Register to reply 
Simple but frustrating confusion on definition of bounded function 
Share this thread: 
#1
Feb911, 12:28 AM

P: 120

Hi everyone,
I came across something in my vector calculus textbook (Marsden and Tromba, Edition 5, p. 327) that is confusing me. "A function f(x,y) is said to be bounded if there is a number M>0 such that M<=f(x,y)<=M for all (x,y) in the domain of f. A continuous function on a closed rectangle is always bounded, but, for example, f(x,y) = 1/x on (0,1]x[0,1] is continuous but is not bounded, because 1/x becomes arbitrarily large for x near 0. The rectangle (0,1]x[0,1] is not closed, because the endpoint 0 is missing in the first factor." I do not see how f(x,y) = 1/x could possibly be considered bounded on the closed rectangle [0,1]x[0,1] by the definition given  it still approaches infiniti for x near 0. There is clearly no M for which f(x,y) <= M for all (x,y) in the domain of f, be it on [0,1]x[0,1] or (0,1]x[0,1]. And yet, it is stated, without explanation, that the function is bounded on this rectangle. I looked at some other sources to try to find a different definition of bounded that might clear up some of the confusion, but to no avail (Wikipedia has an equivalent definition and also says that a continuous function on a closed region is always bound). Does anyone know what the deal is? Thanks, HJ Farnsworth 


#2
Feb911, 01:22 AM

P: 1,088

f(x,y) = 1/x does not exist on the closed rectangle [0,1]x[0,1], but can only exist on (0,1]x(0,1]. It is namely not defined at 0 (so you cannot just add 0 and close the interval), and, hence, you are right, it is not bounded. Note that even if you did define it piecewise to have a value at 0, then it would not be continuous, since it approaches plus infinity as x goes to zero.



#3
Feb911, 01:45 AM

P: 120

Thank you, I think I understand now.
The definition said every continuous function on a closed rectangle is always bounded. f(x,y)=1/x does not exist at x=0 and cannot be considered continuous at x=0. So as I thought, it is unbounded on the rectangle [0,1]x[0,1]. My mistake was in thinking that the text was implying that f was bounded on the closed rectangle, when in fact it was not, since f is not continuous on that interval and thus need not be bounded by the given definition. Does that sound correct? Again, many thanks. HJ Farnsworth 


#4
Feb911, 09:52 AM

Mentor
P: 21,214

Simple but frustrating confusion on definition of bounded function



#5
Feb911, 11:51 PM

P: 1,088




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Confusion on the definition of a quotient map  Differential Geometry  2  
Bounded function implies limit is bounded  Calculus & Beyond Homework  2  
Confusion with Continuity Definition  Calculus & Beyond Homework  4  
Simple (Frustrating) Combined Gas Law Problem  Introductory Physics Homework  3 