Real Analysis proof for boundedness for function

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












a) Let $f : [a, b] → mathbbR$ be a (not necessarily continuous) function with the property that, for every $x ∈ [a, b]$, there is a number $δ_x > 0$ for which $f$ is bounded on the neighborhood $Vδ_x (x)$ 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?







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    a) Let $f : [a, b] → mathbbR$ be a (not necessarily continuous) function with the property that, for every $x ∈ [a, b]$, there is a number $δ_x > 0$ for which $f$ is bounded on the neighborhood $Vδ_x (x)$ 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?







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      a) Let $f : [a, b] → mathbbR$ be a (not necessarily continuous) function with the property that, for every $x ∈ [a, b]$, there is a number $δ_x > 0$ for which $f$ is bounded on the neighborhood $Vδ_x (x)$ 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?







      share|cite|improve this question














      a) Let $f : [a, b] → mathbbR$ be a (not necessarily continuous) function with the property that, for every $x ∈ [a, b]$, there is a number $δ_x > 0$ for which $f$ is bounded on the neighborhood $Vδ_x (x)$ 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?









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Aug 15 at 7:38









      dude3221

      30611




      30611










      asked Nov 22 '13 at 1:04









      afsdf dfsaf

      59611233




      59611233




















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
            – 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.
            – AnyAD
            Nov 22 '13 at 1:46










          • However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
            – afsdf dfsaf
            Nov 22 '13 at 3:29










          • Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
            – AnyAD
            Nov 22 '13 at 3:54










          • Do you have any idea to change the proof?
            – afsdf dfsaf
            Nov 22 '13 at 4:44










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );








           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          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






























          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
            – 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.
            – AnyAD
            Nov 22 '13 at 1:46










          • However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
            – afsdf dfsaf
            Nov 22 '13 at 3:29










          • Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
            – AnyAD
            Nov 22 '13 at 3:54










          • Do you have any idea to change the proof?
            – afsdf dfsaf
            Nov 22 '13 at 4:44














          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
            – 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.
            – AnyAD
            Nov 22 '13 at 1:46










          • However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
            – afsdf dfsaf
            Nov 22 '13 at 3:29










          • Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
            – AnyAD
            Nov 22 '13 at 3:54










          • Do you have any idea to change the proof?
            – afsdf dfsaf
            Nov 22 '13 at 4:44












          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          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?
            – 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.
            – AnyAD
            Nov 22 '13 at 1:46










          • However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
            – afsdf dfsaf
            Nov 22 '13 at 3:29










          • Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
            – AnyAD
            Nov 22 '13 at 3:54










          • Do you have any idea to change the proof?
            – afsdf dfsaf
            Nov 22 '13 at 4:44
















          • Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
            – 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.
            – AnyAD
            Nov 22 '13 at 1:46










          • However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
            – afsdf dfsaf
            Nov 22 '13 at 3:29










          • Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
            – AnyAD
            Nov 22 '13 at 3:54










          • Do you have any idea to change the proof?
            – afsdf dfsaf
            Nov 22 '13 at 4:44















          Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
          – afsdf dfsaf
          Nov 22 '13 at 1:34




          Is bounded by 1. Isn't it?
          – 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.
          – 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.
          – AnyAD
          Nov 22 '13 at 1:46












          However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
          – afsdf dfsaf
          Nov 22 '13 at 3:29




          However, as the question states, f is not necessarily continuous
          – afsdf dfsaf
          Nov 22 '13 at 3:29












          Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
          – AnyAD
          Nov 22 '13 at 3:54




          Is it then OK to use 'swquence criterion for continuity' of $f$ in the proof?
          – AnyAD
          Nov 22 '13 at 3:54












          Do you have any idea to change the proof?
          – afsdf dfsaf
          Nov 22 '13 at 4:44




          Do you have any idea to change the proof?
          – afsdf dfsaf
          Nov 22 '13 at 4:44












           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Propositional logic and tautologies

          Distribution of Stopped Wiener Process with Stochastic Volatility