Let $A$ be bounded below and $B = \{b \in \mathbb{R} : b$ is a lower bound for $A\}$.
My Work
Now to understand I assumed some values, like set $A = (1,4)$ and $\inf A=1$ and so set $B = (-\infty , 1]$.
To prove $ \sup B=1$ I assume that $\sup B$ is bigger than $1$, say $\sup B= 1.5$ so we can find some $b \in (1, 1.5)$. But then set $B$ is set of lower bound for set $A$ which is $(1,4)$. So there is contradiction as the lower bound is bigger than element of set
Now let us say that $\sup B < 1$, say $-0.5$. So we will not have any $b$ between $(-0.5 , 1)$. But then $ \inf A = 1$ is contradicted because lower bound of $A$ is in set $B$.
My Doubt : Is this the correct way to do this ? Of course we require formal proofs, but will formal proof go along the same lines ?
Thanks
Notice that $B$ is bounded from above by any $a \in A$ so there exists $s = \sup B$. This means that:
We claim that $s = \inf A$. To show this, we need:
For $3.$, assume that $s > a$ for some $a \in A$. Then for $\varepsilon = s- a> 0$ we get from $2.$ in the definition of supremum that there exists $b \in B$ such that $$a = s-\varepsilon < b$$ which is a contradiction because $b$ is supposed to be a lower bound for $A$.
For $4.$, take $\varepsilon > 0$ and notice that $s + \varepsilon > s$ so $s+\varepsilon \notin B$ (since $s+\varepsilon \in B$ would contradict $1.$ from the definition of supremum). Hence $s+\varepsilon$ is not a lower bound for $A$ so there exists $a \in A$ such that $s+\varepsilon > a$.
We conclude $s = \inf A$.