Prove that if we take away supremum axiom of real numbers, then we would have such a function












0












$begingroup$


Prove that if we take away supremum axiom of real numbers, that is to say, if there exists a subset of real numbers that is bounded from above but does not have a supremum, then there exists a function defined on a closed interval that is differentiable but does not satisfy the intermediate value theorem nor the Lagrange mean value theorem, that is bounded but does not have maximum or minimum.



My try: if we delete some elements from the set of real numbers, then what is left does not satisfy the supremum axiom. For example if $pi$ is removed, then $sin(x)$ would not satisfy the intermediate value theorem. But if an arbitrary real number is removed, how do I construct such a function?



Any help is appreciated!






analysis real-numbers







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    IVT doesnt only apply at 0’s. Perhaps look at the more general version of the theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Ford
    Jan 8 at 5:32
















0












$begingroup$


Prove that if we take away supremum axiom of real numbers, that is to say, if there exists a subset of real numbers that is bounded from above but does not have a supremum, then there exists a function defined on a closed interval that is differentiable but does not satisfy the intermediate value theorem nor the Lagrange mean value theorem, that is bounded but does not have maximum or minimum.



My try: if we delete some elements from the set of real numbers, then what is left does not satisfy the supremum axiom. For example if $pi$ is removed, then $sin(x)$ would not satisfy the intermediate value theorem. But if an arbitrary real number is removed, how do I construct such a function?



Any help is appreciated!






analysis real-numbers







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    IVT doesnt only apply at 0’s. Perhaps look at the more general version of the theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Ford
    Jan 8 at 5:32














0












0








0





$begingroup$


Prove that if we take away supremum axiom of real numbers, that is to say, if there exists a subset of real numbers that is bounded from above but does not have a supremum, then there exists a function defined on a closed interval that is differentiable but does not satisfy the intermediate value theorem nor the Lagrange mean value theorem, that is bounded but does not have maximum or minimum.



My try: if we delete some elements from the set of real numbers, then what is left does not satisfy the supremum axiom. For example if $pi$ is removed, then $sin(x)$ would not satisfy the intermediate value theorem. But if an arbitrary real number is removed, how do I construct such a function?



Any help is appreciated!






analysis real-numbers







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Prove that if we take away supremum axiom of real numbers, that is to say, if there exists a subset of real numbers that is bounded from above but does not have a supremum, then there exists a function defined on a closed interval that is differentiable but does not satisfy the intermediate value theorem nor the Lagrange mean value theorem, that is bounded but does not have maximum or minimum.



My try: if we delete some elements from the set of real numbers, then what is left does not satisfy the supremum axiom. For example if $pi$ is removed, then $sin(x)$ would not satisfy the intermediate value theorem. But if an arbitrary real number is removed, how do I construct such a function?



Any help is appreciated!






analysis real-numbers




analysis real-numbers






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 8 at 5:28









JiuJiu

496112




496112












  • $begingroup$
    IVT doesnt only apply at 0’s. Perhaps look at the more general version of the theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Ford
    Jan 8 at 5:32


















  • $begingroup$
    IVT doesnt only apply at 0’s. Perhaps look at the more general version of the theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Ford
    Jan 8 at 5:32
















$begingroup$
IVT doesnt only apply at 0’s. Perhaps look at the more general version of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– T. Ford
Jan 8 at 5:32




$begingroup$
IVT doesnt only apply at 0’s. Perhaps look at the more general version of the theorem.
$endgroup$
– T. Ford
Jan 8 at 5:32










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

So there is some subset bounded above with no supremum. Let's call that set $A$.



Let $f(x) = 0$ if $x$ is not any upper bound of $A$ and let $f(x) =1$ if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$..



Trick is to show that this actually satisfies the definition of differentiable.



The thing is normally continuity (and differentiability) will fail at $x = sup A$ and this is the only point it does fail. But if $x = sup A$ simply does not exist.....



... try to work it out on your own. If you need more, read on.....



If $x$ is not an upper bound of $A$ then there is $a in A; a > x$ and so all $y < a$ are also not upper bounds of $A$. So for any $h$ so that $h ne 0$ and $|h| < a-x$, then $x+h$ is not an upper bound of $A$ so $f(x+h) = f(x) = 0$.



And so $limlimits_{hto 0} frac {f(x+h) - f(x)}h = limlimits_{hto 0}frac {0-0}h = 0$. So $f$ is differentiable at $x$ if $x$ is not an upper bound of $A$.



And if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$, $x$ is not the supremum or least upper bound of $A$ (as that doesnt exist!) so there is a $b< x$ that is also an upperbound of $A$. And all $y > b$ are also upper bounds of $A$. So for any $h$ so that $h ne 0$ and $|h| < x-b$, then $x+h$ is an upper bound of $A$ so $f(x+h) = f(x) = 1$.



And so $limlimits_{hto 0} frac {f(x+h) - f(x)}h = limlimits_{hto 0}frac {1-1}h = 0$. So $f$ is differentiable at $x$ if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$.



So $f$ is differentiable at all points in $mathbb R$.



But it clearly fails the Intermediate Value Theorem. Let $c$ not be an upper bound of $A$ and let $d$ be an upper bound then $f(c) = 0$ and $f(d) = 1$ but there is no $e in [c,d]$ so that $0 < f(e) < 1$.



====



This fails if $mathbb R$ has the supremum axiom.



If we allow the supremum axiom. then there is some $alpha = sup A$.



And $f$ is neither differentiable nor continuous at $x = alpha$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank! That's very clever!
    $endgroup$
    – Jiu
    Jan 8 at 9:01










  • $begingroup$
    If you frame the question "what is it about the axiom of suprema that allows IVT" it's that differentiability implies continuity and you cant jump from a value to another without passing between the points in between. But if there is no supremum you can jump from points from points in a set to points above a set.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Jan 8 at 18:10










  • $begingroup$
    yes I realized that we lose connectedness when we remove the axiom of suprema.
    $endgroup$
    – Jiu
    Jan 9 at 3:44











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%2f3065833%2fprove-that-if-we-take-away-supremum-axiom-of-real-numbers-then-we-would-have-su%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

So there is some subset bounded above with no supremum. Let's call that set $A$.



Let $f(x) = 0$ if $x$ is not any upper bound of $A$ and let $f(x) =1$ if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$..



Trick is to show that this actually satisfies the definition of differentiable.



The thing is normally continuity (and differentiability) will fail at $x = sup A$ and this is the only point it does fail. But if $x = sup A$ simply does not exist.....



... try to work it out on your own. If you need more, read on.....



If $x$ is not an upper bound of $A$ then there is $a in A; a > x$ and so all $y < a$ are also not upper bounds of $A$. So for any $h$ so that $h ne 0$ and $|h| < a-x$, then $x+h$ is not an upper bound of $A$ so $f(x+h) = f(x) = 0$.



And so $limlimits_{hto 0} frac {f(x+h) - f(x)}h = limlimits_{hto 0}frac {0-0}h = 0$. So $f$ is differentiable at $x$ if $x$ is not an upper bound of $A$.



And if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$, $x$ is not the supremum or least upper bound of $A$ (as that doesnt exist!) so there is a $b< x$ that is also an upperbound of $A$. And all $y > b$ are also upper bounds of $A$. So for any $h$ so that $h ne 0$ and $|h| < x-b$, then $x+h$ is an upper bound of $A$ so $f(x+h) = f(x) = 1$.



And so $limlimits_{hto 0} frac {f(x+h) - f(x)}h = limlimits_{hto 0}frac {1-1}h = 0$. So $f$ is differentiable at $x$ if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$.



So $f$ is differentiable at all points in $mathbb R$.



But it clearly fails the Intermediate Value Theorem. Let $c$ not be an upper bound of $A$ and let $d$ be an upper bound then $f(c) = 0$ and $f(d) = 1$ but there is no $e in [c,d]$ so that $0 < f(e) < 1$.



====



This fails if $mathbb R$ has the supremum axiom.



If we allow the supremum axiom. then there is some $alpha = sup A$.



And $f$ is neither differentiable nor continuous at $x = alpha$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank! That's very clever!
    $endgroup$
    – Jiu
    Jan 8 at 9:01










  • $begingroup$
    If you frame the question "what is it about the axiom of suprema that allows IVT" it's that differentiability implies continuity and you cant jump from a value to another without passing between the points in between. But if there is no supremum you can jump from points from points in a set to points above a set.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Jan 8 at 18:10










  • $begingroup$
    yes I realized that we lose connectedness when we remove the axiom of suprema.
    $endgroup$
    – Jiu
    Jan 9 at 3:44
















1












$begingroup$

So there is some subset bounded above with no supremum. Let's call that set $A$.



Let $f(x) = 0$ if $x$ is not any upper bound of $A$ and let $f(x) =1$ if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$..



Trick is to show that this actually satisfies the definition of differentiable.



The thing is normally continuity (and differentiability) will fail at $x = sup A$ and this is the only point it does fail. But if $x = sup A$ simply does not exist.....



... try to work it out on your own. If you need more, read on.....



If $x$ is not an upper bound of $A$ then there is $a in A; a > x$ and so all $y < a$ are also not upper bounds of $A$. So for any $h$ so that $h ne 0$ and $|h| < a-x$, then $x+h$ is not an upper bound of $A$ so $f(x+h) = f(x) = 0$.



And so $limlimits_{hto 0} frac {f(x+h) - f(x)}h = limlimits_{hto 0}frac {0-0}h = 0$. So $f$ is differentiable at $x$ if $x$ is not an upper bound of $A$.



And if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$, $x$ is not the supremum or least upper bound of $A$ (as that doesnt exist!) so there is a $b< x$ that is also an upperbound of $A$. And all $y > b$ are also upper bounds of $A$. So for any $h$ so that $h ne 0$ and $|h| < x-b$, then $x+h$ is an upper bound of $A$ so $f(x+h) = f(x) = 1$.



And so $limlimits_{hto 0} frac {f(x+h) - f(x)}h = limlimits_{hto 0}frac {1-1}h = 0$. So $f$ is differentiable at $x$ if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$.



So $f$ is differentiable at all points in $mathbb R$.



But it clearly fails the Intermediate Value Theorem. Let $c$ not be an upper bound of $A$ and let $d$ be an upper bound then $f(c) = 0$ and $f(d) = 1$ but there is no $e in [c,d]$ so that $0 < f(e) < 1$.



====



This fails if $mathbb R$ has the supremum axiom.



If we allow the supremum axiom. then there is some $alpha = sup A$.



And $f$ is neither differentiable nor continuous at $x = alpha$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank! That's very clever!
    $endgroup$
    – Jiu
    Jan 8 at 9:01










  • $begingroup$
    If you frame the question "what is it about the axiom of suprema that allows IVT" it's that differentiability implies continuity and you cant jump from a value to another without passing between the points in between. But if there is no supremum you can jump from points from points in a set to points above a set.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Jan 8 at 18:10










  • $begingroup$
    yes I realized that we lose connectedness when we remove the axiom of suprema.
    $endgroup$
    – Jiu
    Jan 9 at 3:44














1












1








1





$begingroup$

So there is some subset bounded above with no supremum. Let's call that set $A$.



Let $f(x) = 0$ if $x$ is not any upper bound of $A$ and let $f(x) =1$ if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$..



Trick is to show that this actually satisfies the definition of differentiable.



The thing is normally continuity (and differentiability) will fail at $x = sup A$ and this is the only point it does fail. But if $x = sup A$ simply does not exist.....



... try to work it out on your own. If you need more, read on.....



If $x$ is not an upper bound of $A$ then there is $a in A; a > x$ and so all $y < a$ are also not upper bounds of $A$. So for any $h$ so that $h ne 0$ and $|h| < a-x$, then $x+h$ is not an upper bound of $A$ so $f(x+h) = f(x) = 0$.



And so $limlimits_{hto 0} frac {f(x+h) - f(x)}h = limlimits_{hto 0}frac {0-0}h = 0$. So $f$ is differentiable at $x$ if $x$ is not an upper bound of $A$.



And if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$, $x$ is not the supremum or least upper bound of $A$ (as that doesnt exist!) so there is a $b< x$ that is also an upperbound of $A$. And all $y > b$ are also upper bounds of $A$. So for any $h$ so that $h ne 0$ and $|h| < x-b$, then $x+h$ is an upper bound of $A$ so $f(x+h) = f(x) = 1$.



And so $limlimits_{hto 0} frac {f(x+h) - f(x)}h = limlimits_{hto 0}frac {1-1}h = 0$. So $f$ is differentiable at $x$ if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$.



So $f$ is differentiable at all points in $mathbb R$.



But it clearly fails the Intermediate Value Theorem. Let $c$ not be an upper bound of $A$ and let $d$ be an upper bound then $f(c) = 0$ and $f(d) = 1$ but there is no $e in [c,d]$ so that $0 < f(e) < 1$.



====



This fails if $mathbb R$ has the supremum axiom.



If we allow the supremum axiom. then there is some $alpha = sup A$.



And $f$ is neither differentiable nor continuous at $x = alpha$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



So there is some subset bounded above with no supremum. Let's call that set $A$.



Let $f(x) = 0$ if $x$ is not any upper bound of $A$ and let $f(x) =1$ if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$..



Trick is to show that this actually satisfies the definition of differentiable.



The thing is normally continuity (and differentiability) will fail at $x = sup A$ and this is the only point it does fail. But if $x = sup A$ simply does not exist.....



... try to work it out on your own. If you need more, read on.....



If $x$ is not an upper bound of $A$ then there is $a in A; a > x$ and so all $y < a$ are also not upper bounds of $A$. So for any $h$ so that $h ne 0$ and $|h| < a-x$, then $x+h$ is not an upper bound of $A$ so $f(x+h) = f(x) = 0$.



