Ecole Nationale Polytechnique Constantine

1st-year class preparatory

Analysis 1 - Guided Solutions of Exercises N° 1: Set of Real Numbers

Exercise 1. [Real Numbers]

√
an integer, where n ∈ N∗ . To prove this we will use the reasoning by absurd, let’s
1. 1) n2 + 1 is not √
assume that m = n2 + 1 is an integer, where n ∈ N∗ . We proceed as follows:

m2 = n2 + 1 ⇒ m2 − n2 = 1 ⇒ (m − n) (m + n) = 1
| {z } | {z }
integer integer

Then we have two statements

 
m−n =1 m − n = −1
S1 : S :
m+n =1 2 m + n = −1

ˆ Statement S1 yields: (m, n) = (1, 0) which contradicts the fact that n ∈ N∗

√
ˆ Statement S2 yields: (m, n) = (−1, 0), which contradicts the fact that m = n2 + 1 ⇒ (−1 = 1)

Then n is not an integer

√
Therefore, our assumption that m is an integer must be false, and n2 + 1 is indeed not an integer for
any positive integer value of n.
p √
2. Let’s define a = 2 + 3, and let’s assume that a is rational. This means we can write a = pq , where
 2 √
p ∈ Z and q ∈ Z∗ . This implies that pq2 = 2 + 3. Therefore, we have:

p2 − 2q 2 √
 
= 3
q2
| {z }
∈Z
√
However, this leads to a contradiction because 3 is not in Q (the set of rational numbers), and the
roots of prime numbers are in Q. This contradiction shows that our assumption that a is rational
cannot be true. Consequently, a must be irrational.
√ √
3. Let’s consider r = 3 − 2, and demonstrate that r is a root of a polynomial equation with rational
coefficients. We proceed as follows:

√ √
r= 3− 2
√
r2 = 5 − 2 6
√
(r2 − 5)2 = (−2 6)2
r4 − 10r2 + 1 = 0

Thus, r is a root of the polynomial equation r4 − 10r2 + 1 = 0, with coefficients 1, -10, and 1 in Q (the
set of rational numbers). This implies that r is algebraic.

1
Exercise 2. [Boundedness]
1. ˆ Prove that A is bounded:
A⊂B B is bounded
∀x ∈ A ===⇒ x∈B =========⇒ ∃m, M ∈ R : m ≤ x ≤ M,

through transition, we can conclude that:

∀x ∈ A : ∃m, M ∈ R : m ≤ x ≤ M ⇒ A is bounded.

ˆ Prove that sup A ≤ sup B. We have:

∀x ∈ A : x ≤ sup A

and
A⊂B
∀x ∈ A ===⇒ x ∈ B : x ≤ sup B.

However, sup A and sup B are majorants of A, but sup A is the smallest of the majorants of A, so
sup A ≤ sup B.
2. ˆ Prove that A ∪ B is bounded.

∀x ∈ A ∪ B ⇒ (x ∈ A or x ∈ B)
⇒ (inf A ≤ x ≤ sup A or inf B ≤ x ≤ sup B)

So we have: 
(∗)
x ≤ sup A or x ≤ sup B
 ==⇒ x ≤ max(sup A, sup B)
(∗′ )
x ≥ inf A or x ≥ inf B
 ==⇒ x ≥ min(inf A, inf B)

Therefore, A ∪ B has an majorant max(sup A, sup B) and a minorant min(inf A, inf B), which
implies that A ∪ B is bounded.
ˆ Prove that sup(A ∪ B) = max(sup A, sup B). To establish this equality, we will demonstrate two
inequalities: sup(A ∪ B) ≤ max(sup A, sup B) and sup(A ∪ B) ≥ max(sup A, sup B).
(a) Prove that sup(A ∪ B) ≤ max(sup A, sup B):
We recognize that max(sup A, sup B) is an upper bound for A ∪ B. However, sup(A ∪ B) is
the smallest upper bound of A ∪ B, so we have:

sup(A ∪ B) ≤ max(sup A, sup B)

(b) Prove that sup(A ∪ B) ≥ max(sup A, sup B)
We have A ⊂ A ∪ B and B ⊂ A ∪ B. From the previous question, we have:

sup A ≤ sup(A ∪ B), ∗∗,
==⇒ max(sup A, sup B) ≤ sup(A ∪ B)
sup B ≤ sup(A ∪ B).

we conclude: sup(A ∪ B) = max(sup A, sup B)

Therefore, we have shown both inequalities, which proves that sup(A ∪ B) = max(sup A, sup B).

