Real Analysis proof for boundedness for function
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
a) Let $f : [a, b] â mathbbR$ be a (not necessarily continuous) function with the property that, for every $x â [a, b]$, there is a number $ô_x > 0$ for which $f$ is bounded on the neighborhood $Vô_x (x)$ of $x$. Prove that the function f is bounded on the interval $[a, b]$.
b. Does the result of part a hold if the interval is $(a, b)$?
My proof for a:
Let $k = [a, b]$. If $f(k)$ is not bounded, the for all $n in mathbbN$, there exist a sequence $y_n$ is a subset of $f(k)$ such that $|y_n| > n$.
Let $x_n$ be a subset of $K$ satisfy $f(x_n) = y_n$. Then seq $x_n$ is bounded. So we extract convergent subsequences with $x_n_j$ converges to $x$ as $j$ goes to infinity. Since $K$ is closed, $x in K$. By sequence criterion for continuity, $y_n_j = f(x_n_j)$ converges to $f(x)$ . But $|y_n_j| > n_j geq j$. This is a contradiction since unbounded sequences are divergences. Thus $f(k)$ is bounded.
Is this proof good ?
For part b, could someone give some hints how to proceed this proof?
real-analysis
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
a) Let $f : [a, b] â mathbbR$ be a (not necessarily continuous) function with the property that, for every $x â [a, b]$, there is a number $ô_x > 0$ for which $f$ is bounded on the neighborhood $Vô_x (x)$ of $x$. Prove that the function f is bounded on the interval $[a, b]$.
b. Does the result of part a hold if the interval is $(a, b)$?
My proof for a:
Let $k = [a, b]$. If $f(k)$ is not bounded, the for all $n in mathbbN$, there exist a sequence $y_n$ is a subset of $f(k)$ such that $|y_n| > n$.
Let $x_n$ be a subset of $K$ satisfy $f(x_n) = y_n$. Then seq $x_n$ is bounded. So we extract convergent subsequences with $x_n_j$ converges to $x$ as $j$ goes to infinity. Since $K$ is closed, $x in K$. By sequence criterion for continuity, $y_n_j = f(x_n_j)$ converges to $f(x)$ . But $|y_n_j| > n_j geq j$. This is a contradiction since unbounded sequences are divergences. Thus $f(k)$ is bounded.
Is this proof good ?
For part b, could someone give some hints how to proceed this proof?
real-analysis
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
a) Let $f : [a, b] â mathbbR$ be a (not necessarily continuous) function with the property that, for every $x â [a, b]$, there is a number $ô_x > 0$ for which $f$ is bounded on the neighborhood $Vô_x (x)$ of $x$. Prove that the function f is bounded on the interval $[a, b]$.
b. Does the result of part a hold if the interval is $(a, b)$?
My proof for a:
Let $k = [a, b]$. If $f(k)$ is not bounded, the for all $n in mathbbN$, there exist a sequence $y_n$ is a subset of $f(k)$ such that $|y_n| > n$.
Let $x_n$ be a subset of $K$ satisfy $f(x_n) = y_n$. Then seq $x_n$ is bounded. So we extract convergent subsequences with $x_n_j$ converges to $x$ as $j$ goes to infinity. Since $K$ is closed, $x in K$. By sequence criterion for continuity, $y_n_j = f(x_n_j)$ converges to $f(x)$ . But $|y_n_j| > n_j geq j$. This is a contradiction since unbounded sequences are divergences. Thus $f(k)$ is bounded.
Is this proof good ?
For part b, could someone give some hints how to proceed this proof?
real-analysis
a) Let $f : [a, b] â mathbbR$ be a (not necessarily continuous) function with the property that, for every $x â [a, b]$, there is a number $ô_x > 0$ for which $f$ is bounded on the neighborhood $Vô_x (x)$ of $x$. Prove that the function f is bounded on the interval $[a, b]$.
b. Does the result of part a hold if the interval is $(a, b)$?
My proof for a:
Let $k = [a, b]$. If $f(k)$ is not bounded, the for all $n in mathbbN$, there exist a sequence $y_n$ is a subset of $f(k)$ such that $|y_n| > n$.
