1$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Mar 22 at 10:35









                          MickGMickG

                          4,35932057




                          4,35932057



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3157735%2fchecking-and-proving-the-following-by-the-archimedean-property-of-reals-first-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

                              random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

                              Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye