The question is as follows:
Prove that for every $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$, $\sup(-\infty, \beta) = \beta$.
The goal of the problem is to prove this without using the $\epsilon-\delta$ method. My professor gave us an idea in class, but for some reason, it isn't really making any sense to me.
Call the set $S.$ We need to show that:
1) $\beta$ is an upper bound of $S.$
2) $\beta \leq B \ \forall $ upper bounds $B$ of $S.$
The first condition is clearly satisfied by the fact that $x \leq \beta \ \forall x \in S$.
The second condition is what we did in class and the part that I am most confused about.
If $B$ is an upper bound of $S$, then $\beta \leq B.$
Now assume that $B < \beta.$
If $B < \beta, \exists x$ such that $B < x < \beta$. But then $x < \beta$ and $B<x$, contradicing the assumption that $B$ is an upper bound of $S$, thus proving that $\sup(-\infty, \beta) = \beta$.
Q.E.D.
This proof does not make much sense to me, so I am asking for a clarification. If this prove is indeed wrong, I would appreciate if it someone could provide me with a clear and concise way of proving this.
Thank you so much!
The proof is correct. You are using the fact that for any two distinct elements of $\mathbb{R},$ say $x, y \in \mathbb{R}$ with $x < y,$ there exists $z \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $x < z < y.$ This tells you that since $B < \beta$ you have this element $x$ such that $B < x < \beta.$ Hence, $x \in (-\infty, \beta)$ as $x < \beta.$ Thus, $B$ cannot be an upper bound as there is some element within the set, $x,$ such that $B < x.$ Hope this helps.