Exercise 3. [Characterization]
1. A1 = [−1, 2[.
It is clear that A1 ̸= ∅ (0 ∈ [−1, 2[), and ∀x ∈ A1 , −1 ≤ x < 2. Since A1 is non-empty and bounded
then both inf A1 and sup A1 exist.
Is sup A1 = 2?
We know that 2 is a Majorant for the set A1 , but 2 ∈
/ A1 . To confirm that sup A1 = 2, we use the
characterization:
∀ϵ > 0, ∃x0 ∈ A1 : x0 > 2 − ϵ

Let’s consider the two possible cases:

2
 Case 1: If 2 − ϵ < −1 (ϵ > 3), it’s clear that all elements of the set A1 satisfy this inequality.
ϵ ϵ ϵ
Case 2: If −1 ≤ 2 − ϵ (ϵ ≤ 3). We have ϵ > 2 ⇒ 2−ϵ < 2− 2 ⇒≤ 2 − 2 < 2, so there exists
x0 = 2 − 2ϵ ∈ A1 such that x0 > 2 − ϵ.
In both cases, for all ϵ > 0, there exists x0 ∈ A1 such that x0 > 2 − ϵ, which implies that 2 = sup A1 .
Since 2 ∈/ A1 , we conclude that max A1 does not exist.
Is inf A1 = −1?
−1 is a Minorant of the set A1 and −1 ∈ A1 ⇒ −1 = inf A1 = min A1

2. A2 =]3, 5].
It is clear that A2 ̸= ∅ (4 ∈ A2 ), and ∀x ∈ A2 , 3 < x ≤ 5. Since A2 is non- empty and bounded then
both inf A2 and sup A2 exist.
Is inf A2 = 3?
We know that 3 is a Minorant of A2 , but 3 ∈ / A2 . To confirm that inf A2 = 3 we use the the
characterization:
∀ϵ > 0, ∃x0 ∈ A2 : x0 < 3 + ϵ
Let’s consider the two possible cases:
Case 1: If 3 + ϵ > 5 (ϵ > 2), it’s clear that all elements of the set A2 satisfy this enequality.
Case 2: If 3 + ϵ ≤ 5 (ϵ ≤ 2). We have ϵ > 2ϵ ⇒ 3 + 2ϵ < 3 + ϵ ⇒ 3 < 3 + 2ϵ ≤ 5, so there exits
x0 = 3 + 2ϵ ∈ A2 such that x0 < 3 + ϵ, which implies that 3 = inf A2 . Since 3 ∈ / A2 , we conclude that
max A2 does not exist.
Is sup A2 = 5?
5 is a Majorant of the set A2 , and 5 ∈ A2 ⇒ 5 = sup A2 = max A2
n n
o
3. A4 = 2 + (−1) n | n ∈ N∗
n o
1
We can write A4 as union of two sets B1 and B2 taking into account that: B1 = 2 − 2k+1 ,k ∈ N
1
, k ∈ N∗ .

and B2 = 2 + 2k
1
The set B1 ̸= ∅ (1 ∈ B1 ), and ∀k ∈ N : 1 ≤ 2 − 2k+1 < 2 ⇒ B1 is boounded, then sup B1 and inf B1
exist.
Is sup B1 = 2?
2 is a Mojorant of the set B1 , but 2 ∈
/ B1 . To confirm that sup B1 = 2 we use the characterization:
1
∀ϵ > 0, ∃x0 ∈ B1 : x0 > 2 − ϵ ⇔ ∀ϵ > 0, ∃k ∈ N : 2 − >2−ϵ
2k + 1
1 1−ϵ
Consider ϵ > 0 : 2 − 2k+1 >2−ϵ⇒k > 2ϵ .
1−ϵ 1−ϵ
Since 2ϵ ∈ R according to the Archimedean theorem, there exists k ∈ N such that k > 2ϵ .
This implies that sup B1 = 2, but max B1 does not exist.
Is inf B1 = 1?
1 is a Minorant of the set B1 and 1 ∈ B1 ⇒ inf B1 = min B1 = 1
Is sup B2 = 52 ? 52 is a Majorant of the set B2 ⇒ sup B2 = max B2 = 25
Is inf B2 = 2?
2 is a Minorant of the set B2 , but 2 ∈/ B2 . To confirm that inf B2 = 2, we use the characterization:
1
∀ϵ > 0, ∃x0 ∈ B2 : x0 < 2 + ϵ ⇔ ∀ϵ > 0, ∃k ∈ N∗ : 2 + <2+ϵ
2k
1 1
Consider ϵ > 0 : 2 + 2k < 2 + ϵ ⇒ k > 2ϵ , according to the Archimedean theorem, there exists k ∈ N
1
such that k > 2ϵ . This implies that inf B2 = 1, bat min B2 does not exist.
Conclusion:
According to the union rule in Exercise 2:
5
sup A4 = max A4 =
2
inf A4 = min A4 = 1
n √ o
4. A6 = x 2
x2 +1 | x ∈ R∗+ .
√
x 2 √1 , A6
It is clear that A6 ≤ ∅, and ∀x ∈ A6 : 0 < x2 +1 ≤ x
is bounded ⇒ sup A6 , inf A6 exist.

