# I Boundedness and continuous functions

Tags:
1. Jul 15, 2016

### orion

I am working my way through elementary topology, and I have thought up a theorem that I am having trouble proving so any help would be greatly appreciated.
----------------------
Theorem: Let A ⊂ ℝn and B ⊂ ℝm and let f: A → B be continuous and surjective. If A is bounded then B is bounded.
------------------------
You should not assume that A is compact.

Thanks in advance for any help.

2. Jul 15, 2016

If you think about the projective bijection between [0,1] and R then we can see that here B=R is not bounded...

#### Attached Files:

• ###### projectiv.png
File size:
1.1 KB
Views:
55
Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2016
3. Jul 16, 2016

### PeroK

Counterexample:

$\tan : [0, \pi/2) \ \rightarrow \ [0, \infty)$

4. Jul 16, 2016

### orion

Thanks. Hmm. This causes me to think because I really thought I had proven it this morning using the sequential definition of continuity and the fact that f is surjective.

I guess I should explain what I'm trying to do. In fact, I am trying to prove compactness. I am trying to prove that a homeomorphism preserves compactness. I know the ordinary way of proving this is to take an open cover of B and using it's finite subcover and φ-1to show that A must be compact. But I can show easily that if A is closed then B is closed and vice versa. I just want to show boundedness and then use Heine-Borel.

So then what is it that makes the difference? Is it because a homeomorphism (as opposed to my function above) is bicontinuous or is it because it is bijective?

5. Jul 16, 2016

### micromass

Staff Emeritus
Homeomorphisms don't preserve boundedness either. Post 3 is a homeomorphism between $[0,2\pi)$ and $[0,+\infty)$. Succintly put: boundedness is not a topological concept

6. Jul 16, 2016

### orion

Ah, ok. Now it's starting to make sense. But compactness is a topological concept. So if we come at compactness from Heine-Borel, the important addition to my theorem to make it true would be to modify it to this:

A closed and bounded ⇒ B closed and bounded.

Would that make it true (in ℝn)?

7. Jul 16, 2016

### micromass

Staff Emeritus
Yes, that would be true.

8. Jul 16, 2016

### orion

Thank you! That has been a great help!

9. Jul 16, 2016

### orion

I have one other question to explore this a little further. Is there an example of a closed set that is not bounded (other than a sequence of distinct points)?

10. Jul 16, 2016

### micromass

Staff Emeritus
$[0,+\infty)$.

11. Jul 16, 2016

### orion

Yep, that does it. Thanks, again!