And so $limlimits_{hto 0} frac {f(x+h) - f(x)}h = limlimits_{hto 0}frac {0-0}h = 0$. So $f$ is differentiable at $x$ if $x$ is not an upper bound of $A$.



And if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$, $x$ is not the supremum or least upper bound of $A$ (as that doesnt exist!) so there is a $b< x$ that is also an upperbound of $A$. And all $y > b$ are also upper bounds of $A$. So for any $h$ so that $h ne 0$ and $|h| < x-b$, then $x+h$ is an upper bound of $A$ so $f(x+h) = f(x) = 1$.



And so $limlimits_{hto 0} frac {f(x+h) - f(x)}h = limlimits_{hto 0}frac {1-1}h = 0$. So $f$ is differentiable at $x$ if $x$ is an upper bound of $A$.



So $f$ is differentiable at all points in $mathbb R$.



But it clearly fails the Intermediate Value Theorem. Let $c$ not be an upper bound of $A$ and let $d$ be an upper bound then $f(c) = 0$ and $f(d) = 1$ but there is no $e in [c,d]$ so that $0 < f(e) < 1$.



====



This fails if $mathbb R$ has the supremum axiom.



If we allow the supremum axiom. then there is some $alpha = sup A$.



And $f$ is neither differentiable nor continuous at $x = alpha$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 8 at 8:23

























answered Jan 8 at 8:15









fleabloodfleablood

68.7k22685




68.7k22685












  • $begingroup$
    Thank! That's very clever!
    $endgroup$
    – Jiu
    Jan 8 at 9:01










  • $begingroup$
    If you frame the question "what is it about the axiom of suprema that allows IVT" it's that differentiability implies continuity and you cant jump from a value to another without passing between the points in between. But if there is no supremum you can jump from points from points in a set to points above a set.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Jan 8 at 18:10










  • $begingroup$
    yes I realized that we lose connectedness when we remove the axiom of suprema.
    $endgroup$
    – Jiu
    Jan 9 at 3:44


















  • $begingroup$
    Thank! That's very clever!
    $endgroup$
    – Jiu
    Jan 8 at 9:01










  • $begingroup$
    If you frame the question "what is it about the axiom of suprema that allows IVT" it's that differentiability implies continuity and you cant jump from a value to another without passing between the points in between. But if there is no supremum you can jump from points from points in a set to points above a set.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Jan 8 at 18:10










  • $begingroup$
    yes I realized that we lose connectedness when we remove the axiom of suprema.
    $endgroup$
    – Jiu
    Jan 9 at 3:44
















$begingroup$
Thank! That's very clever!
$endgroup$
– Jiu
Jan 8 at 9:01




$begingroup$
Thank! That's very clever!
$endgroup$
– Jiu
Jan 8 at 9:01












$begingroup$
If you frame the question "what is it about the axiom of suprema that allows IVT" it's that differentiability implies continuity and you cant jump from a value to another without passing between the points in between. But if there is no supremum you can jump from points from points in a set to points above a set.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Jan 8 at 18:10




$begingroup$
If you frame the question "what is it about the axiom of suprema that allows IVT" it's that differentiability implies continuity and you cant jump from a value to another without passing between the points in between. But if there is no supremum you can jump from points from points in a set to points above a set.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Jan 8 at 18:10












$begingroup$
yes I realized that we lose connectedness when we remove the axiom of suprema.
$endgroup$
– Jiu
Jan 9 at 3:44




$begingroup$
yes I realized that we lose connectedness when we remove the axiom of suprema.
$endgroup$
– Jiu
Jan 9 at 3:44


















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%2f3065833%2fprove-that-if-we-take-away-supremum-axiom-of-real-numbers-then-we-would-have-su%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

Mario Kart Wii

Image
Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro...
Read more

The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth

Image
Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth From The Cutting Room Floor < The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth Jump to: navigation, search This is a sub-page of The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth . Afterbirth is the first expansion pack for Rebirth and features a variety of improvements. Contents 1 Unused Graphics 1.1 Old Man Keeper 1.2 Skinless Hush 1.3 Miscellaneous Unused Hush Sprites 1.4 Generosity achievement 1.5 Afterbirth+ Room Editor 1.6 Bearded Ultra Greed 1.7 Early Ultra Greed 1.8 Unused Brownie Expression 1.9 Frail's Spinning Head 1.10 Mom's Dead Hand Alt 2 Unused Audio 2.1 Unused Dead Womb Layer 2.2 Unused Hush Battle Outro 2.3 The Stain Grunt Unused Graphics Old Man Keeper Image file: gfxuimain me...
Read more

What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

Image
5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1 ...
Read more