3
 Is sup A6 = √12 ?
√1 is a Moajorant of the set A6 and √1 ∈ A6 ⇒ √1 = sup A6 = max A6 .
2 2 2
Is inf A6 = 0?
0 is a Minorant of the set A6 , but 0 ∈
/ A6 . To confirm that 0 = inf A6 , we use the characterization:
√
x0 2
∀ϵ > 0, ∃x0 ∈ A6 : x0 < ϵ ⇔ ∀ϵ > 0, ∃x0 > 0 : 2 < ϵ.
x0 + 1
√ √ √
Consider ϵ > 0 : xx02 +12 < ϵ ⇒ x0 > 2
ϵ , we can choose x0 = ϵ
2
+ 1 ∈ R∗+ ⇒ 0 = inf A6 , but0 ∈
/ A6 ⇒
0
min A6 does not exist

Exercise 4. [Absolute Value]

1. To prove the inequality |x + y| ≤ |x| + |y| ∀x, y ∈ R, we can use the propertie of absolute values:
−|x| ≤ x ≤ |x|
−|y| ≤ y ≤ |y|

Adding the two inequalities together, we get:

−(|x| + |y|) ≤ x + y ≤ |x| + |y| ⇒ |x + y| ≤ |x| + |y|

2. Let’s assume the inverse: x ̸= 0.
Case 1: If x > 0, then there exists ϵ ∈ Q such that |x| > ϵ > 0.
In this case, we have x > 0, and by the density of rational numbers in the real numbers, we can find a
rational number ϵ such that |x| > ϵ > 0. (Contradiction)
Case 2: If x < 0, then |x| > 0. Again, by the density of rational numbers in the real numbers, there
exists ϵ ∈ Q such that 0 < ϵ < |x|.
In both cases, we have shown that there exists a positive rational number ϵ such that |x| > ϵ > 0. This
contradicts the assumption x ̸= 0, as we have found an ϵ for which |x| > ϵ and, therefore, |x| cannot
be zero.
Hence, by contradiction, our initial assumption x ̸= 0 is false, and we conclude that x = 0.
3. Using the method of reccurence
For n = 1, we have a single real number x1 , and the inequality is trivially true:

|x1 | ≤ |x1 |
So, the base case is true.
Assume that the inequality holds for some positive integer k, where k ≥ 1:

|x1 + x2 + · · · + xk | ≤ |x1 | + |x2 | + · · · + |xk |

Now, we want to prove it for n = k + 1. Consider x1 , x2 , . . . , xk , xk+1 ∈ R.
We have:

|x1 + x2 + · · · + xk | ≤ |x1 | + |x2 | + · · · + |xk |

Now, let’s add |xk+1 | to both sides of this inequality:

|x1 + x2 + · · · + xk | + |xk+1 | ≤ |x1 | + |x2 | + · · · + |xk | + |xk+1 |

Now, using the triangle inequality for absolute values:

|x1 + x2 + · · · + xk + xk+1 | ≤ |x1 | + |x2 | + · · · + |xk | + |xk+1 |

This is the inequality for n = k + 1, which is what we wanted to prove.
Therefore, we have shown that the inequality |x1 + x2 + · · · + xn | ≤ |x1 | + |x2 | + · · · + |xn | holds for all
positive integers n.

4
Exercise 5. [Floor Function]
1. E(3) = 3, E(1.2) = 1, E(−1.7) = −2

x−1< E(x) ≤ x
⇒ −2 < E(x) + E(−x) ≤ 0
−x − 1 < E(−x) ≤ −x.
E(x) + E(−x) ∈ {−1, 0}
2. ˆ 
x + y − 1 < E(x + y) ≤ x + y 
x−1< E(x) ≤ x ⇒ −1 < E(x + y) − E(x) − E(y) < 2
y−1< E(y) ≤ y


E(x + y) − E(x) − E(y) ∈ {0, 1}

ˆ We have E(x) ≤ x ≤ E(x) + 1 ⇒ E(x) + p ≤ x + p < (E(x) + p) + 1. As E(x) + p ∈ Z, we found:

E(x) + p = E(x + p)