Let $x_n$ be a subset of $K$ satisfy $f(x_n) = y_n$. Then seq $x_n$ is bounded. So we extract convergent subsequences with $x_n_j$ converges to $x$ as $j$ goes to infinity. Since $K$ is closed, $x in K$. By sequence criterion for continuity, $y_n_j = f(x_n_j)$ converges to $f(x)$ . But $|y_n_j| > n_j geq j$. This is a contradiction since unbounded sequences are divergences. Thus $f(k)$ is bounded.
Is this proof good ?
For part b, could someone give some hints how to proceed this proof?
real-analysis
edited Aug 15 at 7:38
dude3221
30611
30611
asked Nov 22 '13 at 1:04
afsdf dfsaf
59611233
59611233
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
For b take the function $f : (0,1) rightarrow mathbbR$, $f(x) = frac1x$. The function is continuous in $(0,1)$. $f$ is bounded in every open nbd of $x in (0,1)$ but it is unbounded in $(0,1)$.
Proof for a is good.
For proof a you can use property of compact set in $mathbbR$.
A set $A subset mathbbR$ is said to be compact if each of its open cover has finite subcover. $[a,b]$ is a compact set in $mathbbR$.
For any $x$ in $[a,b]$ we are getting an open nbd $V_delta(x)$ of length $delta$ where the function $f$ is bounded, i.e. $exists$ $M_delta > 0$ s.t. $f(x) < M_delta forall x in V_delta(x)$. Now $V_delta(x) : x in [a,b]$ is an open cover of $[a,b]$, having a finite subcover say $V_delta(x_1), V_delta(x_2) dots V_delta(x_n)$. $[a,b] = cup_k = 1^n V_delta(x_k)$. So get $M = maxM_1, M_2, dots, M_n$. $f(x) < M$. Thus $f$ is bounded.
Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 1:34
The proof is OK, but uses continuity of $f$ ( while you claim initially that this is not a necessary condition). If $f$ is continuous, then certainly the image of a compact interval under $f$ is compact, so bounded.
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 1:46
However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 3:29
Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 3:54
Do you have any idea to change the proof?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 4:44
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
For b take the function $f : (0,1) rightarrow mathbbR$, $f(x) = frac1x$. The function is continuous in $(0,1)$. $f$ is bounded in every open nbd of $x in (0,1)$ but it is unbounded in $(0,1)$.
Proof for a is good.
For proof a you can use property of compact set in $mathbbR$.
A set $A subset mathbbR$ is said to be compact if each of its open cover has finite subcover. $[a,b]$ is a compact set in $mathbbR$.
For any $x$ in $[a,b]$ we are getting an open nbd $V_delta(x)$ of length $delta$ where the function $f$ is bounded, i.e. $exists$ $M_delta > 0$ s.t. $f(x) < M_delta forall x in V_delta(x)$. Now $V_delta(x) : x in [a,b]$ is an open cover of $[a,b]$, having a finite subcover say $V_delta(x_1), V_delta(x_2) dots V_delta(x_n)$. $[a,b] = cup_k = 1^n V_delta(x_k)$. So get $M = maxM_1, M_2, dots, M_n$. $f(x) < M$. Thus $f$ is bounded.
Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 1:34
The proof is OK, but uses continuity of $f$ ( while you claim initially that this is not a necessary condition). If $f$ is continuous, then certainly the image of a compact interval under $f$ is compact, so bounded.
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 1:46
However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 3:29
Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 3:54
Do you have any idea to change the proof?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 4:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
For b take the function $f : (0,1) rightarrow mathbbR$, $f(x) = frac1x$. The function is continuous in $(0,1)$. $f$ is bounded in every open nbd of $x in (0,1)$ but it is unbounded in $(0,1)$.
Proof for a is good.
For proof a you can use property of compact set in $mathbbR$.
A set $A subset mathbbR$ is said to be compact if each of its open cover has finite subcover. $[a,b]$ is a compact set in $mathbbR$.
For any $x$ in $[a,b]$ we are getting an open nbd $V_delta(x)$ of length $delta$ where the function $f$ is bounded, i.e. $exists$ $M_delta > 0$ s.t. $f(x) < M_delta forall x in V_delta(x)$. Now $V_delta(x) : x in [a,b]$ is an open cover of $[a,b]$, having a finite subcover say $V_delta(x_1), V_delta(x_2) dots V_delta(x_n)$. $[a,b] = cup_k = 1^n V_delta(x_k)$. So get $M = maxM_1, M_2, dots, M_n$. $f(x) < M$. Thus $f$ is bounded.
Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 1:34
The proof is OK, but uses continuity of $f$ ( while you claim initially that this is not a necessary condition). If $f$ is continuous, then certainly the image of a compact interval under $f$ is compact, so bounded.
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 1:46
However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 3:29
Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 3:54
Do you have any idea to change the proof?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 4:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
For b take the function $f : (0,1) rightarrow mathbbR$, $f(x) = frac1x$. The function is continuous in $(0,1)$. $f$ is bounded in every open nbd of $x in (0,1)$ but it is unbounded in $(0,1)$.
Proof for a is good.
For proof a you can use property of compact set in $mathbbR$.
A set $A subset mathbbR$ is said to be compact if each of its open cover has finite subcover. $[a,b]$ is a compact set in $mathbbR$.
For any $x$ in $[a,b]$ we are getting an open nbd $V_delta(x)$ of length $delta$ where the function $f$ is bounded, i.e. $exists$ $M_delta > 0$ s.t. $f(x) < M_delta forall x in V_delta(x)$. Now $V_delta(x) : x in [a,b]$ is an open cover of $[a,b]$, having a finite subcover say $V_delta(x_1), V_delta(x_2) dots V_delta(x_n)$. $[a,b] = cup_k = 1^n V_delta(x_k)$. So get $M = maxM_1, M_2, dots, M_n$. $f(x) < M$. Thus $f$ is bounded.
For b take the function $f : (0,1) rightarrow mathbbR$, $f(x) = frac1x$. The function is continuous in $(0,1)$. $f$ is bounded in every open nbd of $x in (0,1)$ but it is unbounded in $(0,1)$.
Proof for a is good.
For proof a you can use property of compact set in $mathbbR$.
A set $A subset mathbbR$ is said to be compact if each of its open cover has finite subcover. $[a,b]$ is a compact set in $mathbbR$.
For any $x$ in $[a,b]$ we are getting an open nbd $V_delta(x)$ of length $delta$ where the function $f$ is bounded, i.e. $exists$ $M_delta > 0$ s.t. $f(x) < M_delta forall x in V_delta(x)$. Now $V_delta(x) : x in [a,b]$ is an open cover of $[a,b]$, having a finite subcover say $V_delta(x_1), V_delta(x_2) dots V_delta(x_n)$. $[a,b] = cup_k = 1^n V_delta(x_k)$. So get $M = maxM_1, M_2, dots, M_n$. $f(x) < M$. Thus $f$ is bounded.
edited Nov 22 '13 at 5:41
answered Nov 22 '13 at 1:24
Dutta
3,64542040
3,64542040
Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 1:34
The proof is OK, but uses continuity of $f$ ( while you claim initially that this is not a necessary condition). If $f$ is continuous, then certainly the image of a compact interval under $f$ is compact, so bounded.
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 1:46
However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 3:29
Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 3:54
Do you have any idea to change the proof?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 4:44
add a comment |Â
Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 1:34
The proof is OK, but uses continuity of $f$ ( while you claim initially that this is not a necessary condition). If $f$ is continuous, then certainly the image of a compact interval under $f$ is compact, so bounded.
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 1:46
However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 3:29
Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 3:54
Do you have any idea to change the proof?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 4:44
Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 1:34
Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 1:34
The proof is OK, but uses continuity of $f$ ( while you claim initially that this is not a necessary condition). If $f$ is continuous, then certainly the image of a compact interval under $f$ is compact, so bounded.
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 1:46
The proof is OK, but uses continuity of $f$ ( while you claim initially that this is not a necessary condition). If $f$ is continuous, then certainly the image of a compact interval under $f$ is compact, so bounded.
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 1:46
However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 3:29
However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 3:29
Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 3:54
Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
â AnyAD
Nov 22 '13 at 3:54
Do you have any idea to change the proof?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 4:44
Do you have any idea to change the proof?
â afsdf dfsaf
Nov 22 '13 at 4:44
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f576656%2freal-analysis-proof-for-boundedness-for-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password