Making fun of Britannica Talk

The EB article about "real numbers" claims that every set of real numbers with an upper bound has a least upper bound; this is false.

Is this false? can you give an example?. I'm under the impression that it is true. In fact, I just took it out of the page because the real number page says exactly the opposite.

Please contemplate the empty set and then put the comment back in. --AxelBoldt

I'm not sure you can consider the empty set "a set of real numbers"...It is clearly a subset of the real numbers, but I am not convinced it is the same. --AN

Allright, let's give the poor and abused editors of EB the benefit of the doubt :-) --AxelBoldt