How to prove a set is unbounded


by happybear
Tags: prove, unbounded
happybear
happybear is offline
#1
Apr29-09, 03:56 PM
P: 19
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

Suppose I have a set E that contains all continuous function f from [a,b] --> R, I think this is unbounded, but can I prove it?

2. Relevant equations

d(f1,f2)= sup{f1(x)-f2(x)}

3. The attempt at a solution
I want to show |d(f1,f2)|>M for some M, but I don't know if this is the right direction and how to do it
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Internet co-creator Cerf debunks 'myth' that US runs it
Astronomical forensics uncover planetary disks in Hubble archive
Solar-powered two-seat Sunseeker airplane has progress report
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#2
Apr29-09, 04:01 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,904
A set is "unbounded" if, for any positive number A, there exist point p and q in the set such that d(p,q)> A. That, of course, depends on how you measure "distance"- d(p,q).
What is your definition of d(f, g) for f and g in the set of continuous functions from [a, b] to R?

(What ever your d(f,g) is, consider the functions fn(x)= n. for n= 1, 2, 3, ...)
happybear
happybear is offline
#3
Apr29-09, 04:36 PM
P: 19
But there are no definition of f, that is the point. F will be any continuous function from [a,b] to R. Can I prove this set is infinite?

konthelion
konthelion is offline
#4
Apr29-09, 04:58 PM
P: 239

How to prove a set is unbounded


If you think that it is false, you can provide a counterexample.

So, if [tex] f : [a, b] \to R [/tex] and let A = [a, b] is bounded, is it necessarily true that f(A) is bounded?
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#5
Apr29-09, 05:59 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,904
Quote Quote by happybear View Post
But there are no definition of f, that is the point. F will be any continuous function from [a,b] to R. Can I prove this set is infinite?
Do you mean d, the distance function? There has to be a definition of distance in order to talk about "bounded" or "unbounded". And you don't want to prove the set is infinite (that's trivial), you want to prove it is unbounded, a completely different thing.

Is it possible that you are talking about the set of continuous functions from [a,b] to R? For that, the distance function is most commonly [itex]d(f, g)= \max_{a\le x\le b} |f(x)- g(x)|[/itex].
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#6
Apr29-09, 06:00 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,904
Quote Quote by konthelion View Post
If you think that it is false, you can provide a counterexample.

So, if [tex] f : [a, b] \to R [/tex] and let A = [a, b] is bounded, is it necessarily true that f(A) is bounded?
The problem was not to prove that functions in the set are bounded but that the set itself is.
happybear
happybear is offline
#7
Apr29-09, 08:03 PM
P: 19
Quote Quote by HallsofIvy View Post

Is it possible that you are talking about the set of continuous functions from [a,b] to R? For that, the distance function is most commonly [itex]d(f, g)= \max_{a\le x\le b} |f(x)- g(x)|[/itex].


Yes. That is what I meant. And what I want to show is that there are infinitely many functions of f. That is how I interpret the question, since they ask if the set is unbounded. Or do I misunderstand it


Register to reply

Related Discussions
unbounded and continuous almost everywhere General Math 5
Absolute max/min on an unbounded set Calculus & Beyond Homework 12
unbounded sequence Calculus 7
how to prove a number series is unbounded Calculus 0
Unbounded universe Cosmology 2